Re: Flow label versus Extension header - protocol itself

[Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>]

On Sat, 30 Apr 2005, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> [pruned CC list before my mail client runs out of memory...]
> On 29-apr-2005 Francis Dupont wrote:
>
> >    Why not adding a new extension header?
>
> > => basically as there is no way to deal with a new extension header without
> > modifying code or more, this will kill all the boxes which are looking
> > inside packets for good or less good reasons.
>
> I don't think that in this stadium of IPv6 deployment this is that huge a 
> deal.
>
> Also, looks like RFC 2460 dropped the ball here. It actually draws extension 
> headers as having a next header and a length field in a fixed place, but then 
> doesn't say that all extension headers should look like that.

That's what 
http://www.netcore.fi/pekkas/ietf/draft-savola-v6ops-firewalling-02.txt 
section 3 tried to specify, and there are implementation(s) which 
assume all the unspecified extension headers are in TLV format.

Unfortunately, there apparently wasn't sufficient interest for this 
spec, maybe it was focusing on too many different communities.

--
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings