It’s difficult to reconcile the text from other RFCs below with the fact that 8200 kept the 01, 10, and 11 option types. Joe > On Dec 4, 2018, at 2:56 PM, C. M. Heard <heard@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, 4 Dec 2018 15:17:33 -0500 Christopher Morrow wrote: >> A solution might be to have a mode where a router may just ignore all >> headers except the src/dst-ip and simply forward all packets, trusting >> that the conversing adults will sort out problems with unknown/new/ >> experimental headers or with a tortured ordering of headers (for >> instance). > > Glad to hear you say that, because that's exactly what RFC 7045 > envisions as the default forwarding behavior: > > Any forwarding node along an IPv6 packet's path, which forwards the > packet for any reason, SHOULD do so regardless of any extension > headers that are present […]r This text is in direct contradiction to RFC2460 as per above. > > Recognizing that processing of Hop-by-Hop Options in the fast path is > costly, RFC 8200 formally dropped the requirement for every router to > process them by default: > > NOTE: While [RFC2460] required that all nodes must examine and > process the Hop-by-Hop Options header, it is now expected that nodes > along a packet's delivery path only examine and process the > Hop-by-Hop Options header if explicitly configured to do so. That is an expectation of the inadequacy of others. It does not clearly drop the requirement. > > What some of us would like to see is a statement in the draft that it's > just fine to operate this way (Christian Huitema made that suggestion > earlier in this thread, and so did I in my detailed last-call comments). > > Mike Heard > > _______________________________________________ > Tsv-art mailing list > Tsv-art@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsv-art
