Hi, > 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 ?
Yes, that would be a step in the right direction. > 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. With the stuff being stacked on top of the basic SRv6 spec it’s definitely starting to look like one :) But I also see the benefit of using the existing IPv6 data plane when doing SR between administrative domains. That does require better interop facilities than the current drafts provide though. > 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). The tool used doesn’t matter. What matters that an engineer can understand and decode what’s going on on the wire when stuff breaks. And that the headers contain enough information to use for interop between multiple admin domains for example. Cheers, Sander _______________________________________________ spring mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
