On 12/12/19 22:56, Suresh Krishnan wrote: > Hi Fernando, > >> On Dec 11, 2019, at 7:22 PM, Fernando Gont <fg...@si6networks.com >> <mailto:fg...@si6networks.com>> wrote: >> [....] >>> >>> RFC8200 *clearly* speaks about the possibility of the destination >>> address not being the ultimate recipient in the presence of a Routing >>> Header. This is from Section 3 defining the Destination Address as >>> "128-bit address of the intended recipient of the packet (possibly >>> not the ultimate recipient, if a Routing header is present).” >> >> Section 4.4 says: >> The Routing header is used by an IPv6 source to list one or more >> intermediate nodes to be "visited" on the way to a packet's >> destination. >> >> (contrasts this to the statement with eh insertion/removal/processing) >> >> While there could have been better use of terms, do you really think >> that RFC8200 is allowing EH insertion/removal at waypoints? Or do you >> think that, at best, the wording in RFC8200 could have been better? > > For sure, I think the text in RFC8200 could have been more specific one > way or another but it is impossible to tell at this point which > direction the WG would have gone.
IPv6 has never allowed for EH insertion/deletion on the path to the final destination. As noted, there are way too many things that would break (PMTUD, AH, etc.). If I understand correctly, the discussion here is regarding that current state of affairs, and not about the possibility that the wg might, at some point, decide to change the current spec. That's why I've filled an errata, btw. Thanks, -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: fg...@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492 _______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
