Hi WG,
I support this adoption.
But I have a few comments/questions after reading the draft.
a) Terms such as "SFC, DCN, RAN, NRP" in the draft are not defined in the
"Terminology" section. Defining them might make the content easier to
understand.
b) The draft mentions GIP6 as a "generalized IPv6 tunnel", is it entirely based
on existing IPv6 extension header, e.g., HBH, SRH?
c) If intermediate devices do not support GIP6, is there a fallback mechanism?
For example, stripping extension headers or reverting to legacy tunnels (e.g.,
MPLS)?
Best regards,
Guozhen
在 2025年6月28日 07:49，Yingzhen Qu<[email protected]> 写道：
Dear RTGWG,
This email starts a Working Group Adoption call for:
Scenarios and Protocol Extension Requirements of a Generalized IPv6 Tunnel
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-li-rtgwg-gip6-protocol-ext-requirements/
The draft was presented at IETF122, and a poll was done after the presentation:
Poll for "Should the WG work on a general tunneling mechanism that
supports iOAM etc.?"
Yes(24) No(11) No Opinion(7)
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/minutes-122-rtgwg-202503200230/
Please review the document and send your support or objection to the mailing
list. Supporting means that you believe that the WG should work on this topic
and the draft is on the right track. Comments and suggestions are welcome.
The adoption call will run for three weeks considering the upcoming IETF and
end on July 18th.
Authors and contributors, please respond to the list indicating whether you are
aware of any IPR that applies to the draft.
Thanks,
Yingzhen
_______________________________________________
rtgwg mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
