Ron,

> On May 5, 2019, at 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?

IMHO, it is a bad idea to reuse the Next Header value 59.  Better to allocate a 
new next header value.

Further, this proposed redefining of the “No Next Header” would require 
updating RFC8200.  I don’t see that in this draft.

Bob

_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring

Reply via email to