Rajesh,
It seems to me that "it is recommended" indicate that the ordering is
optional/OPTIONAL. Does this document (or your comment) create a
MANDATORY ordering of EH's??
/Loa
On 2019-05-22 22:44, Rajesh M wrote:
I think as long as we ensure below order it must be OK.
When more than one extension header is used in the same packet, it is
recommended that those headers appear in the following order:
IPv6 header
Hop-by-Hop Options header
Destination Options header (note 1)
Routing header
Fragment header
Authentication header (note 2)
Encapsulating Security Payload header (note 2)
Destination Options header (note 3)
Upper-Layer header
*From:* Robert Raszuk <[email protected]>
*Sent:* Wednesday, May 22, 2019 7:55 PM
*To:* Rajesh M <[email protected]>
*Cc:* [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; SPRING WG
<[email protected]>; Peter Psenak <[email protected]>; Ron Bonica
<[email protected]>
*Subject:* Re: [spring] draft-ali-6man-spring-srv6-oam-00
Hi Rajesh,
I think some folks are just confusing "insertion of new EH" from
"modification of existing EH" ? To me those are completely different
actions.
And processing of any EH is explicitly allowed by RFC8200 as long as dst
address in the top v6 header is the processing entity which seems to be
the case here. Such processing nowhere in RFC8200 seems to be prohibited.
Let's also observe that as it is often the case with OEM it is actual
network elements who act as both src and dst of the end to end OEM
sessions :).
Thx,
R.
On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 3:56 PM Rajesh M
<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Agreed (cannot claim compliance with RFC8200). Authors please comment
Guys in this draft I see that all the example such as ping,
traceroute to ipv6 address-> use SRH insertion rather than SRH
encapsulation.This is intentionally done to reduce the packet size
(since underlying data can be only ipv6) ?
*From:* Mark Smith <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
*Sent:* Wednesday, May 22, 2019 10:15 AM
*To:* Rajesh M <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
*Cc:* [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>; SPRING WG <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>; [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>;
Peter Psenak <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
*Subject:* Re: draft-ali-6man-spring-srv6-oam-00
EH insertion is not compliant with RFC8200. Equipment doing so
cannot claim compliance with RFC8200.
On Wed., 22 May 2019, 11:08 Rajesh M,
<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Guys in this draft I see that all the example such as ping,
traceroute to ipv6 address-> use SRH insertion rather than SRH
encapsulation.
This is intentionally done to reduce the packet size (since
underlying data can be only ipv6) ?
Juniper Internal
Juniper Internal
Juniper Internal
*From:* Rajesh M
*Sent:* Wednesday, April 3, 2019 1:06 PM
*To:* [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>;
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
*Cc:* SPRING WG <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>;
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>; Ron Bonica
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
*Subject:* draft-ali-6man-spring-srv6-oam-00
Please find few comments on this draft
1. Section 3.1.1 , below must be Ref2
*Ref1*: Hardware (microcode) just punts the packet. Software
(slow path)
implements the required OAM
mechanism. Timestamp is not carried in the packet forwarded to the
next hop.
2. 4.1.2.2, here it must be N2 (page 10)
If the target SID is not locally programmed, *N4* responses with
the ICMPv6 message (Type: "SRv6 OAM (TBA)", Code: "SID not
locally implemented (TBA)"); otherwise a success is returned.
3. 4.1.2.2, here it must be B:4:C52 (page 11)
The ICMPv6 process at node N4
checks if its local SID (*B:2:C31*) is locally programmed or not
and responds to the ICMPv6 Echo Request.
4. 4.3.2.2, here it must be B:4:C52 (page 16)
The traceroute process at
node N4 checks if its local SID (*B:2:C31*) is locally
programmed.
5) in below two cases is it B5:: or it must be A:5:: ?
> ping A:5:: via segment-list B:2:C31, B:4:C52
Sending 5, 100-byte ICMP Echos to *B5::,* timeout is 2 seconds:
!!!!!
> traceroute A:5:: via segment-list B:2:C31, B:4:C52
Tracing the route to *B5::*
Thanks
Rajesh
Juniper Internal
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
Administrative Requests:
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_ipv6&d=DwMFaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=ijfTaKShbusYK-FOvFGH9IZ538TctoQw-Pljslc0qGA&m=jrfq1dYsfk8_fBqqNNS-gdRsYxNXOt7r52G3GHN0iiQ&s=7EDIKybjxRS2y7WsSXf02B7k15AZOccvbTWWcMu0OYo&e=>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_spring&d=DwMFaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=ijfTaKShbusYK-FOvFGH9IZ538TctoQw-Pljslc0qGA&m=bA6bNX7XD3BHTzukhcoIS-aqZi6dWcnVVdTfYB1goG8&s=fia6hQTqXh09fn6GLOkZIbXdPoNqldBthMQdxAuNWxM&e=>
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
--
Loa Andersson email: [email protected]
Senior MPLS Expert
Bronze Dragon Consulting phone: +46 739 81 21 64
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
