Hi Sander, such things as ‘pseudo interfaces’ are local behavior, they're implementation specific.
Darren > On Mar 16, 2020, at 1:39 PM, Sander Steffann <san...@steffann.nl> wrote: > > 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 > _______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
