Brian Haberman <[email protected]> writes: > That draft has been replaced with draft-ietf-6man-rpl-routing-header. I > suggest that you take a look at that draft (currently being reviewed by > the IESG), especially section 4.
Hmm. Section 4 says: > Routers SHOULD > use IPv6-in-IPv6 tunneling, as specified in [RFC2473] to include a > new SRH in datagrams that are sourced by other nodes. SHOULD would be OK, here, if there was some alternative that might be appropriate on some situations. But the document is silent on those alternatives. In which case, I wonder why this is not a MUST. Is it because other types of tunneling would be OK? (If so, giving such an example would be good). But then later: In very specific cases, IPv6-in-IPv6 tunneling may be undesirable due to the added cost and complexity required to process and carry a datagram with two IPv6 headers. [I-D.hui-6man-rpl-headers] describes how to avoid using IPv6-in-IPv6 tunneling in such specific cases and the risks involved. I strongly object to this text. It suggests that that other approaches, presumably including those that violate existing IETF specs, might be OK too. We should not do this. Or am I missing something here? Thomas -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
