[absolutely no chair hat] > Does size matter? > > Or is the complexity of the ASIC implementation of a header chain parser > more heavily influenced by the fact that the header chain is defined as > a linked list of type-length-value items that can be built up in any > number of valid combinations, and so has to be traversed and interpreted > at every individual link? > > What if the most common individual TLV option tokens were standardized > further? > > And the transmission order fixed? > > What if the most common individual extension headers were standardized > further? > > And the transmission order fixed? > > Would this help make hardware parsing possible/economic?
since it's Friday... and thinking aloud, what extension headers are in actual use today? what would be the consequence of relegating them to networks using them only among consenting adults? IPv6-Opts: ----------------- Link specific: Jumbo Payload Consenting Adults: RPL Option, CALIPSO, Line-Identification Option, MPL Option Experimental: Quick-Start, SMF_DPD, ILNP Nonce, IP_DFF Not implemented: Tunnel Encapsulation Limit Hop-by-Hop option: Router Alert. DOS vector Home Address - could use tunneling. IPv6-Route: ------------------- There are two source route types, one used by mobile IP (that could use tunnelling), and one used by RPL, which could be supported in a RPL network. IPv6-Frag: --------------- It would be an interesting analysis to see what application layer protocols must change if we were to remove fragmentation from the Internet layer. of course you have AH, ESP, various GRE, IP in IP stuff as well. cheers, Ole -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
