On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 7:17 AM, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 3/26/18, 5:16 PM, "Tom Herbert" <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> With regards to SR encapsulation: "this is using IP-in-IP as default. >>> Why not using UDP encapsulation?" >> > > I am really hoping we will be able to apply SRH insertion without the need > for IP encapsulation. At least for mobile environments within a closed > administrative domains, there should be exceptions for allowing insertion > of SRH by a on-path node. I realize there are issues with ICMP error > messages hitting the source etc, but we should be able to document those > issues and specify work arounds. I understand there have been discussions > on this topic before, but I hope authors will find some agreements for the > same. > Sri,
There's been quite a bit of discussion on this on 6man list with reference to draft-voyer-6man-extension-header-insertion. The problem is that extension header insertion would violate RFC8200: "Extension headers (except for the Hop-by-Hop Options header) are not processed, inserted, or deleted by any node along a packet's delivery path". In addition to the the protocol ramifications of doing this (dealing with MTU, ICMP error, etc.) there were questions as to whether the benefit is significant enough to justify the cost, as well as what does it mean to define Internet protocols that only work in a "controlled domain". I believe 6man is the right place for further discussions on this. Tom > > Sri > <with no chair hat> > _______________________________________________ dmm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
