[IPv6]Re: Adoption call for draft-bonica-6man-deprecate-router-alert

[Bob Hinden <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

With no hats on.

My thoughts on deprecating Router Alert is what was written in Section 5.2.1 of the HBH Processing draft (now in RFC Editor queue):

      DISCUSSION

      The function of a Router Alert Option can result in the processing
      that this specification is proposing to eliminate, that is, to
      instruct a router to process the packet in the control plane.
      This results in the concerns discussed in section 4.  One approach
      would be to deprecate this, because current usage beyond the local
      network appears to be limited, and packets containing Hop-by-Hop
      options are frequently dropped.  Deprecation would allow current
      implementations to continue and its use could be phased out over
      time.

      The Router Alert Option could have a potential for use with new
      functions that have to be processed in the control plane.  Keeping
      this as the single exception for processing in the control plane
      with the following restrictions is a reasonable compromise to
      allow future flexibility.  These restrictions are compatible with
      Section 5 of [RFC6398].

My question is do we want to disable the possibility of any new functions that need Router Alert in the future.

Bob



> On Jun 10, 2024, at 4:23 PM, Jen Linkova <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> This email starts 6MAN adoption call for the following document:
> 
> Title : Deprecation Of The IPv6 Router Alert Option
> Authors : Ron Bonica
> Date : 2024-02-19
> 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bonica-6man-deprecate-router-alert/
> 
> Substantive comments, statements of support for adopting this
> document or objections to the adoption should be sent to the mailing
> list.  Editorial suggestions can be sent to the authors.