I have read draft-ietf-dmm-tn-aware-mobility-00 > And I am not happy that IPv6 was not accounted for as the possible > infrastructure data plane. > Because IPv6 has a lot of functionality packed inside EHs, it would create > a big problem to use Slice ID buried so deep into the packet (UDP source > port offset could easily cross 128B). > IMHO: it was a bad choice to choose the UDP port as the slice ID just > because it is buried so deep in the packet (a huge chain of heads should be > parsed before). > It would need to duplicate Slice ID in something that would be close to the > packet head. UDP port range would be not useful anyway. >
[Uma]: You are asking the question differently (earlier you said with SRH, 128 bytes can be crossed). I responded https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/854WAs6ZxVvgFiGdkQ5vxgaa-tU/ Remember gNodeB is emitting the is't time with GTP-U (with IPv6 and if any other EH, other than topology related) and this can be handled and by the sender and the incoming PEs with other EHs (if any) for ages (nothing is free). You continue pointing that this decision is made by > draft-ietf-dmm-tn-aware-mobility, you just use it as the given. It looks > like you push this discussion to the draft that you consider as the > “parent”. > You are partially right (but Uma is the 1st in the list of authors > draft-ietf-dmm-tn-aware-mobility). > I am asking in the wrong place (should be different WG) and at the wrong > time (should be the discussion about draft-ietf-dmm-tn-aware-mobility). > [Uma]: Yes. I don't have much to add here any more. -- Uma C.
_______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
