Hi Thomas,
On 11-02-04 01:05 PM, Thomas Narten wrote:
Marcelo,
Right off, I don't have enough understanding of what kind of
architecture conex envisions to have any useful thoughts, but if you
are thinking of using HBH options, the effort is certainly faces
significant challenges.
But rather than saying "don't use HBH" I'll suggest that you make the
case for why HBH is the least worse way of designing
conex. Understanding that use of HBH for anything implies serious
questions about whether anyone will actually implement/deploy it.
Fully agree with you. Hop-by-hop options are not really suitable for
conex at all, just like you said. Before the last IETF, we went through
the alternatives for performing conex markings on IPv6 datagrams. These
were the requirements we were working with
R1: The information needs to be visible to all interested nodes on the path.
R2: The information needs to be able to traverse nodes that do not
understand the markings.
R3: The presence of the marking mechanism should not significantly alter
the processing of the packet.
There were no real suitable mechanisms for IPv6 that met these
requirements other than using some free bits in the header. We would
greatly appreciate any hints you can provide us in this regard.
Thanks
Suresh
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
