[ih] Extension Header Insertion

[John Day via Internet-history]

Since the first SRH was there to specify the whole path, wouldn’t that imply that the second SRH would be ‘adding detail’, i.e. be addresses interleaved with the first SRH?  Or is there a requirement that the second one be strictly sequential, i.e. first do the addresses in the first SRH, then do the addresses in the second SRH?

John

> On Dec 10, 2019, at 06:29, Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On 9 Dec 2019, at 03:04, Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper.net at dmarc.ietf.org <mailto:rbonica=40juniper.net at dmarc.ietf.org>> wrote:
>> 
>> Folks,
>>  
>> This question is posed primarily to the proponents of Extension Header insertion.
>>  
>> Do you think that it is acceptable to insert a second routing header into a packet that already has one, so the resulting packet looks like the following:
>>  
>> IPv6 header
>> SRH
>> SRH
>> Upper-layer header
>>  
>> Would this be common in TI-LFA?
>>  
> 
> Given that the advantage of SRv6 is always quoted as being that the whole path is available to the receiver for audit purposes, shouldn’t the TI-LFA path be inserted in the existing SRH (if present) so that the packet can be inspected on reception and adherence to policy be verified for the whole path?
> 
> - Stewart
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6 at ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------

-- 
Internet-history mailing list
Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history