Re: RFC2460bis and draft-previdi-6man-segment-routing-header-08

["C. M. Heard" <[e-mail]>]

On 5 October 2015 at 21:06,  <otroan at employees.org> wrote:
> what about:
>
>   1.  If the SRH specifies the complete path from source to
>        destination, the router places the SRH directly in the datagram
>        itself.
[ … ]
>
> which is verbatim from RFC6554.

Not quite.  That is what RC6554 says when an RPL router is itself the
source of a packet, and not in general otherwise:

4.1.  Generating Source Routing Headers

   To deliver an IPv6 datagram to its destination, a router may need to
   generate a new SRH and specify a strict source route.  When the
   router is the source of the original packet and the destination is
   known to be within the same RPL routing domain, the router SHOULD
   include the SRH directly within the original packet.  Otherwise, the
   router MUST use IPv6-in-IPv6 tunneling [RFC2473] and place the SRH in
   the tunnel header.  Using IPv6-in-IPv6 tunneling ensures that the
   delivered datagram remains unmodified and that ICMPv6 errors
   generated by an SRH are sent back to the router that generated the
   SRH.

//cmh