No next header means exactly what the original request, and the
documentation, says. There is nothing in the packet past this IP
header. It does not mean that there is some next header defined by some
other context.
Yours,
Joel
On 5/9/19 8:36 AM, Ole Troan wrote:
I think it is equally important to note that given an existing way of
encapsulating Ethernet in IP, one ought to have a good reason for creating a
different one. There is no indication that this use case needs anything
different than next-header 97.
And Ole, no next-header does not, as far as I can tell from 8200 and its predecessors
mean "the end of IP processing."
Huh? What do you think it means then?
Btw, here is the original request for the no-next-header:
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 1994 14:46:50 +1100
Message-Id: <487.785994...@munnari.oz.au>
From: Robert Elz <k...@munnari.oz.au>
Sender: owner-i...@sunroof.eng.sun.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: i...@sunroof.eng.sun.com
If I wanted to send an IP6 packet without any TCP, UDP, ICMP,
or similar, data, just, say, end to end options, or something,
which may be useful for sopme purpose or other in the futuew,
what do I stick in the next header field?
The length from the packet header will indicate that there's
nothing after the last processed header, but just sticking in
a random "next header" value and relying on the length field
seems wrong to me.
Alternatively, can someone say that its illegal to not have
one of the transport level protocols in every IP6 packet,
and will be for all (relevant) time?
kre
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
