Hi Sander, Ok your use case is indeed original and valid. No encapsulation at all. Just plain end to end IPv6 header. Cool so far.
If so honestly for your use case I must observe that SRv6 with basic 128 bit SIDs is much easier to use. Any scheme which requires mapping really works well in a limited domain or at least over same control plane reach. How are you going to educate end hosts as those would presumably apply CRH on the CRH content to impose ? And how fast would that content get adjusted upon network changes ? > RFC8663 doesn't work between domains that are not directly connected. Oh it works just fine specifically over not directly connected domains. If you can exchange mapping via some control plane between non connected domains you will get next SID which you put in the DA of the packet. Last just FYI you are violating CRH assumptions already ... draft says: Is designed to operate within a network domain. You said: "I want a solution where the connectivity between the domains is plain IPv6 (e.g. the internet). " CRH draft does not assume the use between domains over Internet. I think such intended use case needs to be taken as consideration for the adoption too. Thx, R.
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
