Subject: RH0: disable by default draft

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 07:58:08 +0300 (EEST)

Hi,

We (me and George Neville-Neil) haveve just submitted an I-D on type 0 
routing header processing.  In the meantime, it's available here:

http://www.netcore.fi/pekkas/ietf/draft-savola-ipv6-rtheader-00.txt

Its approach is "disable by default, but type 0 routing header is 
still a part of a compliant IPv6 implementation".  It identifies other 
potential approaches as well as well as lists some open issues.

Joe's draft suggests deprecating type 0, so these are somewhat 
different starting points.  Both seemed to gain significant support in 
the WG, so I don't think it's necessarily a bad idea to have two 
drafts.  That way the WG can probably choose better which approach to 
pursue.

[[ Personally I don't have a strong opinion whether we should disable 
or deprecate.  Any rough consensus works for me.. ]]

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email-masked]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: [email-masked] (Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino 2.0)
Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 16:18:41 +0900 (JST)

> drafts.  That way the WG can probably choose better which approach to 

	Pekka, i cannot stop wondering how can you keep up like this... you
	write drafts too fast...

	anyways, recommendations from KAME is presented at
	http://www.kame.net/newsletter/20070502/
	http://www.kame.net/newsletter/20070502/rthdr0.diff.txt
	as the diff to the source code (yes, we believe in running code).

	try checking the newsletter as well as the diff frequently
	(sorry, we do not do RSS feeds, maybe we should).

itojun2.0