<chair hat off for now; This issue may, depending upon resolution,
become a chair issue, in which case, I will look at it through a
different lens. Heck, I may even disagree with myself.>
Let me start by saying that I understand and support what the draft is
trying to do. While I like SFC, I am under no illusions that it is or
should be the only answer to service chaining / service programming.
Further, I understand what the proxies are for. They seem necessary.
To deploy this stuff, we have to be able to work with older equipment.
Proxies seem the best way to do so.
The document is even clear that proxy is a new kind of thing. Good.
In order to do its job, and as I read this document, the SR proxies (of
various kinds) violate the rules for MPLS processing, SRH processing,
and IPv6 processing at various points. They have to.
It seems to me that we need to accept this requirement, and state it
clearly. Most likely, this would suggest that we will want some form of
signoff from the MPLS and 6man working groups that these violations, for
these specific reasons, are acceptable to the community. Personally, I
would rather have the discussion soon, rather than pretending it is a
non-issue and having the discussion during IETF last call.
Maybe I am misreading, and things are less conflicted. That would be great.
Yours,
Joel
<chair hat returning to wherever it belongs.>
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
