Re: [spring] SRv6 Network Programming: ENH = 59

On 07-May-19 12:20, Mark Smith wrote: > > > On Tue., 7 May 2019, 06:14 Stewart Bryant, > wrote: > > I agree that implicit payload identity is a bad idea. > > If the payload is Ethernet, then the IANA Protocol Number Registry > suggests that 22 is al

Re: [spring] SRv6 Network Programming: ENH = 59

On Tue., 7 May 2019, 06:14 Stewart Bryant, wrote: > I agree that implicit payload identity is a bad idea. > > If the payload is Ethernet, then the IANA Protocol Number Registry > suggests that 22 is allocated for that purpose: > > 22 > > XNS-IDP XEROX NS IDP > > ["The Ethernet, A Local Area Netwo

Re: [spring] SRv6 Network Programming: ENH = 59

I agree that implicit payload identity is a bad idea. If the payload is Ethernet, then the IANA Protocol Number Registry suggests that 22 is allocated for that purpose: 22 XNS-IDP XEROX NS IDP ["The Ethernet, A Local Area Network: Data Link Layer and Physical Layer Specification", AA-

Re: [spring] SRv6 Network Programming: ENH = 59

Ron, > On May 5, 2019, at 5:47 PM, Ron Bonica > wrote: > > Folks, > > According to Section 4.4 of draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-00, > when processing the End.DX2 SID, the Next Header must be equal to 59. > Otherwise, the packet will be dropped. > > In the words of the draft, "W

Re: [spring] SRv6 Network Programming: ENH = 59

On Mon, May 6, 2019 at 7:26 AM Ron Bonica wrote: > > Tom, > > Likewise, how painful would it be to allocate a new next-hop type? > Ron, Relative to using an existing protocol number it is painful. If this is an assigned Internet protocol number then the implication is that it can be used as next

Re: [spring] Working Group Adoption Call for draft-filsfils-spring-srv6-network-programming

Hi Adrian, You are very welcome to restate that point. Sorry if it felt like your point was not taken into consideration. I see 2 points. 1) IPv6 address to interfaces only Ø RFC 8200 defers to RFC 4291 for the definition of an IPv6 address. RFC 4291 has a somewhat simplistic and poss

Re: [spring] SRv6 Network Programming: ENH = 59

Tom, Likewise, how painful would it be to allocate a new next-hop type? Ron Juniper Internal > -Original Message- > From: Tom Herbert > Sent: Sunday, May 5, 2019 11:10 PM > To: Ron Bonica > Cc: Mark Smith ; Xiejingrong > ; SPRING