Nick & Sander, Just for my own understanding here.
A) Are you asking to add new TLV to IPv6 SRH say called "C-SID Length" (and make SRH mandatory if used with C-SIDs) which would define the C-SID length ? or B) Are you asking to define a completely new data plane for IP networks ? By new data plane I mean either the format of IP header in the packets. or C) What else are you suggesting ? - - If this is (A) I think it could be considered. SRH already supports TLVs. That way even wireshark could read and parse C-SIDs correctly (if this is of any value when detached from rest of control plane). Thx, Robert. On Sun, Oct 24, 2021 at 8:33 AM Sander Steffann <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > > On this basis, I'm objecting to the adoption of > draft-filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-compression as a WG draft, and > respectfully suggest that the spring wg does not adopt any draft in future > which allows for different C-SID lengths but doesn't encode C-SIDs as > {length,value} tuples. > > I support this argument, so +1 to the objection. > > Cheers, > Sander > > _______________________________________________ > spring mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring >
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
