Fair enough.....

                         Ron


Juniper Internal

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril) <pcama...@cisco.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 7, 2019 3:12 AM
> To: Ron Bonica <rbon...@juniper.net>; SPRING WG <spring@ietf.org>; 6man
> WG <i...@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: SRv6 Network Programming: More Headers
> 
> Hi Ron,
> 
> Your guess is wrong. Please read the sentence right after the one you quote.
> 
>    "The effective next-header (ENH) is the next-header field of the IP
>    header when no SRH is present, or is the next-header field of the
>    last SRH.
> 
>    In this version of the document, we assume that there are no other
>    extension headers than the SRH.  These will be lifted in future
>    versions of the document."
> 
> As said in the note, as part of the work on this draft we will update the
> pseudocodes to get better alignment with SRH draft, removing the stated
> limitations. For simplicity we did not add them in previous revisions of the
> draft.
> 
> Thanks,
> Pablo.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ipv6 <ipv6-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of Ron Bonica
> <rbonica=40juniper....@dmarc.ietf.org>
> Date: Monday, 6 May 2019 at 03:05
> To: SPRING WG <spring@ietf.org>, 6man WG <i...@ietf.org>
> Subject: SRv6 Network Programming: More Headers
> 
>     Folks,
> 
>     In draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming, can a packet that is
> destined for an End.DX4 SID contain a Fragment header? An Authentication
> header? An Encapsulating Security Payload header? A Destination Options
> header?
> 
>     My initial guess is that it cannot. According to the draft:
> 
>     "The effective next-header (ENH) is the next-header field of the IP header
> when no SRH is present, or is the next-header field of the last SRH"
> 
>     Also, according to Section 4.9 of the draft, the packet will be dropped 
> if the
> Effective Next Header is not equal to 4 (IPv4).
> 
>     Do I have this right?
> 
>                                                            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_mailman_listinfo_ipv6&d=DwIGaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6S
> cbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=Fch9FQ82sir-BoLx84hKuKwl-
> AWF2EfpHcAwrDThKP8&m=9__zPeS8pIEeQn-
> yltzzkkSouJsgk608zqvUPZnwX8I&s=-
> LcJh19BMSp6Od7fj7FImTi9TWGdONgnHTiUUClrRaQ&e=
>     --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring

Reply via email to