Re: Other use cases for header insertion (was Re: Header Insertion and TI-FA)

[Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>]

Hey Ron,

Well it was half joke / half serious suggestion. Your SRv6+ was an
inspiration for IPv6+ - no doubt !

But to your point ...

* Yes it would be much easier to contain any new significant protocol
extension if you apply new ethertype to it

* As sent in the note over weekend I think that this "packets leaking" or
"escaping" fear is a nonsense - packets are not mosquitoes flying where
they want to go - packets are forwarded based on the control plane
directions. If there is more work on controlled leaking IGP to BGP we
should work on that in LSR WG and IDR WG.

* If you force that SRv6 must only be legal in new ethertype then I can no
longer legally send SRv6 packet between my sites over Internet which breaks
completely my #1 application and main interest in/for SRv6.

Cheers,
Robert.


On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 4:45 PM Ron Bonica <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Robert,
>
>
>
> I realize that you are joking, but it might actually be a good idea for
> SRv6 to move onto another protocol number. This would solve the following
> problems:
>
>
>
>    - SRv6 could do whatever it wanted, without regard for RFC 4291,  RFC
>    8200, or anything else that 6man produces
>    - 6man could evolve IPv6 as it sees fit, without having to consider
>    the sensitivities of SRv6
>
>
>
> It would only mean changing the first four bits of every SRv6 packet. That
> would probably take much less time than converging the SRv6 and IPv6
> architectures.
>
>
>
>                                                          Ron
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Juniper Business Use Only
>
> *From:* Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>
> *Sent:* Monday, May 11, 2020 4:43 PM
> *To:* Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>
> *Cc:* Tom Herbert <[e-mail]>; Ron Bonica <[e-mail]>;
> 6man <[e-mail]>
> *Subject:* Re: Other use cases for header insertion (was Re: Header
> Insertion and TI-FA)
>
>
>
> *[External Email. Be cautious of content]*
>
>
>
>
>
> I'm not sure this is feasible without changing the IP version number.
>
>
>
> How about IPv6+ ?
>
>
>
> Thx,
>
> R.
>
>
>