Hi Mike, > for not just using encapsulation
Please kindly note that SRv6 (and all discussions about SRv6) already happen in the *encapsulated header* - not in the native header of the packet. Nick, As to the concerns of "escaping packets" - this draft is no more of a concern then RFC8986. Ron, As to the concerns of purity violation of IPv6 addressing - this draft is also no more of a concern then RFC8986. Thx, R. On Sun, Oct 3, 2021 at 3:17 PM Mike Simpson <mikie.simp...@gmail.com> wrote: > Given that every time a vendor suggests altering the fundamentals of the > ipv6 header the reason given for not just using encapsulation and therefore > avoiding upsetting the 2 decades worth of running kit is to save the few > bytes of overhead it would produce. > > 1) Do we not have enough bogus packets on the internets. > And > 2) just because you can’t define the “harm it will cause” doesn’t mean > that it’s not going to cause harm. > > Man generally seems quite fallible imho. > > > On 3 Oct 2021, at 05:13, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > Ron, > > > > The first sentence cites RFC8402 which unambiguously describes SR as a > > limited domain protcol (limited to an "SR domain", that is.) > > > > So within such a domain, this describes using 128 bit quantities called > > Segment Identifiers that in some cases, but apparently not in the formats > > defined here, has the same structure as an IP address. > > > > Does that harm the Internet, even if it leaks? It might disappoint the > > sender, as any sender of a bogus packet is disappointed, but apart from > that, > > who is damaged? > > > > Regards > > Brian Carpenter > > > >> On 02-Oct-21 09:34, Ron Bonica wrote: > >> Folks, > >> > >> > >> > >> Draft-filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-compression-02 introduces three new > > SID types that can occupy the Destination Address field of an IPv6 > header. See Sections 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3 of the draft for details. > >> > >> > >> > >> The SPRING WG has issued a call for adoption for this draft. > >> > >> > >> > >> It is not clear that these SID types can be harmonized with the IPv6 > addressing architecture. > >> > >> > >> > >> Does anyone have an opinion? > >> > >> > >> > >> > Ron > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Juniper Business Use Only > >> > >> > >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > >> i...@ietf.org > >> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > > i...@ietf.org > > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > i...@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- >
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
