Hi Robert, > 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.
This is completely bogus. SRv6 is not a new L3 protocol that just happens to be compatible with IPv6. That is insane BS. > 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. Because you are building SRv6 on IPv6, plain and simple. Cheers, Sander _______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
