Subject: [nsc] Network Service Header - draft-quinn-nsh-00.txt

From: Robert Raszuk <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2013 22:07:55 +0200

Hi,

I have a basic question reg Network Service Header draft.

Don't we already have sufficient room in v6 header (including it's
extension header) to embed services in it ? Do we need to invent new
header each time someone proposes a new approach ;) ?

Just like we can get service discovery accomplished for free when we
embed service in its reachability advertisement:
http://telematics.tm.kit.edu/publications/Files/491/ipv6-app-contest-2011-paper.pdf

Best regards,
R.

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 09:29:56 -0400

> header each time someone proposes a new approach ;) ?

IMO, discussions about how best to encode stuff is a tad premature. We
should focus discussion on whether some item of information needs to
be included in a packet or not, and the motivation/pros/cons of doing that.

> http://telematics.tm.kit.edu/publications/Files/491/ipv6-app-contest-2011-paper.pdf

"service discovery for free" is an oxymoron. There are a ton of
reasons why the above proposal is not a good idea. Encoding additional
semantics into IP addresses is fraught with difficulties, and except
in very limited situations, the IETF has not been willing to do so.

Thomas