I object adoption of this document as well based on copious amount of technical counter arguments laid out in multiple threads. Beside that it seems that to violate IETF v6 architecture documents we seem to be trampling on established standards more and more using increasingly contorted sophisms (yes, you can hijack any address architecture if you _assume_ that only /4 will be routing table entries & the rest belongs to your new interpretation of address being a chipmunk that by magic means will never ever escape a private basement until it does).
Beside that as others already pointed out copiously the document content does not even seem to actually match WG consensus as recorded to my understanding --- tony On Fri, Oct 1, 2021 at 10:37 PM Ron Bonica <rbonica= 40juniper....@dmarc.ietf.org> 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 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- >
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
