On 7/12/19 12:29, Robert Raszuk wrote: > > 2) A related question I have for you: Is IPv6 an end-to-end protocol? > (The answer to this question also serves as an answer for the rest). > > > The moment IPv6 src <--> dst flow makes it legal to be encapsulated you > are dealing with end to end inner IPv6 and end to end outer IPv6. > > You keep drawing false assumption that inner IPv6 header should mandate > or even influence action on outer IPv6 header which is simply not correct.
The online possible instantiation of "Destination Address" as in RFC8200 is the final destination of the packet. As such, if you mangle with mackets anywhere else other than at the final destination, you are violating RFC8200. You don't seem to be reading the spec properly, or are intentionally trying to read it in a very curious way to circumvent it. An honest way to go against specs is to write an Internet-Draft, make a case for going against the spec, and changing it. And convince folks that it makes sense. Another way to do it is by leveraging the power of specific vendors. I clearly don't have that power, but will be loud enough for the community to be aware about what's going on (including the formal appeal process). Thanks, -- 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
