On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 4:32 AM, Tal Mizrahi wrote:
>>it’s all about IP, not layer-2.
>>
>>s.
>
> Right. However, it appears that at least in some cases a VXLAN VTEP will use
> SR. It certainly may be the case in SFC use cases (see Section 2.3 in
> draft-ietf-spring-ipv6-use-cases).
>
draft-iet
>it’s all about IP, not layer-2.
>
>s.
Right. However, it appears that at least in some cases a VXLAN VTEP will use
SR. It certainly may be the case in SFC use cases (see Section 2.3 in
draft-ietf-spring-ipv6-use-cases).
>-Original Message-
>From: Stefano Previdi (sprevidi) [mailto:sp
> On May 16, 2016, at 1:19 PM, Tal Mizrahi wrote:
>
> Hi Stefano,
>
> Thanks again for the prompt response.
>
>> 2. the SRH is originated by the ingress node of the SR domain.
>> This is done by encapsulating the packet into a outer
>> (additional) ipv6 header followed by an SRH. This is L3
Hi Stefano,
Thanks again for the prompt response.
>2. the SRH is originated by the ingress node of the SR domain.
> This is done by encapsulating the packet into a outer
> (additional) ipv6 header followed by an SRH. This is L3
> encapsulation and no L4 checksum is involved. When the
> pa
Hi,
On May 16, 2016, at 11:04 AM, Tal Mizrahi wrote:
>
> Hi Stefano,
>
> Thanks for the responses.
>
>> exactly.
>>
>> Moreover, draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header assumes encapsulation
>> so clearly there’s no L4 involved here.
>>
>> s.
>
> Two questions:
> 1. What if the encapsulation
Hi Stefano,
Thanks for the responses.
>exactly.
>
>Moreover, draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header assumes encapsulation
>so clearly there’s no L4 involved here.
>
>s.
Two questions:
1. What if the encapsulation is VXLAN? L4 would still be involved, right?
2. When you say 'assumes encapsulation
> On May 16, 2016, at 8:21 AM, Tal Mizrahi wrote:
>
> Hi Ole,
>
> Thanks for the prompt response.
>
> It would be helpful if the authors added a comment about the L4 Checksum to
> the current draft, even though this functionality was defined in RFC 2460.
please read carefully draft-ietf-6m
> On May 15, 2016, at 8:06 PM, otr...@employees.org wrote:
>
> Tal,
>
>> [Apologies if this issue has been discussed before.]
>>
>> According to draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header, an ‘SR Segment Endpoint
>> Node’ updates the Destination IP address.
>> Therefore, it must also update the La
