IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Hagen Paul Pfeifer <hagen@jauu.net> Mon, 03 February 2014 20:47 UTC

Return-Path: <hagen@jauu.net>
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 6CB3C1A0225 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Feb 2014 12:47:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001] 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 R1jS1JzmE0kl for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Feb 2014 12:47:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from Chamillionaire.breakpoint.cc (Chamillionaire.breakpoint.cc [IPv6:2001:4d88:1ffa:82:880:aa0:9009:64ae]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F1741A01FB for <6man@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Feb 2014 12:47:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pfeifer by Chamillionaire.breakpoint.cc with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <hagen@jauu.net>) id 1WAQQI-0002cB-2F; Mon, 03 Feb 2014 21:47:18 +0100
Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2014 21:47:17 +0100
From: Hagen Paul Pfeifer <hagen@jauu.net>
To: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Subject: Re: A problem with RFC 6465's Uniform Format for Extension Headers
Message-ID: <20140203204716.GD1519@virgo.local>
References: <20140130230740.25350.9524.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <52EAF63A.7050108@si6networks.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="6WlEvdN9Dv0WHSBl"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <52EAF63A.7050108@si6networks.com>
X-Key-Id: 98350C22
X-Key-Fingerprint: 490F 557B 6C48 6D7E 5706 2EA2 4A22 8D45 9835 0C22
X-GPG-Key: gpg --recv-keys --keyserver wwwkeys.eu.pgp.net 98350C22
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Cc: "C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com>, "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>
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: Mon, 03 Feb 2014 20:47:45 -0000

* Fernando Gont | 2014-01-30 22:02:50 [-0300]:

>Folks,
>
>Mike Heard noted that the Uniform Format specified in RFC 6465 can't
>possibly work.. and after giving some thought about it, it turns out
>that implementing it would hamper the deployment of new transport protocols.
>
>We've written a short I-D that discussed the problem, and that proposes
>an alternative, such that we achieve the same goal without possibly
>messing with our Transport friends. :-)

Hey Fernando, I realized that too and wrote an I-D (back in July 2011):

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-pfeifer-6man-exthdr-res-01

Compared to your solution I propose to reserve a range.

Hagen

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email