[e2e] draft on IP Fast Option Lookup

[Vernon Schryver]

> From: Michael Welzl <michael at tk.uni-linz.ac.at>

> It is useless for routers which simply ignore IP options; this option
> is supposed to help routers which DO support options, but only a subset
> because most are turned off.

I said nothing about routers that simply ignore IP options because
they are not routers, or at best are broken by design.
Please read RFC 1812.  There are a lot of MAY's for IP options, but
there is at least one MUST.

> ...
> On a serious note, I DO agree that packets with more than one
> option will be rare. Still, it's a possibility.

Optimizing rare cases is rarely interesting.


> ...
> Designing a router is not an option for me.

If you want to design router optimizations and you're like most of us and
don't have a few $10M to fund a new router design, then why not get a job
at a router vendor?  Participation in the IETF is no more a substitute
for experience impliementing routers than participation in the ISO was a
substitute for designing and implementing transport protocols.

> I trust in the IESG to prevent me from publishing an absolutely
> pointless RFC, though    :)

The last I looked, the IESG is not a router vendor or custom silicon
design group.  In other words, that is not a reasonable or respectable
hope, as demonstrated by plenty of RFC's.

Specifying hardware optimizations without benefit of relevant design
experience is unlikely to improve one's professional reputation outside
the trade rags.  The trade rags are something else.


Vernon Schryver    vjs at rhyolite.com