Re: I-D ACTION:draft-jabley-ipv6-rh0-is-evil-00.txt

itojun@itojun.org (Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino 2.0) Fri, 11 May 2007 21:38 UTC

Return-path: <ipv6-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Hmcoo-00073e-PA; Fri, 11 May 2007 17:38:30 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Hmcon-00071X-97 for ipv6@ietf.org; Fri, 11 May 2007 17:38:29 -0400
Received: from coconut.itojun.org ([2001:240:501:0:204:23ff:fecb:8908]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Hmcol-0002TK-RQ for ipv6@ietf.org; Fri, 11 May 2007 17:38:29 -0400
Received: by coconut.itojun.org (Postfix, from userid 501) id E915B1C060; Sat, 12 May 2007 06:38:25 +0900 (JST)
To: dwmalone@maths.tcd.ie
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 11 May 2007 22:18:27 +0100" <20070511211827.GA28615@walton.maths.tcd.ie>
References: <20070511211827.GA28615@walton.maths.tcd.ie>
X-Mailer: Cue version 0.8 (070406-1309/itojun)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="us-ascii"
Message-Id: <20070511213825.E915B1C060@coconut.itojun.org>
Date: Sat, 12 May 2007 06:38:25 +0900
From: itojun@itojun.org
X-Spam-Score: -2.8 (--)
X-Scan-Signature: 7a6398bf8aaeabc7a7bb696b6b0a2aad
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-jabley-ipv6-rh0-is-evil-00.txt
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IP Version 6 Working Group \(ipv6\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org

> I understand Itojun's suggestion that we can have a RH7 that will
> allow useful source routing without the danger associated with RH0.
> This sounds like a very good idea.  However, realistically, I suspect
> that even if the RH7 standard was fully specified tomorrow, we would
> be waiting more than two years to have it implemented in production
> versions of software that operators are likely to be using.

	Do not worry, we apply "Code then spec" basis (as seen on KAME T-shirt
	page - have you checked it out?).  we contact vendors of KAME directly
	with patch, after careful tests and analyzations.  then someone can
	write up a specification.

itojun

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------