Hi,
Just ask the IPv6 working group if there's an option number available,
and if there's any particular reason thatthis particular option would
do harm to IPv6. Assuming they answer "yes, all the option numbers
aren't currently allocated" and "no, we can just ignore this option if
we see it, or drop packets containing it", (whichever option variety was
requested - I forget) then there's no good reason to encourage them to
go and assign an option code for themselves, and by doing so end up
creasting possibly conflicting uses.
There are IPv6 option types available, but this was a request for an IPv6
hop-by-hop option. The IPv6 hop-by-hop options (like all IPv4 options and
one of the reasons that IPv4 options never had much use) have a significant
performance impact for all routers that forward packets with hop-by-hop
options in them. I think it is quite reasonable to not assign any new ones
without serious IETF discussion. I also don't have any problem with the
bar for new IPv6 hop-by-hop options to be set very high.
I belive the IESG did the right thing in this case as it was a request for
an IPv6 hop-by-hop option. I did a quick review of the link at the end of
the IESG email (i.e., Additional Info) and think that what is proposed is
very complex and proposes to change behavior in protocols other than
IPv6. I am certain it would have been a big mistake to approve the request
without a lot of discussion.
Bob
p.s. I am starting to think that including hop-by-hop options in IPv6 was a
mistake and we should think about deprecating them. This would be a good
topic for the IPv6 w.g. to discuss (i.e., not on the IETF list :-) )
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf