Hi Steinar, I am glad you asked.
I am not aware of any implementation of RFC 5837. Even if it is implemented, it never talks about providing information from a distributed “local label mapping table”, as defined by the CRH. Thanks Regards … Zafar From: ipv6 <ipv6-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of "sth...@nethelp.no" <sth...@nethelp.no> Date: Friday, September 6, 2019 at 2:42 AM To: "rbonica=40juniper....@dmarc.ietf.org" <rbonica=40juniper....@dmarc.ietf.org> Cc: "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>, "6...@ietf.org" <6...@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6. Nothing so complicated is required. At most, PING and TRACEROUTE with RFC 5837 extensions. Are there any vendors actually implementing RFC 5837? Ivan Pepelnjak commented "However, it looks like nobody implemented it in almost five years since it was published." at https://blog.ipspace.net/2016/01/are-unnumbered-interfaces-harmful.html Has the situation changed? Steinar Haug, AS2116 -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list i...@ietf.org<mailto:i...@ietf.org> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
