Hi, > How this relates to NETPGM > - SRv6 SIDs are IPv6 addresses. > - SRv6 SIDs are not necessarily interface addresses.
This will need some work, because according to https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4291#section-2.1: "IPv6 addresses of all types are assigned to interfaces, not nodes.". I think at least defining a pseudo-interface (like a loopback) is required to comply with RFC 4291. Speaking as an operator: this would also make SRv6 SIDs easier to understand conceptually. It would also make it easier to debug because the SID would be a "normal" IPv6 address on an interface, not something that isn't visible in the RIB/FIB but is still handled in the local router. Having a RIB/FIB entry and an interface (if only a pseudo one) would make existing debugging practices easier to apply. If NETPGM deviates from RFC 4291 I think that needs to be strongly justified. Not deviating from existing standards should be the default :) Cheers, Sander
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
