Given Ethernet's ethertype provides both an IPv4 and IPv6 type, one could argue that these are indeed needed or at least useful. For hardware based end-points, it also removes one branch in the decision tree on how to parse the subsequent headers, after all, IPv4 and IPv6 only share the version field when it comes to packet formats.
On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 3:03 PM, Behcet Sarikaya <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Benson, > > Joe Touch wrote this on intarea list: > > There is no reason for having the GUE header differentiate between > payload=IPv4 and payload=IPv6. The IP version is addressed by the > version field of the IP header. If GUE encapsulates both type of IP the > same way (and it should), it should NOT differentiate between them in > its (GUE) header. > > > I think the same applies to gpe header. > > Plus the issues on the "NSH" protocol. > > Regards, > > Behcet > > On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 3:52 PM, Benson Schliesser > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, Behcet. > > > > Behcet Sarikaya wrote: > >> > >> I was wondering what is NSH in this draft? It is referenced as an > >> unnamed unknown draft from 2014? > > > > > > I believe that NSH refers to the protocol described by > draft-ietf-sfc-nsh. > > (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sfc-nsh/) > > > > Thank you for reviewing the draft and noticing that the reference was > > outdated. I anticipate that the co-authors will update the text > accordingly > > in a future revision. > > > > Cheers, > > -Benson > > _______________________________________________ > nvo3 mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3 >
_______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
