Eliot Lear wrote on 24/10/2021 18:17:
On 24.10.21 17:36, Nick Hilliard wrote:
The issue is a good deal deeper than just debugging. As long as
there's an option to specify a variable length parameter without being
able to specify the length in the protocol, then the protocol is
fundamentally ambiguous and its interpretation is entirely context
dependent.
You mean, like a subnet mask?
There's no direct analog here. Subnet masks have both local and global
significance, which is why we use a combination of EGPs and IGPs. The
critical thing is that all these routing protocols encode subnet masks
and the protocol signaling ensures that there's no ambiguity. This
doesn't appear to be the case in the SRH compression draft.
As you mention it, I'd love to see the head-scratching that would ensue
if someone proposed a new routing protocol which didn't encode the
subnet mask :-)
Nick
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
