Perhaps we need to update RFC8200 and eliminate the source address field, or at least update it so that it can hold a multicast address, indicating the packet has multiple source devices.
On Wed, 11 Dec 2019, 07:54 Erik Kline, <ek.i...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 >
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
