Sander,
On 26/05/2020, 21:17, "Sander Steffann" <san...@steffann.nl> wrote:
Hi Wim,
> WH> We are either all encapsulating or not, but in essence the point is
that the difference is you put the sids in the extension header versus next
header. Lets leave it like this. All in all what I am saying is RFC8663 allows
you to do what you intend with CRH.
No, I can't. You're not reading what i wrote. I want packet steering
without encapsulation: a plain IPv6 pakket with a RH and plain UDP, TCP etc in
the payload.
Please stop telling me that RFC8663 is the answer, because it's not.
WH> what you are saying I only want a CRH solution and you are not open to
anything else, because the SIDs are not in the right place. So there is no
point in further discussions. My position remains that RFC8663 is a valid
alternative and is available; I am against WG adoption of CRH.
Sander
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
