On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 8:09 PM, Hing-Kam (Kam) Lam <[email protected]> wrote: > The below white paper from Cisco asserts that most vendors including > Cisco process Hop-by-Hop extension headers in CPU (slow path). Is this > correct? > > http://www.cisco.com/en/US/technologies/tk648/tk872/technologies_white_paper0900aecd8054d37d.html > > If Yes, then we should not add support for more sub options with HBH header.
yes, see notes from me (in particular) about this from the last 2+ years... no more HBH header options pls... OR understand that these may/will get dropped (probably the whole packet actually) at some provider edges. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
