/* Adjusting the subject to reflect the topic */ Ok ... I looked at the new wave of mails in wrong order :)
I like this proposal: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-herbert-ipv4-eh-01 And have absolutely nothing against progressing it further - it looks on the surface to be more efficient then sr-mpls over IP - but how many bits are we saving needs to be calculated to state if cost of introducing new encoding justifies the additional control plane, protocol and platform efforts In fact if we would get to the consensus of using SRH with SID & BSID to be of fixed 20 bits it can reuse a lot of mechanism build for sr-mpls in any commercial router. It is just a bit amazing that insertion of EHs into IPv4 would be less problematic that in the case of IPv6 :) Maybe due to allowed fragmentation. As to the host dropping packets due to unknown protocol - let's observe that SR domain would clean such EH before passing packets further. Many thx, R. On Sat, Sep 7, 2019 at 1:14 PM Mark Smith <markzzzsm...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, 7 Sep 2019 at 19:56, Robert Raszuk <rob...@raszuk.net> wrote: > > > > > It's tempting to write up SR over IPv4 > > > > You don't have to write anything ... it is already written and looks > like moving fwd :) > > > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mpls-sr-over-ip-07 > > > > That's tunnelling MPLS over SR over IPv4. I'm talking about native SR > over IPv4 e.g. "SRv4". >
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
