Re: [Errata Rejected] RFC6564 (4423)

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 16/09/2015 11:03, Fernando Gont wrote:
> Hi, Brian,
> 
> On 09/15/2015 05:17 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> (CCs trimmed)
>>
>> I agree with the logic of the rejection.
> 
> I'd say I agree with the logic (i.e. "procedural", rather than "technical").
> 
> 
> 
>> I also believe that the problem raised is insoluble in IPv6;
>> we would need to version the protocol to fix it.
>>
>> That's why RFC 7045 created the "IPv6 Extension Header Types" registry:
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7045#section-4
> 
> I disagree here. The problem is solvable as per
> draft-gont-6man-ipv6-universal-extension-header.
> 
> (Well, you can argue that we "circumvent the problem": we defined the
> last EH ever, which creates a subspace for EH types).

Yes, nobody escapes having to write code for all the existing EH's.
But I haven't understood why your proposal is really different from
using the option headers as universal.

> Since it is not unlikely that during IPv6's lifetime we want to specify
> new EHs, we better fix this sooner than later...

You would think so, but the history of IPv4 options says the opposite.
I think the problem is that whatever solution is used, firewalls will
block what they don't understand.

   Brian

> Thanks!
> 
> Best regards,
>