On 2/3/20 20:21, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 03-Mar-20 09:02, Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril) wrote:
Brian,
The PSP pseudocode is presented as a modification to the End pseudocode
starting at line S14 of such.
Please go through the PSP pseudocode in conjunction with the End pseudocode
(Section 4.1).
You will see that the ingress state of the packet is (Segments Left == 1 and
Destination Address == the PSP node's address).
Exactly my point. With SL == 1, you are not at the ultimate destination, so according to what I'll
call "Fernando's reading" of RFC8200, you are not entitled to delete the header. That is
the point that IMHO needs to be stated explicitly in the draft. You are using "Darren's
reading" of RFC8200.
I really think you need to say so explicitly. Something like:
Note: this behavior does not contravene section 4 of [RFC8200]
because the current destination address of the incoming packet
is the address of the node executing the PSP behavior.
A node that does PSP essentially processes the SR header twice. How is
that compliant with draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header itself?
--
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fg...@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
