<in reply to conversations on this thread>
This is an interesting conversation but I would like to restate something I
mentioned early on. I'll try to say it differently this time.
1 - The CSID draft (draft-filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-compression-02) does
NOT alter the definition of an SRv6 SID as defined in RFC8754 and RFC8986.
2 - The CSID draft does define flavors of the END and END.X SIDs with arguments.
3 - We know SRv6 SIDs with arguments are defined in RFC8986 (eg section 4.12).
4 - We know SRv6 SIDs are IPv6 addresses (RFC8402, RFC8754 and RFC8986).
Given this, it is clear, the CSID flavors of the same SRv6 SIDs defined in
RFC8986 are also IPv6 addresses.
While it is interesting to rehash the discussion we had while working on
RFC8754 and RFC8986 regarding SRv6 SIDs as IPv6 addresses, let's acknowledge it
is orthogonal to SPRINGs adoption poll and subsequent work on
draft-filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-compression-02.
Sincerely,
Darren
On 2021-10-01, 4:37 PM, "spring" <spring-boun...@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
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
