RE: I-D Action:draft-ietf-6man-exthdr-01.txt

[Suresh Krishnan <[e-mail]>]

Hi Joel, 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On 
> Behalf Of Joel M. Halpern
> Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2011 12:26 PM
> To: Fernando Gont
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: I-D Action:draft-ietf-6man-exthdr-01.txt
> 
> Then what about if we forget firewalls for the moment?
> 
> A lot of routers look for the TCP/UDP Port numbers for 
> LAG/ECMP computation.
> Many of them can cope with having a destination options 
> extension, and therefore that is clearly the better way to 
> handle such information. 
> And anything we do should make that strong preference clear.
> 
> Nothing we can do can change the way routers with silicon 
> already deployed handle unknown extension headers.
> 
> Given that, one option is to just say that new extension 
> headers should not be used.
> 
> If we think that there will be some new extension headers, 
> that we want to support, designed for the general Internet, 
> then it would seem to make sense to try to get new behavior 
> defined, supported, and then used, that will allow for such 
> extensions.  In that case, requiring and documenting the 
> requirement for new extension headers to use TLV encoding 
> would seem to have applicability and utility.

I agree with you completely. This seems to be the very least we need to do. I would appreciate your response to 

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/current/msg13207.html

Thanks
Suresh