Hi Alvaro,
On this specific topic I think you have flatted it a bit too much.
These are apparently the options on the table:
A) Original packet get's encapsulated with IPv6 header
A.1 SHR is added to it
A.1.1. Regular SIDs are used
A.1.2 Compresses SIDs are used
A.2 SRH is not added to it
A.2.1. Regular SID is used as destination
A.2.2 Compresses SIDs are used in a container
A.2.3 Compresses SID is used
B) Original packet get's send from SRv6 host (without encapsulation)
B.1 SHR is added to it
B.1.1. Regular SIDs are used
B.1.2 Compresses SIDs are used
B.2 SRH is not added to it
B.2.1. Regular SID is used as destination
B.2.2 Compresses SIDs are used in a container
B.2.3 Compresses SID is used
So within all checksum related discussions so far it seems that the only
concern is about B.2.2 and perhaps B.1 however folks did state that if
there is SRH added there is no issue so I am not sure how the presence of
SRH fixes it.
Maybe there was some assumption that presence of SRH mandates
encapsulation, but I do not believe this is the case for native SRv6 hosts.
All in all I think it should be no business for transit nodes to
verify packet's upper layer checksum. I do not know if there is any RFC
which would describe what is an expected behavior for transit nodes or even
say that they MAY do it.
Kind regards,
Robert
On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 1:06 PM Alvaro Retana <aretana.i...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Focusing on the C-SID draft, some have suggested requiring the
> presence of the SRH whenever C-SIDs are used. Please discuss whether
> that is the desired behavior (or not) -- please be specific when
> debating the benefits or consequences of either behavior.
>
> Please keep the related (but independent) discussion of requiring the
> SRH whenever SRv6 is used separate. This larger topic may impact
> several documents and is better handled in a different thread (with
> 6man and spring included).
>
> Thanks!
>
> Alvaro
> -- for spring-chairs
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
