> Templin, Fred L <mailto:Fred.L.Templin@xxxxxxxxxx> > 14 October 2013 19:39 > 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 This draft may not go as far as you'd like (e.g. specifying a hard limit on header length as some proportion of MTU), and I'm also aware of the issue of MTU fragmentation and nested tunnels, but I'm still not clear on how this draft specifically "messes up tunnels." Can you explain what specific text in the current draft you consider harmful? And why that couldn't be dealt with in a later draft (that imposes additional limits on header chains in specific scenarios)? Thanks. > >> 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. >>> > > -- Regards, RayH