IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: We don't seem to be following our processes (Re: Network Programming - Penultimate Segment Popping)

otroan@employees.org Sat, 07 December 2019 00:02 UTC

Return-Path: <otroan@employees.org>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 695DF1200FE for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Dec 2019 16:02:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 rHVrrPRPF6wJ for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Dec 2019 16:02:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from clarinet.employees.org (clarinet.employees.org [198.137.202.74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AB761120073 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Dec 2019 16:02:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from astfgl.hanazo.no (unknown [IPv6:2a01:79c:cebd:47d8:c8b:f971:52ca:e1ba]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by clarinet.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 559294E11B39; Sat, 7 Dec 2019 00:02:38 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by astfgl.hanazo.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5157E252F2C8; Sat, 7 Dec 2019 01:02:34 +0100 (CET)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.0 \(3601.0.10\))
Subject: Re: We don't seem to be following our processes (Re: Network Programming - Penultimate Segment Popping)
From: otroan@employees.org
In-Reply-To: <472003e4-327f-be45-8567-9e20a22f30f9@si6networks.com>
Date: Sat, 07 Dec 2019 01:02:34 +0100
Cc: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <063DBB11-550C-4E38-93C4-86BC4A24D5F0@employees.org>
References: <BN7PR05MB56998A05469327E759B5B671AE5D0@BN7PR05MB5699.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <3AD3BD11-8C34-41FE-B88F-49A9F2561D78@cisco.com> <BN7PR05MB569946D6AA5C6B78AFC05F6BAE5C0@BN7PR05MB5699.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <8DEDE597-B7B0-48F5-959E-69757315C2AC@employees.org> <BN7PR05MB56996FFC117F512EEA04AFC8AE5C0@BN7PR05MB5699.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <4FAB68A3-C533-471D-94D0-3F6EB1F32FC1@employees.org> <1e36a492-5931-02de-cf85-63339522b13a@si6networks.com> <F6DD2C7C-DBBF-4B48-B890-3C86005FB9CF@employees.org> <bb3be82d-8ea7-6c29-ad0a-61b491ee997d@si6networks.com> <8A9BC46E-A018-41C0-BE47-4BABC30EFE79@employees.org> <20191205222740.GA9637@ernw.de> <C7BCB0CF-1CA3-4CA8-9E71-13A013955938@employees.org> <430da027-07a7-42f9-60d0-bbb3f3306222@joelhalpern.com> <7c8494a7-9d3c-bd0e-953e-b6dfbb5c5512@gmail.com> <1e721684-0962-4e75-06dc-242cbae74378@si6networks.com> <17b7768e-0a48-61a2-f05a-f6c49ee5f0ff@gmail.com> <472003e4-327f-be45-8567-9e20a22f30f9@si6networks.com>
To: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3601.0.10)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/Ogmx6MaPeaZR56CuM4d_vikaDdg>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Sat, 07 Dec 2019 00:02:40 -0000

> 
> 3) Besides the technical arguments against EH insertion (which have been
> codified in draft-smith-6man-in-flight-eh-insertion-harmful, I have
> asked *lots* of times what's the technical motivation for doing EH
> insertion. It boils down to "to save 40 bytes", which doesn't seem to me
> as a compelling argument to violate the spec -- even less in a design
> that employs 128-bit waypoints and is claimed to be operated in a
> limited domain.

You seem to be wrong. You must have missed the 6man header insertion session in Singapore.

Can you please watch:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJU0m1EhjaI
Starting at 26:20. Particularly 33:20. TILFA

Ole

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email