Re: RFC 2434 term "IESG approval" (Re: IANA Action: Assignment of an IPV6 Hop-by-hop Option)

[grenville armitage <garmitage at swin.edu.au>]

Brian E Carpenter wrote:

> Hans Kruse wrote:
> ...
>
> > but otherwise I _cannot_ see how the _content_ of the option could 
> > harm a device that does not want to deal with it. 
>
>
> If it interferes with congestion management elsewhere along the path, it 
> can potentially damage
> every other packet stream. This is a *very* complex discussion of course.

I can see it interfering for two reasons. (a) The option codepoint clashes
with the codepoint used by another congestion management mechanism (thereby
confusing routers handling packet streams using the same codepoint differently),
or (b) IPv6 option handling is flawed in so far as an unknown option turning
up in a packet stream can totally mess with 'congestion management elsewhere
along the path'.

Scenario (a) would seem to be solved by assigned a non-conflicting option
codepoint and then hoping the competing protocol dies of irrelevance.
Scenario (b) suggests we have bigger problems. I'm honestly hoping it isn't
scenario (b), and that there's an scenario (c) I'm just not seeing.

cheers,
gja

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf