Pablo,
I am not sure that your use of this field is in accordance with Section 4.7 of
RFC 8200.
Ron
Juniper Internal
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril) <pcama...@cisco.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 7, 2019 3:09 AM
> To: Ron Bonica <rbon...@juniper.net>; SPRING WG <spring@ietf.org>; 6man
> WG <i...@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: SRv6 Network Programming: ENH = 59
>
> Hi Ron,
>
> We use the next header value 59 to identify at the receiver that there is no
> other kind of Internet Protocol beneath to be processed.
> Note that we are *not* using 59 to identify the fact that it is an ethernet
> header (i.e. other non Internet-Protocols would also use the 59 to identify
> that
> no further IP header processing has to be performed). The SID identifies that
> an Ethernet header follows the IPv6 extension headers.
>
> 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 02:48
> To: SPRING WG <spring@ietf.org>, 6man WG <i...@ietf.org>
> Subject: SRv6 Network Programming: ENH = 59
>
> 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?
>
> 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=YOpkfRdJqwMPig1QVXflyp_jPXFxMtT_wCSFm0
> 9x7uQ&s=dwc4VotN_cH4V8ncfopG-fNWOmJVYzMQLduXjOLwIWM&e=
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
