tunneling it seems reasonable to me to only
> >> have one layer of encapsulation. Maybe this should be clarified in the
> >> draft?
> >
> >
> >the draft is about IPv6 extension header and more precisely a new type
of the
> >routing extension header defined in
at’s the context.
>
>
>s.
>
>
>
>
>>
>> Tom
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> -Original Message-
>>>> From: Stefano Previdi (sprevidi) [mailto:sprev...@cisco.com]
>>>> Sent: Monday, May 16, 2016 2:24 PM
>>&
It would be worthwhile to clarify this in the draft. If you have a specific
>>> encapsulation in mind, it would be great if the draft would specify it.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Tal.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> -Original Mes
vidi) [mailto:sprev...@cisco.com]
>>Sent: Monday, May 16, 2016 2:24 PM
>>To: Tal Mizrahi
>>Cc: Ole Trøan; draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-hea...@tools.ietf.org;
>>spring@ietf.org; 6man WG
>>Subject: Re: [spring] L4 Checksum and draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-
evidi (sprevidi) [mailto:sprev...@cisco.com]
>Sent: Monday, May 16, 2016 2:24 PM
>To: Tal Mizrahi
>Cc: Ole Trøan; draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-hea...@tools.ietf.org;
>spring@ietf.org; 6man WG
>Subject: Re: [spring] L4 Checksum and draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-
>header
>
>
>
From: Stefano Previdi (sprevidi) [mailto:sprev...@cisco.com]
>> Sent: Monday, May 16, 2016 2:13 PM
>> To: Tal Mizrahi
>> Cc: Ole Trøan; draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-hea...@tools.ietf.org;
>> spring@ietf.org; 6man WG
>> Subject: Re: [spring] L4 Checksum and d
t;spring@ietf.org; 6man WG
>Subject: Re: [spring] L4 Checksum and draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-
>header
>
>Hi,
>
>On May 16, 2016, at 11:04 AM, Tal Mizrahi wrote:
>>
>> Hi Stefano,
>>
>> Thanks for the responses.
>>
>>> exactly.
>>>
16 11:59 AM
>> To: Ole Trøan; Tal Mizrahi
>> Cc: draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-hea...@tools.ietf.org; spring@ietf.org;
>> 6man WG
>> Subject: Re: [spring] L4 Checksum and draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-
>> header
>>
>>
>>> On May 15, 2016, at
16, 2016 11:59 AM
>To: Ole Trøan; Tal Mizrahi
>Cc: draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-hea...@tools.ietf.org; spring@ietf.org;
>6man WG
>Subject: Re: [spring] L4 Checksum and draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-
>header
>
>
>> On May 15, 2016, at 8:06 PM, otr...@employees.org wrot
ring@ietf.org;
>> 6man WG
>> Subject: Re: [spring] L4 Checksum and draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-
>> header
>>
>> Tal,
>>
>>> [Apologies if this issue has been discussed before.]
>>>
>>> According to draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-hea
> 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
to:otr...@employees.org]
>Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2016 9:07 PM
>To: Tal Mizrahi
>Cc: draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-hea...@tools.ietf.org; spring@ietf.org;
>6man WG
>Subject: Re: [spring] L4 Checksum and draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-
>header
>
>Tal,
>
>> [Apologies
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 Layer 4 Checksum, right?
>
> I wonder if there is an upper bound on the s
Hi,
[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 Layer 4 Checksum, right?
I wonder if there is an upper bound on the size of the SRH.
14 matches
Mail list logo
