> If the choices to extend an existing protocol are between adding P-bit > and assigning a UDP port per each protocol, I still think the P-bit > would be better since it is the more generic solution, but is going to > be more work to ensure backwards compatibility if flags can be ignored > on RX.
But we are not starting over from scratch. There are implementations that have been around for years. We don't have to luxury you say. And as I said before, every time you add a feature you will need to change the implementation anyways and deal with compatibility. So making a header general with tons of TLV options isn't necessarily the right approach FOR A DATA-PLANE. Versus just changing the header for the new requirements you see in front of you at the time you design the header. And I mentioned this before at a previous NVO3 meeting. In ~30 years since the IP header was defined, how much have we, in practice, used IP options. Dino _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
