As an individual contributor, I also support the WG adoption of this I-D. It is really important for IPv6 multi-homing without using eBGP and PI space.
Note that the BCP14 template is outdated and should be fixed. s/Conventionally, NAT or policy routing would be used/In the legacy IPv4 work, NAT or policy routing would be used/ There is no “NAT66” specified by the IETF Section 5.1.1. LLA addresses without scopes are meaningless 😉 -éric From: Acee Lindem <acee.i...@gmail.com> Date: Tuesday, 21 May 2024 at 17:45 To: Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen.i...@gmail.com> Cc: RTGWG <rtgwg@ietf.org>, rtgwg-chairs <rtgwg-cha...@ietf.org> Subject: Re: WG Adoption Call - draft-llsyang-rtgwg-dst-src-routing (05/20/24 - 06/02/24) I support working group adoption. This is currently supported in Free Range Routing (FRR) for IPv6 static routes. See https://docs.frrouting.org/en/latest/static.html Thanks, Acee On May 20, 2024, at 17:39, Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen.i...@gmail.com> wrote: Hi, This email begins a 2 week WG adoption poll for the following draft: draft-llsyang-rtgwg-dst-src-routing-02 - Destination/Source Routing (ietf.org)<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-llsyang-rtgwg-dst-src-routing/> There is currently no IPR disclosure of this draft. Authors, please respond to the list indicating whether you are aware of any IPR that applies to the draft. The draft was a WG document until it expired in 2019. The authors decided to revive the draft, and we're issuing this WG adoption call to make sure there are still enough interests and support for this document. Please review the document and indicate your support or objections by June 2nd, 2024. Thanks, Yingzhen _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list -- rtgwg@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to rtgwg-le...@ietf.org
_______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list -- rtgwg@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to rtgwg-le...@ietf.org
