[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Flow label versus Extension header - protocol itself
At 12:14 PM +1000 5/18/05, Geoff Huston 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...
I suspect that Shim6 is more of the nature of a "major change" than
an "insignificant tweak", and the concept of explicit use of extension
headers for signalling appeals to me much more than hacking away at
header bits in the flow label. I would suggest that we should indeed
attempt to engineer this using extension headers where extension
headers are logically required.
I agree with Geoff -- SHIM6 will represent a major change to IPv6,
anyway, so adding an extension header is not unreasonable.
My concern (once upon a time) with extension headers is that the use
of extension headers on some packets and not others effectively
presents a variable MTU to upper layers. We need to make sure that
this is properly handled to avoid bad interactions with PMTU