Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So I'm not concerned that srv6-srh-compression has any more fundamental
> impact than basic SRV6 or RFC8986. (However, this aspect of SRV6 was
> one of my primary motivations for RFC8799. What happens in SRV6 stays
> in SRV6.)
You said it better than I.
{Now, if a router wanted to announce it's SRV6-ness, and would it want to do
that in an RA, would it want to use the universal RA option to do so?}
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
