Re: Network Tokens and HBH option

[Philip Homburg <[e-mail]>]

>We have started to look at some of the problems we see in the current network
>headers in draft-bryant-arch-fwd-layer-ps. We have refrained in that spec
>to do ore than problem analysis. Would love to see feedback about that doc.

I think this draft could benefit from a companion draft that describes a
good solution to the stated requirements that completely ignores IPv6 and
IPv6-related constraints. 

A next step would be to have a draft that describes a solution within the
IPv6 space and compares it to the best case solution.

Then it gets interesting. An economic impact analysis of proposed changes to
IPv6. Which parties need to change, and of those parties, which parties have
little benefit from the new features.

For example, if all hosts would have to change to support variable length
IP address, then that is very unlikely to happen. If on other hand some
link type would send IPv6 packets in a funny way, then that may be a lot
easier to coordinate.

One more thing, I think it would be nice to have a (working)group that
creates protocols and prototype implementations without any constraints.
In particular working prototypes are often required to convince people that
some radical idea is actually worth the effort of making major changes to
existing protocols.