Hi Erik,
On Jun 11, 2010, at 2:36 AM, Erik Nordmark wrote:
On 06/10/10 12:31 PM, Jonathan Hui wrote:
So a packet sent by R1 that will be forwarded outside of the ROLL
network will have a outer IPv6 header whose destination is the BR?
That is where we started. Draft-01 does have a line or two about the
possibility of exempting the last entry in a RH4 from the strict
source
route rule, thus allowing R1 to send a packet without an outer IP
header
but this idea still needs to be fleshed out. It would require the
BR to
strip the RH4 and update the IPv6 Payload Length accordingly. Are
there
any implications with this idea?
The first problem is that the draft isn't clear what it is saying on
this point. Hence my clarifying question and the need to clarify the
draft.
We just posted version -02 of the draft that hopefully makes the draft
more clear on how RH4 is used. I agree that the optimization to
insert RH4 into an existing IP header may have been premature and was
asymmetric, so that has been removed. The rule now is that a RH4 only
specifies the strict source route between the tunnel end-points.
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hui-6man-rpl-routing-header-02
--
Jonathan Hui
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
