Inline [RB]
Ron
Juniper Business Use Only
From: Eduard Metz <etm...@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 7, 2021 5:03 AM
To: Ron Bonica <rbon...@juniper.net>
Cc: 6...@ietf.org; SPRING WG <spring@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [spring] draft-filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-compression-02
[External Email. Be cautious of content]
Can the SID be viewed as the address of the "interface" to, in this case, the
function that resides in a node? From a routing / forwarding point of view the
group of functions is more similar to a network (represented by a prefix,
rather than a single address), but still.
[RB] In RFC 8986, a classic SRv6 SID represents a *single* function that
resides on a *single* node. If you like, you can even say that represents a
*single* interface to a *single* function that resides on a *single* node.
By contrast, a Compressed SID Container (i.e., the 128-bit entity that is
copied into the IPv6 Destination Address field) represents an entire SR Path.
Specifically, it represents *many* functions that reside on *many* nodes
For my understanding, apart from that the (definition of) SID may not be
aligned with the literal text in below RFCs, what is the real problem? Are
there any protocols that specifically rely on this definition of an IPv6
address?
[RB] We don't know if there are any protocols that rely on this definition of
the IPv6 address. And if we don't update RFC 4291 before violating it, we don't
know if anybody might write such an application in the future.
Ron
cheers,
Eduard
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
