Hi Robert, > There can be a lot of acronymous or names invented but under the hood it 16, > 32 or 20 bit opaque bit string in both CRH and SR-MPLS which is mapped to a > rewrite string. No more no less.
So far so good > And rfc8663 precisely automated such rewrite to UDP encapsulation. And this is an important difference: some of us don't want encapsulation/tunneling, we want something that can be part of a non-encapsulated packet. There are use-cases where CRH used with encapsulating is the best solution, and there are cases where the packet itself can be steered without encapsulation. CRH allows both, and therefore covers more possible use-cases than RFC8663. This makes CRH a building block that some of us desire. Cheers, Sander
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
