On 5/9/19 17:28, Robert Raszuk wrote: [....] > > Now if 6man response to proposl of SRv6 use case for FRR with TI-LFA > will state "IPv6 was not designed for that" - I am fine.
As I have reiterated numerous times, nobody is arguing that. My argument is: you can't simply violate specs at will. If you have a strong case for updating any spec (IPv6, or any other), please explicitly propose it at the WG chartered to do that. Then you can proceed with the rest of the work. I'm quite pragmatic, and have spent a lot of energy doing updates to the IPv6 case when I felt I had a strong case to do so. But most of what I've seen in terms of EH-insertion is essentially trying to impose a vendor's agenda on everyone else, igonring standards and IETF consensus at will. *This* is what this discussion is about. -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: fg...@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492 _______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
