I agree that implicit payload identity is a bad idea.
If the payload is Ethernet, then the IANA Protocol Number Registry
suggests that 22 is allocated for that purpose:
22
XNS-IDP XEROX NS IDP
["The Ethernet, A Local Area Network: Data Link Layer and Physical Layer
Specification", AA-K759B-TK, Digital Equipment Corporation, Maynard, MA.
Also as: "The Ethernet - A Local Area Network", Version 1.0, Digital
Equipment Corporation, Intel Corporation, Xerox Corporation, September
1980. And: "The Ethernet, A Local Area Network: Data Link Layer and
Physical Layer Specifications", Digital, Intel and Xerox, November 1982.
And: XEROX, "The Ethernet, A Local Area Network: Data Link Layer and
Physical Layer Specification", X3T51/80-50, Xerox Corporation, Stamford,
CT., October 1980.][[XEROX]]
- Stewart
On 06/05/2019 16:54, Bob Hinden wrote:
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
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
