On 10/4/2017 3:18 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> "no new work" or "no IPv4-specific work" both assume that IPv6 is a >> superset of IPv4, which it is not. > I don't see that assumption either stated or implied. If there are > features missing in IPv6, that's a completely separate topic. I was arguing against new wording that might use the quotes above. IMO, the current doc is even more restrictive.
> >> We're still wrangling with aspects of >> IPv6 that actually are evolving back into IPv4-like approaches, e.g., >> limits to the length of the header chain and problems supporting >> fragment traversal of routers. > I don't see what that has to do with the draft under discussion. It was intended as an example of how IPv6 is not a superset of IPv4. Joe
_______________________________________________ sunset4 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sunset4
