Re: Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[[e-mail]]

Hi Robert,

> > I think this confirms that the current text which recommends against defining new EH is correct.
> 
> Yes. Our best possible outcome is that we get *existing* EHs to *not* be
> filtered. I think it's *extremely* unlikely that one could get new EHs
> to work. So I fully support recommending against the definition of new EHs.
> 
> 
> ​All this means that instead of endorsing deployment of IPv6 you guys are just shutting it down for a lot of customers and networks.
> 
> With no future innovation in transport protocol what will happen is that it is now IPv6 which will be encapsulated in MPLS or IPv4+MPLS and carried over.
> 
> Great progress indeed !
> 
> Cheers,
> R.
> 
> PS.
> 
> Perhaps most folks voting against SRH insertion in any transit node in the Internet or making recommendation against defining any new EHs are just completely detached from real hardware development, P4 programming, flexible packet processors coming as we speak from various vendors etc ... What are you guys using in your networks ? Optimistically assuming that you actually even have real networks to operate.
> 
> It's like an attempt here to make a perfect baloon for any air travel and never add anything to it as it may fall.

This is really not what those changes in 2460bis are intended to do.
Within the context of elevating 2460 to Internet standard, we can't add new features.

That does in no way stop anyone from proposing _new_ work. Of any sort.

Best regards,
Ole