[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Review comments on draft-ietf-shim6-proto-03.txt



marcelo bagnulo braun wrote:

El 16/02/2006, a las 20:26, Erik Nordmark escribió:

Geoff Huston wrote:
In response to your query (and Erik can correct me if I'm wrong) It is my understanding in the specification that whenever the ULID pair is used as the locator pair then the SHIM6 extension header (the context value) is omitted from the packet. This allies to the initial contact pahse, and also in any subsequent time when the SHIM selects the ULID pair as the current locator pair.

Correct. But folks have also suggested that we should allow the shim6 extension header all the time i.e., even if the receiver doesn't have to rewrite the locators. I don't see any harm in allowing this for folks that want their packets to be bigger...


FWIW, i think may be useful if we ever want to support prefix rewriting by exit routers. I mean, if we want to support this, the way i understand this could be, is that endpoints would establish a shim session between them and then they would let routers to rewrite source prefixes for those packets belonging to the established context. In that case, it would necesary for the ednpoint to identify those packets that belong to the shim context hence they should include the payload header even if they are using the ulids as locators.

So, i would suggest to allow this behaviour, or at least not explicitly forbidding it.

Agreed,

Should we add some more explicit text on this in the document?

   Erik