All switches within the limited domain also need to be upgraded (as Brian
noted) since they would drop frames received with the new ethertype by
default..
Now, the only normative statement I find in the draft is:
6.2. Transit and egress routers
A router configured to process TD-SRv6 MUST dro
+1 Joel
AFAIS it's same effort to upgrade something to process SRH or to process
new ethertype properly. And in a sense upgrade to something that drops
ether type SRv6 if it's not supposed to be processed is no upgrade today,
routers as per today will pretty much do it automatically creating a TD
First, I would say that it39s much worthwhile to seriously evaluate the
security risk associated with SRv6 although it looks pretty cool to some fans:)
Second, besides the proposal of allocating a new Ethertype for SRv6, how about
adopting the underlay/overlay network model to reduce the attac
On 30-Mar-23 21:00, Tony Przygienda wrote:
+1 Joel
AFAIS it's same effort to upgrade something to process SRH or to process new ethertype
properly. And in a sense upgrade to something that drops ether type SRv6 if it's not
supposed to be processed is no upgrade today, routers as per today will
As presented at the meeting:
Orange Restricted
-Original Message-
From: IETF Secretariat
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2023 7:28 AM
To: aretana.i...@gmail.com; iesg-secret...@ietf.org;
james.n.guich...@futurewei.com; pengshup...@huawei.com; spring-cha...@ietf.org
Subject: Personnel change f
