Hi Robert,
>>Well the crux of the matter is that you still need to process all EHs at each >>IPv6 destination which here means each transit node per RFC8200 From RFC 8200 that doesn't seem to be the case or at least as I understand. See Section 4.1 note 1 and note 3. Am I missing something? IPv6 header Hop-by-Hop Options header Destination Options header (note 1) Routing header Fragment header Authentication header (note 2) Encapsulating Security Payload header (note 2) Destination Options header (note 3) Upper-Layer header note 1: for options to be processed by the first destination that appears in the IPv6 Destination Address field plus subsequent destinations listed in the Routing header. note 2: additional recommendations regarding the relative order of the Authentication and Encapsulating Security Payload headers are given in [RFC4303 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4303>]. note 3: for options to be processed only by the final destination of the packet. Regards Reji On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 9:00 PM Robert Raszuk <rras...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I disagree. PPSI and PSSI leverages the DOHs in IPv6 architecture better. >> The SRv6+ drafts explain the usecases better FYI. >> > > Well the crux of the matter is that you still need to process all EHs at > each IPv6 destination which here means each transit node per RFC8200. That > is regardless what any other spec says ... unfortunately. > > Best, > R. > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > i...@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- >
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring