ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: IANA Action: Assignment of an IPV6 Hop-by-hop Option

2005-06-28 14:21:49

Please see below:
> Whether that discussion amounted to consensus or not
I wouldn't like to say after all of this time, but it certainly occurred.

Not publicly. Certainly there was a problem. Indeed someone (I forget who) had made a request for a /8, which forced the issue.


  | What happens if intervening devices implement it?

And, I presume you mean, people actually send packets containing the option.
Then, either it does useful things (for someone), or it does not.   In the
former case, the option remains, and whether you, or I, like the
effects produced, someone clearly would have to.  And if they're getting
a benefit, they are going to do that, whether blessed or not, registered
or not (just consider the amount of rewriting the v4 TOS byte that happened,
long before anyone considered blessing that practice)  If it doesn't work,
or no-one likes it, then it gets disabled (the vendor who added it
gets pressure to at least make processing the option optional, and it
is disabled).

My concern is the ground in between, where some people derive some benefit from it to the detriment of others because of some interaction introduced on the device (be it a queuing behavior that leads to fairness problems or what have you), where the function has gotten implemented and is used where perhaps it wasn't intended (say, like oh... network 10).

Is this architectural purity? Perhaps. It's really not what I would aim for. I think the standard should simply be "will the thing cause harm?" and the judges of that standard should be the IESG and not IANA.

That's all I'm saying.

Eliot

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>