Hi Adrian,
-----Original Message-----
3. Support for SFs that do not handle MPLS
There is, in our opinion no difference between an SF that does not handle
the
NSH in RFC 8300 and an SF that does not handle MPLS in this document. Both
need
to use an SFC Proxy as described in this document.
Jim> from the SF perspective yes as it has no clue what is being used between
SFFs. However, this is IMHO not a true statement from an SFF perspective;
consider metadata as an example. Yes I know you can cobble together a nice long
label stack to try and mimic NSH behavior but seriously I do not see this as a
viable solution and even if it was it would not be normal MPLS forwarding
behavior so would not work for brownfield. Same comment for MPLS-SR FWIW.
Jim
We already have a section on SFC Proxies, but it is late in the document. We
should fix that by highlighting the issue in the Introduction and pointing
to
the later section.
Thanks,
Adrian (in consultation with the co-authors)
_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
m...@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
_______________________________________________
sfc mailing list
s...@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
