On 5/9/19 11:18, Ole Troan wrote: [...] > > Let me quote Tony Li's response to Fernando's escalation email to the > architecture list: > > "The fact of the matter is that the IETF is completely helpless to prevent > such things. > True, it can block standardization, but if the market wants it, the market > will drive it > and all that the IETF does is to make itself irrelevant to the process."
Even doing SRv6 does not need to imply doing EH insertion. For instance, I just re-read draft-voyer-6man-extension-header-insertion, and there's no comment whatsoever why they don't address the same issues with encapsulation. > My suggestion to Fernando was to argue the issues on technical merit. The ietf consensus on this topic resulted from technical merit. I don't think it's productive or even fair to simply ignore such discussions and consensus, and ignore standards at will. If you don't like the standard, make your case why you think it should be updated, and work on it. The onus is on you to change the standard, not on the standard to remain "as is". > Can you please explain why you don't do that? > > - Does it break end to end transparency? Is IPv6 an end-to-end protocol if you allow EH-insertion in the middle of a network? Thanks, -- 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
