On 2013-06-13 14:02, Joe Touch wrote: [..] >> peeking at >> http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-parameters/ipv6-parameters.xml >> 'act' and noting there are a few protocols that have act != 00 that >> might be affected by this. > > Agreed. > > I'm not sure why the table includes HBH and DO in the same list without > additional info; it would be useful to expand that table to indicate that.
There are a few other nits in that list, eg references to [IPV6] while those RFCs are quite well known ;) > However, even ignoring the HBH opts wouldn't help if they can't be > "jumped over" efficiently to find other headers in the chain. I.e., > ignoring HBH isn't he same as prohibiting it or limiting it. The whole design for HBH/DO is so that they are always aligned on 8-bytes and start with the ID and a length (which is per 8 bytes), thus should be reasonably efficient to jump over them if one wants to parse them (till we hit 512bit cpu's). Greets, Jeroen -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
