On Sun, May 5, 2019, 5:47 PM Ron Bonica <rbonica= 40juniper....@dmarc.ietf.org> 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? > Tom, There's already ETHERIP number (97). Why not use that? Tom > Ron > > > Juniper Internal > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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
