Re: I-D Action: draft-voyer-6man-extension-header-insertion-07.txt

On Thu, Oct 17, 2019, 6:20 AM Alexandre Petrescu <
alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> Le 15/10/2019 à 00:12, Fernando Gont a écrit :
> > On 12/10/19 16:57, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I'd like to comment on this version. It is in fact a complete
> >> rewrite compared to its predecessors and I thank the authors for
> >> that. The tone is now purely technical, and that's a great
> >> improvement.
> >
> > It is somewhat frustrating that the draft still fails to argue why
> > EH insertion instead of encapsulation.
>
> As usual, I think one of the reasons is a difficulty in qualifying what
> it means 'encapsulation'.
>
> There is IP-in-IP encapsulation.
>
> But there is also encapsulation like in transporting, or carrying, by
> means of other intermediary headers, layer2, MPLS, security headers and
> future internet shims and GRE and routing headers.
>
> IP-in-IP encapsulation is clearly an alternative to EH insertion.
>
> But all the other encapsulations are so messy that one may legitimately
> think that a new EH insert/delete standardized according to good WG
> principles would be proper, universal, and solve all  problems of GRE
> for example.
>

Alex,

What are the problems of GRE to which you referring?

Tom

> Alex
>
> >
> >
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>