Tom,
> If intermediate hosts in the routing list are able to add or remove SRH
per RFC8200
"Routing list" contained in SRH does not matter at all here in terms of
compliance with RFC8200.
At each segment midpoint the outer IPv6 destination is *rewritten*. For
illustrative purposes you may
On Sat, Dec 7, 2019 at 7:10 AM Darren Dukes (ddukes) wrote:
>
> Ron, you say
> >> RFC 8200 addresses extension header insertion and deletion identically,
> >> in the same sentence.
>
> This sentence you refer to clearly permits PSP as defined in network
> programming:
>Extension headers
On 7/12/19 12:10, Darren Dukes (ddukes) wrote:
> Ron, you say
>>> RFC 8200 addresses extension header insertion and deletion
> identically, in the same sentence.
>
> This sentence you refer to clearly permits PSP as defined in network
> programming:
> Extension headers (except for the
Ron, you say
>> RFC 8200 addresses extension header insertion and deletion identically, in
>> the same sentence.
This sentence you refer to clearly permits PSP as defined in network
programming:
Extension headers (except for the Hop-by-Hop Options header) are not
processed, inserted, or
>> I have observed, in your original post, the conflation of SRH insertion
>> within an SR Domain with the PSP behavior defined in network programming.
>> Whether this was intentional or not, I do not know.
>> Regardless, it is wrong.
Darren,
We clearly disagree. RFC 8200 addresses extension
Hi Ron. I am trying to be precise in my posts. Please do not interpret them as
dismissive.
I have observed, in your original post, the conflation of SRH insertion within
an SR Domain with the PSP behavior defined in network programming.
Whether this was intentional or not, I do not know.
Ole,
On 5/12/19 17:57, otr...@employees.org wrote:
> Ron,
>
>> Currently, there is no consensus that IPv6 allows insertion of extension
>> headers by intermediate nodes, even if those intermediate nodes are segment
>> endpoints . Given this lack of consensus, the authors of network programming
Ron,
> Point taken. Could you comment on the current state of WG consensus?
The working group session in Singapore ended with what appeared to be a view
that we should continue work on both documents (Mark's and the Voyer draft).
For the state of the wg consensus, I haven't checked with Bob,
Ole,
Point taken. Could you comment on the current state of WG consensus?
Ron
Juniper Business Use Only
-Original Message-
From: otr...@employees.org
Sent: Thursday, December 5, 2019 3:57 PM
To: Ron Bonica
Cc: Darren
Ron,
> Currently, there is no consensus that IPv6 allows insertion of extension
> headers by intermediate nodes, even if those intermediate nodes are segment
> endpoints . Given this lack of consensus, the authors of network programming
> have wisely agreed to remove header insertion from the
On 5/12/19 13:50, Darren Dukes (ddukes) wrote:
> Hello Ron, I believe this is the fifth time you have raised this comment
> in 6man and/or spring.
> The comment has been addressed in earlier iterations.
>
> Let me recap.
>
> With the PSP behavior, the SRH is only removed by the node identified
Darren,
I understand that the PSP operation:
* Is executed on the penultimate segment endpoint only
* Is signaled by the source node using bits in the IPv6 destination address
However, those facts are orthogonal to the question that I asked. So, I will
try to ask my question again.
Hello Ron, I believe this is the fifth time you have raised this comment in
6man and/or spring.
The comment has been addressed in earlier iterations.
Let me recap.
With the PSP behavior, the SRH is only removed by the node identified in the
destination address field of the IPv6 header.
That
On 4/12/19 13:37, Ron Bonica wrote:
[...]
>
> It seems to me that the following are equally controversial:
>
>
>
> * A transit node inserting a Routing header
> * A transit node removing a Routing header
>
>
>
> We have agreed to move discussion of RH insertion out of the Network
>
Pablo,
It seems to me that the following are equally controversial:
* A transit node inserting a Routing header
* A transit node removing a Routing header
We have agreed to move discussion of RH insertion out of the Network
Programming draft and into another draft. Shouldn't
15 matches
Mail list logo
