There appear to be two separate issues, only one of which affects this
document.
The issue that affects this document is that the SRH document explicitly
requires that domains using SRH filter it at ingress and egress edges.
That is what is relevant for the document at hand. And while some folks
have envisioned use cases that violate that, the RFC is clear that it is
prohibited. (My reading is that this also applies to SRv6 in general,
even when compressed SIDs with no SRH are used.)
The question of whether, in doing enforcing that requirement a domain
may filter more packets that should not be received is about how the
operator chooses to enforce the requirement. We are not specifying how
the operator does the enforcement.
The question of what transit domains are permitted to do is one that
reasonable people appear to be able to differ on. But it is not a
relevant question for this draft.
Yours,
Joel
On 10/10/2022 10:31 AM, Ole Troan wrote:
Joel,
On 10 Oct 2022, at 15:36, Joel Halpern <j...@joelhalpern.com> wrote:
Eric, you seem to be objecting to something I did not say. I have not asked,
and do not expect, for the document to mandate or even suggest that arbitrary
domains should drop packets with SRH. I will note that given that SRH is
explicitly for limited domains, an operator who chooses to drop such packets is
well within his rights. And I am told there are such operators. But that is
not what I asked for this document.
No, that would violate rfc8200.
O.
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
