Carrying an Identifier in IPv6 packets
draft-iurman-6man-generic-id-01
| Document | Type |
Replaced Internet-Draft
(individual)
Expired & archived
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Author | Justin Iurman | ||
| Last updated | 2023-02-04 | ||
| Replaced by | draft-iurman-6man-carry-identifier | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Replaced by draft-iurman-6man-carry-identifier | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft is available in these formats:
Abstract
Some recent use cases have a need for carrying an identifier in IPv6 packets. While those drafts might perfectly make sense on their own, each document requires IANA to allocate a new code point for a new option, and so for very similar situations, which could quickly exhaust the allocation space if similar designs are proposed in the future. As an example, one might need an 8-bit ID, while another one might need a 32-bit, 64-bit or 128-bit ID. Or, even worse, one might need a 32-bit ID in a specific context, while someone else might also need a 32-bit ID in another context. Therefore, allocating a new code point for each similar option is probably not the way to go.
Authors
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)