On Wed, 18 Mar 2020, 03:39 Darren Dukes (ddukes), <ddukes= 40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> Hi Sander, such things as ‘pseudo interfaces’ are local behavior, they're > implementation specific. > Given the protocol lawyering SPRING have been playing with RFC 8200, that's never going through to fly when RFC 4291 says: IPv6 addresses of all types are assigned to interfaces, not nodes Regards, Mark. > 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 >
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
