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

[Ole Troan <[e-mail]>]

>>> I suspect that we will be far more likely regret this use of 59 in the long term than we will regret changing to 97 at this early stage.
>> But it’s not that nh=59 can be used to imply that Ethernet follows. That would be very bad.
>> It’s that ip processing stops here.
>> Then if the two ends have agreed the meaning of the remaining payload and how to process it, that’s fine. If that signaling is in-band e.g in a particular SID or out-of-band, the principle is the same.
> 
> Yes, but experience suggests that having no control word and no ability to retrofit one is a long term problem waiting to happen.

I think this is a philosophical debate.
Does a packet have to be entirely self-describing or can a end-point learn how to interpret part of a packet out-of-band.

Personally I think there is a use of nh=59 to end IP processing and allow further payload.
If this particular mechanism is a good use for this particular use case of SR, I have no opinion.

Cheers,
Ole