IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> Thu, 09 May 2019 12:36 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 6EE43120096; Thu, 9 May 2019 05:36:59 -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 JWp9XcZ_FJZc; Thu, 9 May 2019 05:36:58 -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 1FD8012001E; Thu, 9 May 2019 05:36:58 -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 1C788FECC007; Thu, 9 May 2019 12:36:57 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by astfgl.hanazo.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E3041503133; Thu, 9 May 2019 14:36:55 +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: <79c8d47b-e8c1-a080-5881-9dc1e3adc8ff@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Thu, 09 May 2019 14:36:54 +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: <DB4FEBBB-E629-49AF-9578-DAA40A8A9C76@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>
To: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.8)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/PujJcNoeof4luvelmZX-sM4NxqI>
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 12:37:00 -0000

> 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