Re: I-D Action: draft-voyer-6man-extension-header-insertion-02.txt

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 01/12/2017 02:14, Fernando Gont wrote:
> On 11/30/2017 08:45 PM, Ole Troan wrote:
>>>
>>> IMO, #1 thing to be discussed is why normal encapsulation wouldn't work
>>> -- this is the standard, straightforward and most clean approach.
>>
>> The best example I've heard is when you don't have a natural tunnel endpoint to encapsulate to.
> 
> What's a natural tunnel-endpoint here? Aren't you expecting such
> endpoint to exist, to remove the inserted EH, after all? (and listing it
> in the RH)
> 
> I seem to remember some folks arguing that the rationale for EH
> insertion is that performance go to hell if they do proper encapsulation...

There will be 40 extra bytes, and they are bytes that could in fact
duplicate the effect of a routing header by changing the apparent
destination address. And if some additional DPI is needed, a node
would need to look through the encapsulation anyway.

This is a question that the draft does indeed need to address.

    Brian