Darren,
Will the SID defined in RFC 8754 appear in the IANA SRv6 Endpoint Behavior
Sub-registry? If not, can it be implemented?
Ron
Juniper Business Use Only
From: Darren Dukes (ddukes) <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 15, 2020 10:17 PM
To: Ron Bonica <[email protected]>; Aijun Wang <[email protected]>;
[email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: About the upper layer header processing in RFC8754(SRH)
[External Email. Be cautious of content]
Hi Ron.
The SID described in RFC8754 is fully described there.
The SIDs in draft-ietf-spring-SRv6-network-programming are fully defined in
that document.
Darren
________________________________
From: Ron Bonica
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Sent: Monday, June 15, 2020 3:08:12 PM
To: Darren Dukes (ddukes) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Aijun
Wang <[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]>>
Subject: RE: About the upper layer header processing in RFC8754(SRH)
Darren,
Does the SID described in RFC 8754 represent any of the SIDs in the Network
Programming Draft? In any other document?
Ron
Juniper Business Use Only
From: ipv6 <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> On Behalf Of
Darren Dukes (ddukes)
Sent: Monday, June 15, 2020 12:21 PM
To: Aijun Wang <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>;
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: Re: About the upper layer header processing in RFC8754(SRH)
[External Email. Be cautious of content]
Hello Aijun.
No update to rfc8754 is necessary. Rfc8754 was written so new sids can be
defined in other documents independently.
section 4.3.1 says:
This document and section define a single SRv6 SID. Future documents
may define additional SRv6 SIDs. In such a case, the entire content
of this section will be defined in that document.
Thanks
Darren
(Written on mobile)
________________________________
From: ipv6 <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> on behalf of
Aijun Wang <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Sent: Sunday, June 14, 2020 10:15 PM
To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>;
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: About the upper layer header processing in RFC8754(SRH)
Hi, Folks:
RFC8754(SRH) section
4.3.1.2(https://tools..ietf.org/html/rfc8754#section-4..3.1.2<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8754*section-4.3.1.2__;Iw!!NEt6yMaO-gk!W4_ZbJ6IaphycWPj08UYd8k9IPlcBP_h6HEasypDyifP-5j3jjAVQJYjvxKIgrBz$>)
describes the process of upper layer header as the followings:
IF (Upper-layer Header is IPv4 or IPv6) and
local configuration permits {
Perform IPv6 decapsulation
Resubmit the decapsulated packet to the IPv4 or IPv6 module
}
ELSE {
......
}
And in network programming draft section
9.1(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-15#section-9.1<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-15*section-9.1__;Iw!!NEt6yMaO-gk!W4_ZbJ6IaphycWPj08UYd8k9IPlcBP_h6HEasypDyifP-5j3jjAVQJYjv0iiulaO$>),
one new Ethernet Next Header Type(143) is proposed.
Although the detail process of this new next header are described in the
network program draft, does it need to update the section 4.3.1.2 of RFC8754
to reflect the process of new header type(143)?
Best Regards
Aijun Wang
China Telecom
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
