Re: IPv6 header insertion in a controlled domain

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

On 8/12/19 14:19, [e-mail] wrote:
> Tom,
> 
>> IMO, even before we ask the of how to make header insertion work, we
>> need to ask and get answers to the question why it's needed. That's
>> why I created the thread on necessity (please comment on it). Until
>> there is a clear justification for this mechanism, I personally don't
>> see why the WGshould spend time trying to "make it work".
> 
> I started this thread to see if there was agreement that the mechanism _could_ be made to work in the most simple topology.
> I don't think "why" is required to have that discussion.

Well, you are going against the way I've seen IETF wg operate --
including 6man.

Every time I've seen anybody propose something, there was something to
be achieved, and there was an argument why a particular solution had
been selected and was being evaluated.

But, if we are at it: I want one solution that stuffed three SRHs, and
two DOHs. Will we evaluate that one, too? -- If you wonder why such
strange thing: I won't answer why, either.

Any proposal for EH insertion should explain why they need it, and why
the most obvious, and compliant, encapsulation doesn't work for solving
the problem.

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: [e-mail]
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492