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 03:20 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 CCDDA1A05A3 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Feb 2014 19:20:28 -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 BXJSR_BA3irQ for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Feb 2014 19:20:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ran.psg.com (ran.psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:8006::18]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A2221A059E for <6man@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Feb 2014 19:20:27 -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 1WBbz6-0001xm-Qk; Fri, 07 Feb 2014 03:20:09 +0000
Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2014 12:20:15 +0900
Message-ID: <m2r47fa9sg.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: <52F44A73.3000609@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> <m28utnbwj9.wl%randy@psg.com> <52F44A73.3000609@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 03:20:29 -0000

> But to keep hearing that e.g. extensions are expected to work when I'm
> measuring over 40% of breakage, It seems to boil down to "you,
> heretic!  don't filter these packets!" on one side and "shut up! you
> don't know how to run a network" on another. *That* doesn't seem to be
> the more sane approach to this issue.

not sane, but traditional.  "you're idiots because you have not deployed
ipv6."  "you're arrogant fools because you have made it hard to deploy."

randy

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email