Re: RPL lwtunnel encapsulation

[Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ca>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1599 bytes --]


Alexander Aring <aahringo@redhat.com> wrote:
    >> Mathis Marion <mathis.marion@silabs.com> wrote: > However, my
    >> observations suggest that it is actually not the case when >
    >> forwarding packets. Instead, the IPv6 header of the packet is modified
    >> > in a way which violates the IPv6 specification (RFC 8200 section 4):
    >>
    >> I have not sat down to read the code to understand what it actually
    >> does, so I can't really comment at this point.  I salute you for
    >> having gotten into whether the code is compliant.
    >>
    >> But, I did write spend way too much of my life writing
    >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc9008/ to deal with the perception
    >> that RPL networks had to violate 8200.
    >>
    >> I know that Linux does not (yet) deal with all the minutia in 9008.  I
    >> wish that I had time to fix that.

    > To put everything into IPIP and back is not a question of doing a
    > iptunnel ip6tnl [0] and doing the right configuration... just do get
    > everything over "the internet" which I think is the whole reason why
    > putting everything into IPIP?

I agree that modelling it an infinite series of iptunnel/ip6tnl is the wrong approach.
I would model it akin to how ND and ARP work: something that happens which
then resolves into some bytes that get prefixed and/or removed.

--
]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        | network architect  [
]     mcr@sandelman.ca  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [





[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 658 bytes --]