On 7/17/2014 1:59 PM, Fernando Gont wrote:
On 07/16/2014 11:09 AM, Joe Touch wrote:
I'm including INTAREA in the discussion because this doc seems to be an
end-run around intending to deprecate IPv6 HBH options, or at least to
redefine the option behavior bits defined in RFC 2460. IMO, that
On 07/17/2014 02:11 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
On 7/16/2014 3:13 PM, C. M. Heard wrote:
Even it I don't agree with all of them, the filtering
recommendations in this draft do seem to motivated by legitimate
operational
concerns, not blanket paranoia.
They need to be characterized as what
On 7/17/2014 3:03 PM, Fernando Gont wrote:
On 07/17/2014 02:11 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
On 7/16/2014 3:13 PM, C. M. Heard wrote:
Even it I don't agree with all of them, the filtering
recommendations in this draft do seem to motivated by legitimate
operational
concerns, not blanket paranoia.
On 07/17/2014 04:38 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
They need to be characterized as what they are:
- an attempt to accommodate devices that are NOT IPv6-compliant
I'd have a hard time coming uup with a vendor/device that can process
IPv6 packets with HBH header with the same performance as
