Hi Sander, This separation of architecture is not new; see https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr/ in the SPRING WG.
Jim -----Original Message----- From: spring <spring-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Sander Steffann Sent: Friday, May 22, 2020 10:24 AM To: Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper....@dmarc.ietf.org> Cc: 6man <6...@ietf.org>; spring@ietf.org; Chengli (Cheng Li) <c...@huawei.com> Subject: Re: [spring] How CRH support SFC/Segment Endpoint option? Hi, > The sole purpose of a Routing header is to steer a packet along a specified > path to its destination. It shouldn’t attempt to do any more than that. > > The CRH does not attempt to deliver service function information to service > function instances. However, it is compatible with: > > • The Network Service Header (NSH) > • The Destination Options header that precedes the Routing header > > Both of these can be used to deliver service function information to service > function instances. Clear separation of concerns in a SPRING architecture! I was afraid the hope for a clear architecture was lost, but this makes me so happy :) Cheers, Sander And to be 100% clear: I'm not being sarcastic… The messy "architectures" I have seen in the past have driven me to despair. This work is finally something that makes sense. _______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
