Alexander Vainshtein wrote on 28/03/2024 15:03:
Alvaro and all,
Regarding the proposal for using a dedicated Ethertype for SRv6:
Please note that RFC explicitly “introduces two data-plane
instantiations of SR: SR over MPLS (SR-MPLS) and SR over IPv6 (SRv6)”
and defines SRv6 as the instantiation of SR on the IPv6 data plane.
From my POV using a dedicated Ethertype for SRv6 would directly
contradict these definitions.
Sasha,
If srv6 is going to demand non backwards-compatible changes to the ipv6
protocol, then it's no longer the ipv6 data plane. What this means in
practice is that it's the requirement for these changes that contradicts
the definitions in rfc8204, rather than the suggestion to use a
different ethertype.
Nick
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
