Re: We don't seem to be following our processes (Re: Network Programming - Penultimate Segment Popping)

[Tom Herbert <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 4:02 PM <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> >
> > 3) Besides the technical arguments against EH insertion (which have been
> > codified in draft-smith-6man-in-flight-eh-insertion-harmful, I have
> > asked *lots* of times what's the technical motivation for doing EH
> > insertion. It boils down to "to save 40 bytes", which doesn't seem to me
> > as a compelling argument to violate the spec -- even less in a design
> > that employs 128-bit waypoints and is claimed to be operated in a
> > limited domain.
>
> You seem to be wrong. You must have missed the 6man header insertion session in Singapore.
>
> Can you please watch:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJU0m1EhjaI
> Starting at 26:20. Particularly 33:20. TILFA
>
Ole,

I've watched the video. I don't see how #3 was addressed. I refer you
to 44:06 when Joel explicitly asked why header insertion is required.
Darren's answer was essentially that they want to have options and
that regardless of any discussion it's going to happen. No technical
explanation has been offered why extension header insertion is needed,
nor has any explanation been offered as to why the alternative of
encapsulation is insufficient to solve the problem. To quote Joel's
response: "The answer is you want it, that's not a good answer.''

Tom

> Ole
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [e-mail]
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------