+1 Sander. Furthermore - if indeed that is the contention - then - I suggest you move the whole thing out of SPRING - I quote from the SPRING charter:
The Source Packet Routing in NetworkinG (SPRING) Working Group is the home of Segment Routing (SR) using MPLS (SR-MPLS) and IPv6 (SRv6). Relevant portion in bold. You can claim that SRv6 is a new routing header - you cannot claim that it is not part of IPv6 - the IPv6 base header is maintained - you are adding a routing header - done/done - no point even entertaining this line of thought any further Andrew From: spring <spring-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Sander Steffann Sent: Wednesday, 26 February 2020 16:49 To: Robert Raszuk <rob...@raszuk.net> Cc: spring@ietf.org; 6man WG <i...@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [spring] Is srv6 PSP a good idea Hi Robert, > Regardless if folks agree or not with that SRv6 is a new data plane. SRv6 != > IPv6 that's obvious. > > It also does not attempt to *extend* IPv6. It reuses some IPv6 elements and > makes sure non SRv6 nodes can treat the packets as vanilla IPv6, but that's > it. With that in mind all of this going back and forth between SPRING and > 6MAN to me is triggered by wrong positioning of SRv6 as a new transport. This is completely bogus. SRv6 is not a new L3 protocol that just happens to be compatible with IPv6. That is insane BS. > Sure if SRv6 would be extending IPv6 then updates to RFC8200 would be needed > - but here RFC8200 should at best be informative reference. I am not even > sure why SRH needs to be 6MAN RFC. IETF is designed to build and improve > prior art not be locked by it. Because you are building SRv6 on IPv6, plain and simple. Cheers, Sander _______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring>
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
