On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 10:02 AM Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril) <[email protected]> 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 seems like an extremely narrow use case to justify an IP Protocol Number allocation. If this is the route taken, I would suggest to define something more generic like "Interpreted" which could mean that there is a next header, but it's interpretation requires information elsewhere in the packet. That way the number could potentially be used in other contexts than just SR.
Tom > > > 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. > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > [email protected] > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ spring mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
