Hi Robert,
>>Well the crux of the matter is that you still need to process all EHs at each
>>IPv6 destination which here means each transit node per RFC8200
From RFC 8200 that doesn't seem to be the case or at least as I
understand. See Section 4.1 note 1 and note 3. Am I missing
something?
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
note 1: for options to be processed by the first destination that
appears in the IPv6 Destination Address field plus
subsequent destinations listed in the Routing header.
note 2: additional recommendations regarding the relative order of
the Authentication and Encapsulating Security Payload
headers are given in [RFC4303
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4303>].
note 3: for options to be processed only by the final destination
of the packet.
Regards
Reji
On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 9:00 PM Robert Raszuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I disagree. PPSI and PSSI leverages the DOHs in IPv6 architecture better.
>> The SRv6+ drafts explain the usecases better FYI.
>>
>
> Well the crux of the matter is that you still need to process all EHs at
> each IPv6 destination which here means each transit node per RFC8200. That
> is regardless what any other spec says ... unfortunately.
>
> Best,
> R.
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [email protected]
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
