[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Flow label versus Extension header - protocol itself

To: greg.daley@eng.monash.edu.au
Subject: Re: Flow label versus Extension header - protocol itself
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>
Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 10:55:04 +0200
Cc: shim6 <shim6@psg.com>
In-reply-to: <42786C7D.2090702@eng.monash.edu.au>
References: <200505031014.j43AEwbJ030225@givry.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr> <80BC9152-E2D2-4B27-AEEF-AB2CAAB08CC7@muada.com> <42786C7D.2090702@eng.monash.edu.au>

On 4-mei-2005, at 8:32, Greg Daley wrote:

(It should be possible to implement the shim in middleboxes.)

Please, Please let's not go there!


Too late... This has been on my list of desired features for years.

I don't think changing packets by insertion of headers unbeknownst
to the host is a good idea.

Why not? It happens at lower layers all the time. As long as the packet that is eventually processed by the upper layer protocol is the same as the one sent by the remote upper layer entity there shouldn't be any problems.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Flow label versus Extension header - protocol itself
  - From: Jeroen Massar <jeroen@unfix.org>

References:
- Re: Flow label versus Extension header - protocol itself
  - From: Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@enst-bretagne.fr>
- Re: Flow label versus Extension header - protocol itself
  - From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>
- Re: Flow label versus Extension header - protocol itself
  - From: Greg Daley <greg.daley@eng.monash.edu.au>

Prev by Date: Re: shim6 and bit errors in data packet headers
Next by Date: Re: Flow label versus Extension header - protocol itself
Previous by thread: Re: Flow label versus Extension header - protocol itself
Next by thread: Re: Flow label versus Extension header - protocol itself
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread