Re: Other use cases for header insertion (was Re: Header Insertion and TI-FA)

It would also mean a new Ethertype, and I am sure that as we think about it other issues will come up.

… but I am sure that you are not the only one wondering the same thing.

Stewart

> On 12 May 2020, at 15:45, Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> 
> Robert,
>  
> I realize that you are joking, but it might actually be a good idea for SRv6 to move onto another protocol number. This would solve the following problems:
>  
> SRv6 could do whatever it wanted, without regard for RFC 4291,  RFC 8200, or anything else that 6man produces
> 6man could evolve IPv6 as it sees fit, without having to consider the sensitivities of SRv6
>  
> It would only mean changing the first four bits of every SRv6 packet. That would probably take much less time than converging the SRv6 and IPv6 architectures.
>  
>                                                          Ron
>  
>  
>  
> Juniper Business Use Only
> From: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net <mailto:robert@raszuk.net>> 
> Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 4:43 PM
> To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com <mailto:brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>>
> Cc: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com <mailto:tom@herbertland.com>>; Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net <mailto:rbonica@juniper.net>>; 6man <6man@ietf.org <mailto:6man@ietf.org>>
> Subject: Re: Other use cases for header insertion (was Re: Header Insertion and TI-FA)
>  
> [External Email. Be cautious of content]
>  
>  
> I'm not sure this is feasible without changing the IP version number.
>  
> How about IPv6+ ? 
>  
> Thx,
> R.
>  
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------