Hi Ron, > -----Original Message----- > From: Ronald Bonica [mailto:rbonica@xxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2013 7:07 PM > To: Brian E Carpenter; Templin, Fred L > Cc: Fernando Gont; 6man Mailing List; ietf@xxxxxxxx; Ray Hunter > Subject: RE: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain-08.txt> > (Implications of Oversized IPv6 Header Chains) to Proposed Standard > > +1 > > Is there a way to decouple this discussion from draft-ietf-6man- > oversized-header-chain? I would be glad to discuss it in the context of > a separate draft. I don't know if there is a way to decouple it. I believe I have shown a way to not mess up tunnels while at the same time not messing up your draft. That should be a win-win. In what way would imposing a 1K limit on the IPv6 header chain not satisfy the general case? Thanks - Fred fred.l.templin@xxxxxxxxxx > Ron > > > > > > > > So, it wasn't necessarily the case that 1280 was a product of > > > "thoughtful analysis" so much as the fact that **they were rushing > to > > > get a spec out the door**. So now, 16 years later, we get to put it > > > back on the 6man charter milestone list. > > > > We could have that discussion in 6man, sure, but I don't believe that > > it's relevant to the question of whether draft-ietf-6man-oversized- > > header-chain > > is ready. This draft mitigates a known problem in terms of the > current > > IPv6 standards. > > >