While that proposal does remove the mis-use of next-header 59, it seems
a very odd use.
It seems to be an effort to avoid needing to register next-header
values. Why?
For example, if what is carried after the SRH is an IPv6 packet then the
next header value for IPv6 (41) would seem the appropriate thing to use.
That would produce consistent parsing and clarity.
Yours,
Joel
On 9/12/2019 1:01 PM, Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril) wrote:
Hi all,
Following the comments from IETF105, the working group preferred to
allocate a new Next Header value.
The authors would like to propose this diff. Any feedback is welcome.
<OLD>
9. IANA Considerations
This document requests the following new IANA registries:
</OLD>
<NEW>
9. IANA Considerations
This document requests IANA to allocate a new IP Protocol Number value
for “SRv6 payload” with the following definition:
The value TBD in the Next Header field of an IPv6 header or any
extension header indicates that the payload content is identified via
the segment identifier in the IPv6 Destination Address.
This document requests the following new IANA registries:
</NEW>
We would propose to submit a revision with this text on the IANA section
of NET-PGM beginning of next week.
Thanks,
Pablo.
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
