Re: [spring] “SRV6+” complexity in forwarding

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 <rraszuk@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
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>