> We do have today use cases where not only the source of a packet should be allowed to insert a header but also the source “domain” of a packet. I’ll try to explain. > > In a domain controlled by a single organization (typically the set of ASs under control of the same operator) a packet enters at the edge where the ingress node applies a policy resulted into an additional outer ipv6 header that may or may not contain an extension header. Bottom line, the outer header means that now, it is a NEW packet, originated by the ingress node, with SA/DA representing the nodes that are inside the operator domain. Therefore, we can say that this new packet (formed by an outer header and encapsulated original packet) is now owned by the operator and whatever the operator does with this packet: > > . The packet MUST leave the operator network in the exact same shape/format as it entered (i.e.: outer encapsulation removed). > . The outer header MAY change while in transit in the operator’s domain. Moreover, a header MAY be inserted while inside the operator’s domain (knowing that outer header and any other inserted header would be removed at egress). This means that an SRH MAY be inserted at the same time the outer header is added but it can also be that the ingress adds the outer header and some other node inserts an SRH (e.g.: fast reroute within operator’s infrastructure). > . While in transit, the operator network must handle aspects like MTU properly, taking into account the increased size of the packet. DV: I concur with this explanation & needs. > > Originally RFC2460 stated that only the source of the packet is entitled to add an EH. Now we’re going to propose that the source “domain” of the packet is allowed to insert EHs. The source domain being the set of nodes (including the ingress node adding the outer header) under common administration. This also implies that when the packet leaves the domain, it must recover its original format/shape. > > In order to have a more productive discussion, we are writing a draft on header insertion that will be submitted as soon as the windows re-open (during ietf week). > > In the mean time, I think it is way too premature to come to conclusion on what text should be used for RFC2460bis and I recommend that the current text is left unchanged until we figured out what to do with EH insertion. DV: I support this recommendation, especially that there will be a document submitted in 2 weeks, stated here, that will add more context. Which position the WG good discussion. > Thanks. > s. > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > ipv6@xxxxxxxx > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > --------------------------------------------------------------------