On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 4:53 PM Fred Baker <fredbaker.i...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 17, 2019, at 5:30 AM, Lizhenbin <lizhen...@huawei.com> wrote:
> >
> > In the past two years, China pushed the IPv6 deployment and almost all the 
> > IP networks of operators achieve the goal "IPv6 Ready". This provide a 
> > strong base for SRv6 deployments which can help operators provide new 
> > services based on IPv6 infrastructure.
>
> With respect, I would suggest that before we push for SRv6 deployment, we 
> develop and SRv6 use case that IPv6 doesn't support. My perception is that 
> SRv6 is a solution looking for a problem.

A related question can be asked. Section 9 of
draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header-25 shows that SRH TLVs and SRH
HMAC have not been implemented, except for HMAC in Linux which
probably doesn't conform to the latest draft. Given there's no
implementation, then it's logical to assume there's no deployment of
these and none of deployment in
draft-matsushima-spring-srv6-deployment-status-02 use these (that
draft does not even mention TLVs) . Nevertheless, TLVs and HMAC are a
major part of SRH and 6man has exerted quite a bit of effort working
on these.

What is the use case for SR TLVs and HMAC? Why are these use cases not
already supported in IPv6 by HBH options, Destination options, or
Authentication Header?

Tom

> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> i...@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring

Reply via email to