IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: A problem with RFC 6465's Uniform Format for Extension Headers

Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> Fri, 07 February 2014 00:23 UTC

Return-Path: <randy@psg.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2208D1A0573 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Feb 2014 16:23:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.936
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.936 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FH_RANDOM_SURE=0.499, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.535] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GISJ_xghXCjE for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Feb 2014 16:23:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ran.psg.com (ran.psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:8006::18]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A38C1A0572 for <6man@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Feb 2014 16:23:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=ryuu.psg.com.psg.com) by ran.psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from <randy@psg.com>) id 1WBZEK-0001GA-Ap; Fri, 07 Feb 2014 00:23:40 +0000
Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2014 09:23:38 +0900
Message-ID: <m28utnbwj9.wl%randy@psg.com>
From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
To: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Subject: Re: A problem with RFC 6465's Uniform Format for Extension Headers
In-Reply-To: <52F383A0.7030002@si6networks.com>
References: <20140130230740.25350.9524.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <52EAF63A.7050108@si6networks.com> <52F1B8CE.4070803@ericsson.com> <52F1BD1F.2080007@si6networks.com> <m3k3d82zz6.wl%narten@us.ibm.com> <52F383A0.7030002@si6networks.com>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/22.3 Mule/5.0 (SAKAKI)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.7 - "Harue")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Cc: Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>, "C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com>, Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>, Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2014 00:23:57 -0000

>> But we are already there. Folk won't deploy anything other than
>> TCP/UDP because NAT won't deal with it. That has already been reality
>> and is the reason that other or new transport protocols appear to be
>> virtually undeployable today.
> 
> Well, IPv6 *might* give a fresh start in this respect -- there *might*
> be IPv6 NAT.. but not necessarily. So.. while the end result might be
> the same, it need not.

and cash could fall from the sky

randy

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email