Hi Fernando, > On Aug 31, 2019, at 10:09 AM, Fernando Gont <ferna...@gont.com.ar> wrote: > > 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.
I have put down my thoughts on the future of header insertion work in a mail to the 6man list in May 2017. The mail can be found below https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/4MevopH9_iQglUizhoT5Rl-TjRc <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/4MevopH9_iQglUizhoT5Rl-TjRc> > > 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. Yes. If a draft violates RFC8200 and it hits the IESG for evaluation, I will certainly hold a DISCUSS position until the violations are fixed. Thanks Suresh
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
