On Sun, May 5, 2019 at 7:49 PM Ron Bonica <rbon...@juniper.net> wrote: > > Mark, > > As the header chain (including encapsulations) get longer, the packet becomes > less ASIC friendly. > Ron,
I'm dubious that just a two byte header for EtherIP or four byte header will be a problem especially in light of the fact that segment routing header is already adding significantly to packet overhead with an arbitrary list of sixteen byte quantities. Tom > Allocating a new Next Header value for Ethernet may be less painful than > introducing a new encapsulation. > > Ron > > > > Juniper Internal > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Mark Smith <markzzzsm...@gmail.com> > > Sent: Sunday, May 5, 2019 9:37 PM > > To: Xiejingrong <xiejingr...@huawei.com> > > Cc: Tom Herbert <t...@herbertland.com>; Ron Bonica > > <rbon...@juniper.net>; SPRING WG <spring@ietf.org>; 6man > > <i...@ietf.org> > > Subject: Re: [spring] SRv6 Network Programming: ENH = 59 > > > > On Mon, 6 May 2019 at 11:15, Xiejingrong <xiejingr...@huawei.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > Hi Tom, > > > > > > > > > > > > Number 97 is a choice but it has 2 bytes wasting. > > > > > > > > > > It seems strange to me that as bandwidth is constantly getting cheaper, > > people > > seem to be trying harder and harder to use less of it. > > The trade-off is increased code complexity and CPU at each of the hops at > > the > > end of the links. > > > > It is has been my understanding that bandwidth has been getting cheaper > > faster than CPU for quite a number of years, has that flipped around? > > > > > > > > > > Jingrong > > > > > > > > > > > > From: ipv6 [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Tom Herbert > > > Sent: Monday, May 06, 2019 9:11 AM > > > To: Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper....@dmarc.ietf.org> > > > Cc: SPRING WG <spring@ietf.org>; 6man <i...@ietf.org> > > > Subject: Re: SRv6 Network Programming: ENH = 59 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mail > > > man_listinfo_ipv6&d=DwIFaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK- > > ndb3voDTXcWzo > > > CI&r=Fch9FQ82sir-BoLx84hKuKwl- > > AWF2EfpHcAwrDThKP8&m=c3_vQkaWUv9VrZu2hHe > > > xkrpuWDPuNaF_aDmPsT- > > K5v4&s=xMl4vY3Oo9yoWumPFQIkAs4LDEgbsazb28zbejhHM9w > > > &e= > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > spring mailing list > > > spring@ietf.org > > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mail > > > man_listinfo_spring&d=DwIFaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK- > > ndb3voDTXcW > > > zoCI&r=Fch9FQ82sir-BoLx84hKuKwl- > > AWF2EfpHcAwrDThKP8&m=c3_vQkaWUv9VrZu2h > > > HexkrpuWDPuNaF_aDmPsT- > > K5v4&s=yCRyw1w61_gizFeEYqfNsMjzIFPqI1pSUdqeNS6nQ > > > o0&e= _______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
