Hi, > 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.
No, that is not what I said. Please stop twisting my words. I want to steer a packet without needing to encapsulate it. Why is that so hard to understand? SRH does that using IPv6 addresses, CRH does that using shorter identifiers. Both have their use cases. I'm not just talking about SRv6 and SRm6. I'm talking about CRH as a building block that can be used by many future protocols. > 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. Your arguments don't make any sense... Sander _______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
