Hi Joel, > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of Joel M. Halpern > Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2011 12:26 PM > To: Fernando Gont > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: I-D Action:draft-ietf-6man-exthdr-01.txt > > Then what about if we forget firewalls for the moment? > > A lot of routers look for the TCP/UDP Port numbers for > LAG/ECMP computation. > Many of them can cope with having a destination options > extension, and therefore that is clearly the better way to > handle such information. > And anything we do should make that strong preference clear. > > Nothing we can do can change the way routers with silicon > already deployed handle unknown extension headers. > > Given that, one option is to just say that new extension > headers should not be used. > > If we think that there will be some new extension headers, > that we want to support, designed for the general Internet, > then it would seem to make sense to try to get new behavior > defined, supported, and then used, that will allow for such > extensions. In that case, requiring and documenting the > requirement for new extension headers to use TLV encoding > would seem to have applicability and utility.
I agree with you completely. This seems to be the very least we need to do. I would appreciate your response to http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/current/msg13207.html Thanks Suresh -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
