Re: Next steps on Extension Header Insertion

[[e-mail]]

Mark,

>> I'm just trying to point out that we shouldn't blow this issue out of proportion. Whatever we end up doing here, it is hard to see it being particularly important, nor have any big consequences.
> 
> I see it having big consequences and being hard to troubleshoot.
> 
> Currently, the source IP address in a packet identifies the host that
> is entirely responsible for the construction of the packet. The set of
> values in the IP packet that can be changed in the network is limited
> and well known (HC, TC), and the consequences of those changes failing
> is also limited (packet getting higher forwarding preference, being
> dropped or being forwarded more or less hops than it should).
> 
> Allowing EH insertion means the source IP address value isn't true
> anymore - its semantics have changed. It is now only the first
> constructor of the packet, rather than the only one, and any other
> constructors (the EH inserters) are not identified. It's now a
> "multi-source" packet where only the first source is identified.

Any text describing of EH insertion could possibly work or "allowing EH insertion" is far out of scope for 2460.

What I said was in regards to either of the 3 options in Bob's survey.

Best regards,
Ole