Tony,
*(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).* Let's try again ... as it seems this keeps coming back over and over again. Assume I got allocated /4 from RIR and I have allocated /10 blocks to my global sites connected over plain IPv6 Internet. I advertise those /10s via BGP. What technical harm will happen to anyone if I use bits 11-128 as it seems to fit and still send those packets via v6 Internet ? No basement, but public Internet. Last time I checked bits are bits and there is either 0 or 1 in the packets (at least till we get to quantum networking). It should be in no one's business in the transit to look anywhere beyond /10. Again please limit the answer to technical issues which this will cause. Kind regards, Robert On Sat, Oct 9, 2021 at 5:50 PM Tony Przygienda <tonysi...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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
