> > 53 = not good. Just because some people are re-using old hardware cards > > they had hanging around does not mean everyone has to go along with it. > > define old. > define 'hanging around' > define the location from which capex can be drawn to replace 'old' and > 'hanging around' modules which are clearly perfectly functional in the > network today.
This is precisely the problem. I don't think anybody is going to phase out functional equipment just because it can't peek all the way into a 64k byte header chain. I might be able to put some requirement on this ability into future RFQs if there is sensible guidance on what the limit should be. Note that I'm not going to be asking for 4k byte or 64k byte - neither of those constitute sensible guidance in my book. 128 or 256 bytes sound much more reasonable. It would be good to have a document which gives sensible guidance here, preferably based on input from actual hardware-based forwarding equipment manufacturers. Steinar Haug, AS 2116 -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
