Ridiculous .. any NOS coder, coding IPv6, would have awareness of 2460, why would you even go there .. seriously ?
The highlight was for: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header-26#page-4 - you should probl read it all. I think we've reach the limit of what the "IETF email" can offer for such debate. We should probably have a call or meet at 107. While reading the "longer explanation", don't forget to lookup the reply here: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/rtMom05r7_pLq1zN2lf16_B58mE/ dan On 2020-02-27, 5:11 PM, "spring on behalf of Fernando Gont" <spring-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of ferna...@gont.com.ar> wrote: On 27/2/20 18:11, Darren Dukes (ddukes) wrote: > Mark AH is not defined for SRH. There is no specification to ignore. Do you realize that you are using IPv6, and that AH is specified for IPv6? Is the AD watching? -- Seriously, this is going through a very curious and dangerous path. For the interested reader, a longer explanation of the issue: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/sbb95BqdPifuRb_NPc3aeiqBbfM/ Thanks, -- Fernando Gont e-mail: ferna...@gont.com.ar || fg...@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1 _______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ External Email: Please use caution when opening links and attachments / Courriel externe: Soyez prudent avec les liens et documents joints _______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
