Fernando, One of the major reasons given for not accepting this was that no new extension headers need to be *ever* defined in future because you MUST either use hop-by-hop ext header or the destination options ext header.
Cheers, Manav > -----Original Message----- > From: Fernando Gont > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > Fernando Gont > Sent: Friday, February 04, 2011 10.54 AM > To: Bhatia, Manav (Manav) > Cc: Joel M. Halpern; Christopher Morrow; [email protected] > Subject: Re: Hop-by-Hop Extension Header processed in Slow Path? > > Manav, > > On 04/02/2011 01:05 a.m., Bhatia, Manav (Manav) wrote: > > If there are folks who ignore the hop by hop options field then it > > makes the entire discussion about not supporting > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6man-exthdr-01 moot. Given > > this, it makes all the more sense to either proceed with this draft > > as it is or change it to define a standard format for all IPv6 > > extension headers that get defined in future (which is > precisely what > > it did in its first version). > > Huh? I don't follow. > > Could you please explain how the current discussion on Hop-by-Hop > extensions relate to the aforementioned I-D? > > Thanks, > -- > Fernando Gont > e-mail: [email protected] || [email protected] > PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1 > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
