Re: Flow label versus Extension header - protocol itself

[Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@enst-bretagne.fr>]

 In your previous mail you wrote:

   > => I am sorry but I believe to propose major changes in IPv6 is no  
   > more
   > a good idea today. Perhaps you have a little deployment where you are
   > but don't expect it is the case everywhere...
   
   So basically what you're saying is that we need to have a moratorium  
   on new extension headers just because SOME hard/software used by SOME  
   people may not support it.
   
=> yes, this is what I believe.

   Since in this case the only problem that they have is that they won't  
   be able to use the new feature (shim6 multihoming) I don't see why  
   this should be a problem at all.

=> perhaps you should consider the difference between a host and a router?

   Either upgrade or be single homed.

=> you suppose that everybody has the choice of his ISP...

   And since only a tiny percentage of all users has IPv6 in the first  
   place and a tiny percentage of those users has a firewall, I really  
   fail to see the problem.
   
=> you are considering IPv6 as a toy (worse, as your toy) (:-)!

   The trouble with a destination option is that you need to spend 8  
   bytes so you get a 4 byte payload, and the possibility of having  
   multiple destination options that need to be in different places in  
   the protocol chain is just asking for nasty bugs.

=> so Mobile IPv6 should not work?

   Also, we need two  
   other mechanisms (reachability detection and capability/security  
   negotiation) that aren't naturally suited to being destination  

=> they are not end-to-end?

   options but could very well live in the same extension header as a  
   demux option.
   
=> I don't buy this argument!

Regards

Francis.Dupont@enst-bretagne.fr