Hi, Ok but this extra insertion is just one of possible SR applications and has no bearing on SRv6 architecture and all other SRv6 documents running via various stages of IETF process like number of folks are voicing on the list just to mud the waters.
There is valid problem statement presented in https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-voyer-6man-extension-header-insertion-06 and if approved and processed via IETF it will update RFC8200. If IETF decides that FRR is not needed for IPv6 packets that is fine. If WG decides that this use case is valid but for IPv6 purity requires new EH type I guess authors will take that feedback and discuss internally. Cheers Robert. On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 11:22 AM li zhenqiang <li_zhenqi...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Dear Robert, > > Yes, SRH is TLV based. But the two documents want to insert one more SRH > in a packet, not more segments in one SRH. > > I recommend nothing. Just post the question. > > Best Regards, > Zhenqiang Li > >
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
