> > With regard to RFC4291 I assume the main observation is that the SRv6 SID > structure does not match with the structure of RFC4291, in particular the > interface ID part. A small discussion on the other aspects of RFC4291 could > be added to further clarify this (as done for the subnet-router anycast > address). In theory, if the SRv6 SID would start with "000" the interface > ID would not even be a problem. > > > The actual block to be allocated will come from IANA but there are a whole > bunch of allocations in this space that are used for special purposes > already and the goal might be to make this prefix separate from the > existing used blocks. If you have a suggestion for a recommendation from > the WG, feel free to put one up. >
Looking at the IANA IPv6 Special-Purpose Address Registry, walking down from the top, and assuming we request a unicast /16, I think the next block might be fbff::/16. But I might be misreading things.
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
