On 8/11/2016 4:59 PM, Jesse Gross wrote: > The most common example given in this area is the use of IP options. > At the time that routing was moving to hardware implementations, > options were not widely used and so were not implemented. However, > imagine that options were in common use – do you think that router > vendors would have decided that IP was too difficult to implement and > abandoned that market? Or would we now be accepting that this is a > common element of protocols?
A good example from history here are TCP options. In the beginning, they were considered only a complexity overhead. Another example is IPsec. Both, are examples of TLV options (TCP within the TCP header; IPsec as a 'next layer' protocol). Both are widely supported in hardware. That's not to suggest that we should focus on TLV solutions, but it goes to prove that even TLV-format options do not prevent widespread hardware support. Joe
_______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
