Good to hear. This doesn't address compatibility with 8200 and 4291
though, which seems to be the bit that's causing people concern.
Nick
Darren Dukes (ddukes) wrote on 12/10/2021 16:46:
Hi Nick, during review of RFC8986, section 3.2 was added. SID
allocation follows that.
Darren
On 2021-10-12, 10:40 AM, "Nick Hilliard" <n...@foobar.org> wrote:
Darren Dukes (ddukes) wrote on 12/10/2021 15:35:
> Given this, it is clear, the CSID flavors of the same SRv6 SIDs defined
> in RFC8986 are also IPv6 addresses.
Ok, this is good that we're all on the same page about SIDs being IPv6
addresses. This means that they and
draft-filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-compression need to comply with 8200
and 4291, and it looks to me like the draft does not.
Nick
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
