[IPv6]Re: Gunter Van de Velde's No Objection on draft-ietf-6man-eh-limits-19: (with COMMENT)

[Tim Chown <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

I share the concern expressed by Eric and Gunter, for the same reasons, and would prefer to not see the draft advance as it is. I was surprised it reached consensus in 6man.

I think RFC 9673 is very well written and a more useful document in this space.

I have been involved with some innovation in the CERN experimental communities testing of using a DO for packet marking (as suggested by v6ops after first presenting draft-cc-v6ops-wlcg-flow-label-marking) and I see this kind of approach as being at risk if this draft advances.

Tim

On 15/04/2025, 13:41, "Gunter Van de Velde via Datatracker" <[e-mail]> wrote:

Gunter Van de Velde has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-6man-eh-limits-19: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-eh-limits/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I support the discuss ballot from Med, Eric and Ketan.

My general concern is that even suggesting limits on Extension Header
capabilities, even in an informational RFC, could unintentionally restrict how
payloads are transported. I worry that this might discourage future innovation
by leading the industry to dismiss any solutions that go beyond the suggested
EH limits.

There's also a risk that some implementers might lean on wording like the
snippet in the abstract as a kind of "get-out-of-EH-jail" card for simplified
encodings, using it to justify hardware with limited IPv6 support for cost
reasons. Over time, this could contribute to a gradual shift toward a more
constrained and less flexible IPv6 networked world, which would be a real shame.

"
If it is known that all communicating
parties for a particular communication, including destination hosts
and any routers in the path, are capable of supporting more than the
baseline then these default limits may be freely exceeded.
"

Gunter Van de Velde
RTG Area Director



--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[e-mail]
List Info: https://mailman3.ietf.org/mailman3/lists/[e-mail]/
--------------------------------------------------------------------