On 30/8/19 20:24, Ron Bonica wrote: > Li, > > > > In the scenarios that you mention, below, SRv6 nodes have the following > options: > > > > 1. To prepend and IPv6 header, with its own SRH > 2. To insert an SRH, as described below > > > > Option 1 is in keeping with the word and spirit of RFC 8200. As you > point out, Option 2 contradicts RFC 8200. > > > > So, we should probably explore the motivation for Option 2). If the > motivation is not sufficient, we should probably standardize on Option 1.
My argument would be: Folks would do whatever they please with 1). If somehow they feel the need to do 2), they should *refrain from even suggesting it*, post an internet draft that proposes to update RFC8200 to allow for the insertion of EHs, wait for that to be adopted and published, and only then suggest to do EH insertion. P.S.: Given the amount of discussion there has been on this topic in the context of RFC8200, I'd like to hope that there's no draft-ietf document suggesting EH-insertion or, if there is, the relevant ADs and chairs make sure that's not the case anymore. Thanks! Cheers, -- Fernando Gont e-mail: ferna...@gont.com.ar || fg...@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1 _______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
