Ah right. Still, in terms of the things that could be relaxed in 8200, allowing the SRH to be treated more like a Hop-by-Hop header might be more palatable than things that change the effective MTU.
On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 12:42 PM Robert Raszuk <rob...@raszuk.net> wrote: > > The issue is that RFC8200 forbids even modification to any EH unless the > node is a destination node in top most IPv6 header. > > > If there were no resolution to the insertion question vis a vis RFC 8200, >> then would it then suffice to recommend that ingress nodes should include >> some padding for these non-SR midpoints to play with (iff. the network has >> such midpoints), and otherwise abide by RFC 8200? >> >
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
