Re: I-D Action: draft-smith-6man-in-flight-eh-insertion-harmful-00.txt

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

On 14/10/19 17:16, Mark Smith wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Oct 2019 at 09:01, Fernando Gont <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> On 13/10/19 19:19, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>> One comment at the end:
>>>
>>> On 14-Oct-19 11:48, Mark Smith wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 13 Oct 2019 at 21:25, Nick Hilliard <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Brian E Carpenter wrote on 13/10/2019 01:36:
> 
> <snip>
> 
>>>>
>>>> So as Nick said, if the IETF want to have non-interoperable versions
>>>> or variants of "IPv6", then they need different version numbers
>>>> somewhere or somehow - either minor e.g. 6.1, 6.2, or major e.g.
>>>> IPv10.
>>>
>>> Be careful what you wish for. It would be easy enough to define a
>>> (probably hop-by-hop) option for this:
>>>       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>>>       |   110xxxxx    |   00000001    | IPv6 version  |
>>>       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>>
>> It's easier than that. There's an in IP version field in the IPv{4,6}
>> header.
>>
> 
> While I still think this should be avoided, this would be an "accent"
> or "dialect" of IPv6 rather than a different version.

I was being ironic *a bit*. Something that inserts EHs in the middle is
not IPv6. So rather than calling it a version of IPv6, they might as
well call it a different version of IP. Say, IPv11 (as all the others
have been taken, IIRC).


Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: [e-mail]
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492