Hi Tero,
I believe the discussion has died down again and we have answers to the
questions you are concerned will be raised by the other reviewers of the
request (Yoav and Benjamin for the early allocation), to wit:
1) WRAP still requires a next-header/protocol number. Additionally it would
Christian Hopps wrote:
> 1) WRAP still requires a next-header/protocol number. Additionally it
> would reduce bandwidth, is not widely implemented, and ultimately is
> not a great fit as it's trying to solve a different problem (allowing
> more packet inspection).
> 2) We cou
Michael Richardson wrote:
> But, we are not out of protocol numbers, and I think that if it comes to
recycling
> numbers, that maybe there are many low-hanging fruit as candidates.
> [13-16,18-26 comes easily to mind]
If I had to pick something, though, I'd pick 57, SKIP :-)
--
Mic
I really think it makes most sense to push put in the early allocation
request. This is a valid long term use case. There's no real shortage
of IP numbers and IANA is continuing to assign them. Also there's also
a slew of them that can be reclaimed if/when they do become scarce. I
can even
