Hi Sri,
>
> 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.
While I see you intention to see a way to reduce the RFC8200 encap overhead;
for mobile/cellular environments I see its paramount to have a standardized
solutions because
it's mostly multi-vendor equipment from most of the operators deployments.
Regardless if it's a closed administrative domain or not.
However, it might be fine if it is an inside a DC (for example DC underlay)
kind of environment and this exception could be made;
as the diversity of different vendor equipment can be less.
But the best course still would be to have this documented clearly and if
possible do an update to RFC8200 @ 6man as pointed below by Tom.
--
Uma C.
-----Original Message-----
From: dmm [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Tom Herbert
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2018 8:05 AM
To: Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [DMM] IETF101 DMM WG Meeting Notes #1
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
_______________________________________________
dmm mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
