Hi Ron,
-----Original Message-----
From: Ronald Bonica [mailto:rbonica(_at_)juniper(_dot_)net]
Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2013 7:07 PM
To: Brian E Carpenter; Templin, Fred L
Cc: Fernando Gont; 6man Mailing List; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; Ray Hunter
Subject: RE: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain-08.txt>
(Implications of Oversized IPv6 Header Chains) to Proposed Standard
+1
Is there a way to decouple this discussion from draft-ietf-6man-
oversized-header-chain? I would be glad to discuss it in the context of
a separate draft.
I don't know if there is a way to decouple it. I believe I have shown
a way to not mess up tunnels while at the same time not messing up your
draft. That should be a win-win. In what way would imposing a 1K limit
on the IPv6 header chain not satisfy the general case?
Thanks - Fred
fred(_dot_)l(_dot_)templin(_at_)boeing(_dot_)com
Ron
So, it wasn't necessarily the case that 1280 was a product of
"thoughtful analysis" so much as the fact that **they were rushing
to
get a spec out the door**. So now, 16 years later, we get to put it
back on the 6man charter milestone list.
We could have that discussion in 6man, sure, but I don't believe that
it's relevant to the question of whether draft-ietf-6man-oversized-
header-chain
is ready. This draft mitigates a known problem in terms of the
current
IPv6 standards.