> Hmm, murky indeed. Your point about IGMPv6 is well made. The problem > is that IB GRHs are not IPv6 headers and have different numerology for > the Next Header field. Ie in IPv6 Next Header 0x1B is RFC 908, while > in GRH it is a BTH. Labeling GRHs with an IPv6 ethertype is > fundamentally wrong.
Yes, but the next header is the only issue I know of. Since 0x1b is already assigned as an IPv6 next header protocol, we would have to get a new value assigned. However once a non-conflicting value is chosen, then an IB GRH really is an IPv6 header and in that case I think using the IPv6 ethertype too would make things work much better -- eg IB traffic actually could be forwarded by an IPv6 router with no additional work required. - R. _______________________________________________ ewg mailing list ewg@lists.openfabrics.org http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ewg
