[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       ipng
Subject:    Re: Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipv6-deprecate-rh0-00.txt
From:       Tim Enos <timbeck04 () verizon ! net>
Date:       2007-05-17 15:20:33
Message-ID: 14714403.1807511179415244390.JavaMail.root () vms170 ! mailsrvcs ! net
[Download RAW message or body]

Hi Ryan,

Good point about including the whole sentence; mea culpa! :^\

> On Wed, May 16, 2007 at 05:09:34PM -0500, Tim Enos wrote:
> > In section 4.2, IMO it would seem good to see a brief justification of
> > the statement: "filtering based on the presence of any
> > Routing Headers on IPv6 routers, regardless of type, is strongly
> > discouraged."
> 
> In this sentence, is "regardless of type" intented to apply to Routing
> Headers, or IPv6 routers?

That said, the "regardless of type" ambiguity that you point out isn't any less so \
when the entire paragraph is read.

> 
> I'm concerned that this paragraph is getting quoted without the previous
> part of the sentence: "Where filtering capabilities do not facilitate
> matching specific types of Routing Headers..." Is that an indication of
> how it will be interpreted?

Not on my part. Admittedly my error in not including the previous part of the \
sentence.

Even so, it seems to me that if a router only has the requisite filtering \
capabilities in software (i.e. without hardware dedicated to the function) its CPU \
could get pinned.

> 
> -Ryan

Best Regards,

Tim Enos
Rom 8:28


--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]