On Mon, 6 May 2019 at 10:56, Joel M. Halpern <j...@joelhalpern.com> wrote: > > Using "No next header" to mean "next header Ethernet" seems to me to be > flat wrong. >
+1 It fails "truth in advertising" and "the principle of least surprise". > This also brings up another problem. Having the SID specify the next > header, over-riding the next header value, seems to me to be a recipe > for fragility, likely leading to mis-implementation. > > Yours, > Joel > > On 5/5/19 8:47 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, "We conveniently reuse the next-header value 59 > > allocated to IPv6 No Next Header [RFC8200]. When the SID corresponds to > > function End.DX2 and the Next-Header value is 59, we know that an Ethernet > > frame is in the payload without any further header." > > > > According to Section 4.7 RFC 8200, " The value 59 in the Next Header field > > of an IPv6 header or any extension header indicates that there is nothing > > following that header. If the Payload Length field of the IPv6 header > > indicates the presence of octets past the end of a header whose Next Header > > field contains 59, those octets must be ignored and passed on unchanged if > > the packet is forwarded." > > > > Does the WG think that it is a good idea to reuse the Next Header value 59? > > Or would it be better to allocate a new Next Header value that represents > > Ethernet? > > > > Ron > > > > > > Juniper Internal > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > > i...@ietf.org > > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > i...@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
