On 26/2/20 16:44, Robert Raszuk wrote:
Hey Sander,
No worries ... three IPv6 musketeers have already presented themselves
well to this discussion. This was just one more demo of it. No need to
apologize - at least me :)
And while you can call someone's opinion the way you like - the fact
that SRv6 builds on top of IPv6 does not make it automatically IPv6
extension.
My perhaps subtle point was that while politically it has been sold like
minor IPv6 extension from technical point it does not need to be
positioned like one. The sole fact that it reuses the same ethertype
does not make it an extension.
Yeah, it's not an extension: it's a major surgery to IPv6, and a major
change to the IPv6 architecture (nobody would even call it "IPv6
maintenance").
A number of us wonder how many milliseconds it would have taken for this
proposal to be shot down if it wasn't being pushed by a big vendor.
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
