On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 10:21 AM, Joe Touch <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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,
I don't know sure that parsing of TCP options is really all that widespread, but I do know that the inability of middleboxes to properly implement support for both IP options and IPv6 extension headers have pretty much made those non-starters for widespread deployment. Tom _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
