IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [spring] SRv6 Network Programming: ENH = 59

Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> Thu, 09 May 2019 12:52 UTC

Return-Path: <otroan@employees.org>
X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4230120041; Thu, 9 May 2019 05:52:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-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 Zm72pvnBoIY9; Thu, 9 May 2019 05:52:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bugle.employees.org (accordion.employees.org [IPv6:2607:7c80:54:3::74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0890512001E; Thu, 9 May 2019 05:52:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from astfgl.hanazo.no (221.80-202-32.nextgentel.com [80.202.32.221]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by bugle.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EB1C4FECC007; Thu, 9 May 2019 12:52:42 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by astfgl.hanazo.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C6E1150360A; Thu, 9 May 2019 14:52:41 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.8\))
From: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
In-Reply-To: <275e5796-53ee-0e04-13da-bc52f93919d3@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Thu, 09 May 2019 14:52:40 +0200
Cc: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>, SPRING WG <spring@ietf.org>, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <5E383815-53AA-452D-8320-7C25F412EB17@employees.org>
References: <BYAPR05MB4245988C3A47C3665BD91172AE300@BYAPR05MB4245.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <AA81898A-9E6C-4AD5-9629-4BA283378A79@cisco.com> <BYAPR05MB4245AEA785C959D29E4ECE61AE310@BYAPR05MB4245.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <58529f07-acfc-3678-5381-4ae271143a45@gmail.com> <94EF12FB-0598-4E76-9A60-0CF67096DD04@employees.org> <CALx6S360dJD4_YcqMMy9k8NOLNdy1UZPAzBNOw1WpAz6iYfWag@mail.gmail.com> <CAO42Z2wBL=h=MKLshKUJa4m6aqTSGn4XQgKao06wKvvreKpB8w@mail.gmail.com> <CALx6S36q+7L7=7m_TgFJL5BN1ryM=9Kgb3sND1Rw+Pmza5OVYQ@mail.gmail.com> <DD003840-92D2-4878-B1CC-CDCB18FA527B@gmail.com> <BYAPR05MB42459C7A22F5AF2F1AB75CD1AE320@BYAPR05MB4245.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <B2E808BB-E995-4AEE-A9E4-8AA7F92E4939@employees.org> <af4f15c1-bebf-8774-bb1e-d6643a8294b9@gmail.com> <BBDC17E6-31DD-40AC-A651-10362F41119D@employees.org> <4dd25f1e-a0b5-9382-eec1-788b4440658a@gmail.com> <79c8d47b-e8c1-a080-5881-9dc1e3adc8ff@joelhalpern.com> <DB4FEBBB-E629-49AF-9578-DAA40A8A9C76@employees.org> <275e5796-53ee-0e04-13da-bc52f93919d3@joelhalpern.com>
To: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.8)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/JJEEvtctZZvLD8id-UguaWcTdps>
Subject: Re: [spring] SRv6 Network Programming: ENH = 59
X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Source Packet Routing in NetworkinG \(SPRING\)" <spring.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/spring>, <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/spring/>
List-Post: <mailto:spring@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring>, <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 May 2019 12:52:46 -0000

Joel,

> No next header means exactly what the original request, and the documentation, says.  There is nothing in the packet past this IP header.  It does not mean that there is some next header defined by some other context.

Why allow for payload to follow and a "must" requirement to forward it, unless as a future extension point.

And kre also alludes to a "or something" and "other in the future"...

It certainly does not mean nothing is past this IP header. Nor does it mean that there is some next header defined by some other context.
It is an extension point. If people found some use for that, what's the harm? That middle boxes get confused? Isn't that a feature? ;-)

Cheers,
Ole

> 
> Yours,
> Joel
> 
> On 5/9/19 8:36 AM, Ole Troan wrote:
>>> I think it is equally important to note that given an existing way of encapsulating Ethernet in IP, one ought to have a good reason for creating a different one.  There is no indication that this use case needs anything different than next-header 97.
>>> 
>>> And Ole, no next-header does not, as far as I can tell from 8200 and its predecessors mean "the end of IP processing."
>> Huh? What do you think it means then?
>> Btw, here is the original request for the no-next-header:
>> Date: Mon, 28 Nov 1994 14:46:50 +1100
>> Message-Id: <487.785994410@munnari.OZ.AU>
>> From: Robert Elz <kre@munnari.OZ.AU>
>> Sender: owner-ipng@sunroof.Eng.Sun.COM
>> Precedence: bulk
>> Reply-To: ipng@sunroof.Eng.Sun.COM
>> If I wanted to send an IP6 packet without any TCP, UDP, ICMP,
>> or similar, data, just, say, end to end options, or something,
>> which may be useful for sopme purpose or other in the futuew,
>> what do I stick in the next header field?
>> The length from the packet header will indicate that there's
>> nothing after the last processed header, but just sticking in
>> a random "next header" value and relying on the length field
>> seems wrong to me.
>> Alternatively, can someone say that its illegal to not have
>> one of the transport level protocols in every IP6 packet,
>> and will be for all (relevant) time?
>> kre

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email