IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: some feedback on feedback on draft-bonica-6man-ext-hdr-update-03

"Xiejingrong (Jingrong)" <xiejingrong@huawei.com> Mon, 25 May 2020 08:57 UTC

Return-Path: <xiejingrong@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E84C93A0784 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 May 2020 01:57:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pLyV0bA3GV81 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 May 2020 01:57:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C1A883A0440 for <6man@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 May 2020 01:57:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhreml709-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.108]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 0DF101396B8BF23CBE5D; Mon, 25 May 2020 09:57:13 +0100 (IST)
Received: from nkgeml706-chm.china.huawei.com (10.98.57.153) by lhreml709-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.58) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1913.5; Mon, 25 May 2020 09:57:12 +0100
Received: from nkgeml705-chm.china.huawei.com (10.98.57.154) by nkgeml706-chm.china.huawei.com (10.98.57.153) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1913.5; Mon, 25 May 2020 16:57:09 +0800
Received: from nkgeml705-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.98.57.154]) by nkgeml705-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.98.57.154]) with mapi id 15.01.1913.007; Mon, 25 May 2020 16:57:09 +0800
From: "Xiejingrong (Jingrong)" <xiejingrong@huawei.com>
To: Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar>, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, 6MAN <6man@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: some feedback on feedback on draft-bonica-6man-ext-hdr-update-03
Thread-Topic: some feedback on feedback on draft-bonica-6man-ext-hdr-update-03
Thread-Index: AQHWI0N8oI/8MsBlk0uecDFDr3XEgai3UJYAgAEJwPD//5CKgIAAsd4Q
Date: Mon, 25 May 2020 08:57:09 +0000
Message-ID: <7f21521c9b7045429aecae751c05a602@huawei.com>
References: <CAJE_bqcR8gg6c4c=4sU8zfs5B0gaT4AFtKrbq9o2CFw_Yo4qvA@mail.gmail.com> <fd375263-2b3a-f20d-cf51-d5f39a62c5bf@gmail.com> <69f92d989fca4a7bb3117d6afa84eade@huawei.com> <3745a347-f669-525d-02f6-1447deb9ada0@gont.com.ar>
In-Reply-To: <3745a347-f669-525d-02f6-1447deb9ada0@gont.com.ar>
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.108.202.118]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/e_ihQedT3dfMJkFlUvVRc85iYeA>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 May 2020 08:57:20 -0000

Hi Fernando,

(2) is actually never the case.

A quick clarification: 
I mean "destination node" could be the "final/ultimate destination node", or "non-final/non-ultimate destination node".
The case (2) is a case where "destination node" is the "final/ultimate destination node" in my previous mail.

BTW: a node receiving a packet with the DA being the "destination node" does not know it is the "ultimate destination node" or "non-ultimate destination node" until the packet is further processed (possibly the 1/2/3/... in the previous mail).

Thanks
Jingrong

-----Original Message-----
From: Fernando Gont [mailto:fernando@gont.com.ar] 
Sent: Monday, May 25, 2020 2:15 PM
To: Xiejingrong (Jingrong) <xiejingrong@huawei.com>; Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>; 6MAN <6man@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: some feedback on feedback on draft-bonica-6man-ext-hdr-update-03

On 25/5/20 01:56, Xiejingrong (Jingrong) wrote:
> Hi Brian,
> 
> Maybe the more you assume "Destination node" as "final/ultimate destination node", the more you will be confusing.
> To me, "Destination node" is very simple to mean "the node (or each of the set of nodes, in the case of multicast) identified in the Destination Address field".
> 
> Just think of the "destination node" as a node who is "listening" to an address, either a unicast address, or a multicast address.
> If a packet with the destination address being an address the "destination node" listening to, the "destination node" will <catch> it, and processing it either way, for example:
> (1) it could just simply forward it according to further (not very deep) information in any EH.
> (2) it could further dispatch it to the APP according to some (fairly deep) information.

(2) is actually never the case.

Thanks,
--
Fernando Gont
e-mail: fernando@gont.com.ar || fgont@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email