Darren,
I understand that the PSP operation:
* Is executed on the penultimate segment endpoint only
* Is signaled by the source node using bits in the IPv6 destination address
However, those facts are orthogonal to the question that I asked. So, I will
try to ask my question again. Please read it carefully and answer the question
that is asked. (Dismissive responses will only make me grumpier.)
Currently, there is no consensus that IPv6 allows insertion of extension
headers by intermediate nodes, even if those intermediate nodes are segment
endpoints . Given this lack of consensus, the authors of network programming
have wisely agreed to remove header insertion from the draft.
Likewise, there is no consensus that IPv6 allows removal of extension headers
by intermediate nodes, even if those intermediate nodes are segment endpoints.
Why, then, have the authors of network programming not agreed to remove PSP
from the draft?
Ron
Juniper Business Use Only
From: Darren Dukes (ddukes) <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, December 5, 2019 11:50 AM
To: Ron Bonica <[email protected]>
Cc: SPRING WG <[email protected]>; 6man <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Network Programming - Penultimate Segment Popping
Hello Ron, I believe this is the fifth time you have raised this comment in
6man and/or spring.
The comment has been addressed in earlier iterations.
Let me recap.
With the PSP behavior, the SRH is only removed by the node identified in the
destination address field of the IPv6 header.
That destination address was placed in the SRH by the SR Source node, fully
expecting the behavior.
Thanks
Darren
Iterations:
[2019-09-06]
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/7zMgIwEY9AipZCCGO9KnT2CGH3o<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/7zMgIwEY9AipZCCGO9KnT2CGH3o__;!8WoA6RjC81c!T981Kv39IIsXJ2I3jiE36cVdwwLgIWJoFBUg_AnU8IEb9Y_6GbNWAykRc82ck-xk$>
[2019-09-27]
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/4_Slu3kkHwduZZPFJJmRUkmoTVo
[2019-10-14]
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/u536YH4tv7kKRq_b9_x9gBYpO9c
[2019-10-21]
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/4pikRli_HSECun9AbwfpmOF5KLI
[2019-12-04]
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/oDWLbRDqKCaF5Xa-QvKY6mk_D5E
On Dec 4, 2019, at 11:37 AM, Ron Bonica
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
wrote:
Pablo,
It seems to me that the following are equally controversial:
* A transit node inserting a Routing header
* A transit node removing a Routing header
We have agreed to move discussion of RH insertion out of the Network
Programming draft and into another draft. Shouldn't discussion of RH removal be
treated similarly.
This comment applies to Penultimate Segment Popping (PHP) in the Network
Programming draft.
Ron
Juniper Business Use Only
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Administrative Requests:
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6__;!8WoA6RjC81c!T981Kv39IIsXJ2I3jiE36cVdwwLgIWJoFBUg_AnU8IEb9Y_6GbNWAykRc6EiWnkb$>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
