>>> I suspect that we will be far more likely regret this use of 59 in the long >>> term than we will regret changing to 97 at this early stage. >> But it’s not that nh=59 can be used to imply that Ethernet follows. That >> would be very bad. >> It’s that ip processing stops here. >> Then if the two ends have agreed the meaning of the remaining payload and >> how to process it, that’s fine. If that signaling is in-band e.g in a >> particular SID or out-of-band, the principle is the same. > > Yes, but experience suggests that having no control word and no ability to > retrofit one is a long term problem waiting to happen.
I think this is a philosophical debate. Does a packet have to be entirely self-describing or can a end-point learn how to interpret part of a packet out-of-band. Personally I think there is a use of nh=59 to end IP processing and allow further payload. If this particular mechanism is a good use for this particular use case of SR, I have no opinion. Cheers, Ole _______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
