|
Hi, all, Can anyone give those of us not tracking 672 messages a brief
summary? IMO, without diving into that thread deeply, I agree with the new proposed text below from Brian:
In fact, I'd go further to say that that non-HBH EHs should not even be *viewed* or used as context by intermediate nodes.With one exception, extension headers are not processed, inserted, deleted or modified by any node along a packet's delivery path, until the packet reaches the node (or each of the set of nodes, in the case of multicast) identified in the Destination Address field of the IPv6 header. And any limits on what can be done with HBH EHs should be stated
explicitly. I'd be glad if at least the EH lengths didn't change. Joe On 2/3/2017 10:22 AM,
otroan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
are we re-spinning the debate on a WG-agreed text ? <tp> Yes, and I am sure that that is exactly what is intended.Then let's encourage people outside of 6man, with other points of view, and other arguments to come forward. A re-run of the discussions already had in 6man with the same arguments and the same participants doesn't seem useful. For a brief (sic) overview take a look at 672 messages already on the topic: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?q=header+insertion&f_list=ipv6 |