+1 and well said! From: spring <spring-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Robert Raszuk Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2020 8:06 AM To: Mark Smith <markzzzsm...@gmail.com> Cc: Xiejingrong (Jingrong) <xiejingr...@huawei.com>; Ron Bonica <rbon...@juniper.net>; spring@ietf.org; Joel M. Halpern <j...@joelhalpern.com>; Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril) <pcama...@cisco.com> Subject: Re: [spring] Is srv6 PSP a good idea
> Somebody choosing not to use AH doesn't mean SPRING can ignore the IPv6 > specifications. I think it sure can and in fact it should. See there is perhaps key misunderstanding here. Regardless if folks agree or not with that SRv6 is a new data plane. SRv6 != IPv6 that's obvious. It also does not attempt to *extend* IPv6. It reuses some IPv6 elements and makes sure non SRv6 nodes can treat the packets as vanilla IPv6, but that's it. With that in mind all of this going back and forth between SPRING and 6MAN to me is triggered by wrong positioning of SRv6 as a new transport. Sure if SRv6 would be extending IPv6 then updates to RFC8200 would be needed - but here RFC8200 should at best be informative reference. I am not even sure why SRH needs to be 6MAN RFC. IETF is designed to build and improve prior art not be locked by it. Cheers, R.
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
