Re: What is necessity for SRH, and other EH, insertion/removal?

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

Hello, Adrian,

On 7/12/19 14:44, Adrian Farrel wrote:
> Hi Tom,
> 
> Thanks for breaking the thread and focussing us back on technical questions.

One would assume that if 6man (and ipv6 wg) got to consensus about
forbidding EH insertion/removal, is because of technical considerations.

Some of them have been spelled out in
draft-smith-6man-in-flight-eh-insertion-harmful.

Of course, that doesn't mean that the spec cannot be changed. However,
since it's indeed a change to what has been specified in RFC8200, the
document proposing eh-insertion processing should, at the bare minimum,
include a discussion of the problem they want to solve, why they think
they can't solve it with encapsulation, and how they would mitigate the
issues described in draft-smith-6man-in-flight-eh-insertion-harmful.

At least myself, I'm open to change my mind as a result of the above
analsys. OTOH, I'm not that keen about being slamped a spec with an
undercover update to RFC8200, and a lot of bizarre analysis of our specs.

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: [e-mail]
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492