On 06/27/2012 10:34 PM, Suresh Krishnan wrote: > > I read through the draft and I am generally supportive of the sentiment > behind the draft. But the draft itself is not at all clear on what > constitutes a "entire IPv6 header chain". Without this, I think the > draft in its current form is not actionable.
I simply disagree. While I have no objection with including "a crisper definition of what 'entire IPv6 header chain'", I think claiming that "the draft in current for is not actionable" is taking it way too far. For instance, a bunch of people clearly understood what the document is talking about -- with the entire IPv6 header chain being all headers from the fixed IPv6 header chain, till the upper layer protocol (TCP, UDP, etc. -- assuming there's one of those), including any extension headers. > I would like a crisper > definition of what exactly is the expected behavior on sending, > receiving and intermediate nodes Essentially, what is important is the sending behaviour: You must include the entire IPv6 header chain in the first fragment. Intermediate nodes may simply forward non-compliant packets, but may also decide to drop them -- ditto for end nodes. (We might want to require *end-nodes* to drop them.. However, it wouldn't make sense to require intermediate nodes to drop such packets, since it would implicitly require them to process the entire IPv6 header chain). Thanks, -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: [email protected] PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492 -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
