Dear authors of <srv6-network-programming>: Thanks for introducing this great concept about how to develop the 128-bit IPv6 address.
One comment/question: Next header value 59 is used when an Ethernet-packet is as the IPv6 payload in SRv6-L2VPN scenario. It is confusing, because 59 is generally used to indicate that there is *no* payload after the IPv6 header and the extension headers. RFC4380 has such an example. Though RFC8200 allow a packet with Next Header 59 with some payload, but it is not the normal case. For example, a firewall, or acl rules on a legacy router may drop a packet with next header 59. The IP/IPv6 should use Next Header to indicate the payload format *explicitly* as its original paradigm. This document also has a good example to use this correctly: Next Header value 4/41 for IPv4/IPv6 payload in SRv6-L3VPN like End.DT4 or End.DT6. Should this value 59 be changed to TBD and be allocated from IANA officially? Does the words "we conveniently reuse the next-header value 59" in the document imply this work ? Thanks Jingrong
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
