capsule-rs / capsule-rs/capsule
Treat IPv6 Routing Header separately and incorporate diff Routing Types
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- Rust
- Stars
- 443
- Forks
- 42
- PR merge metrics
- No merged PRs in 30d
Description
## Background
Currently, we treat the [Segment Routing Header](https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header-26#section-2) (SRH) as the only type of routing header that's possible, with its *suggested* routing type of *4*, as per the spec. However, looking at the RFC for the [IPv6 Routing Header](https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8200#section-4.4), it's possible for more type-specific data and different routing types to exist, of which an SRH would just one kind of type-specific data. We should also accommodate to those who want to add their own specific, custom routing types for example.
## Possible Solution
As @drunkirishcoder has shown with the current WIP https://github.com/capsule-rs/capsule/tree/djin/icmp-redux, we can treat different routing types **somewhat** similarly to how we're handling icmp messages.
Contributor guide
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
Start with RFC 8200 section 4.4 and the referenced Segment Routing Header draft, then compare the current approach with the WIP branch at djin/icmp-redux. Done means routing headers can represent type-specific data beyond SRH and accommodate different or custom routing types, with the required behavior covered by tests.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- rust
- Domain
- networking
- Issue type
- Feature
- Difficulty
- 5/5
- Estimated time
- Over a week
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Needs clarification
- Newbie friendliness
- 25/100