On 25-Oct-21 09:23, Eliot Lear wrote:
On 24.10.21 21:59, Nick Hilliard wrote:
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.
Of course there is. You cannot distinguish routing from host without
looking at external control channels, such as a routing or configuration
protocol; and you certainly cannot determine the subnet mask of a
network without that external information, since it's not in the
packet. And it's not even in the control plane if the route has been
aggregated. Does that make the information "ambiguous"? The
point is
that the subnet mask of a network is part of a context that you
discussed, and you might not have it.
Note- I am not taking a position about CSIDs, but I think this line of
argument is on the wrong track.
My assumption has been that within the SRv6 domain, some routing protocol
will be in use (e.g. OSPF) and that (by some magic that I don't understand)
it will be announcing the subnets currently in use, so that bog-standard
routing will occur, including the final hop, because "hosts" supporting
SRv6 will have to function as routers for the final hop. After all, SRv6
is an overlay, a form of VRF.
Quite what the magic is that configures OSPF accordingly, I do not know.
Regards
Brian
Thinking of the IETF standards process: https://xkcd.com/2530/
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
