Nick & Sander,
Just for my own understanding here.
A) Are you asking to add new TLV to IPv6 SRH say called "C-SID Length"
(and make SRH mandatory if used with C-SIDs) which would define the C-SID
length ?
or
B) Are you asking to define a completely new data plane for IP networks ?
By new data plane I mean either the format of IP header in the packets.
or
C) What else are you suggesting ?
- -
If this is (A) I think it could be considered. SRH already supports TLVs.
That way even wireshark could read and parse C-SIDs correctly (if this is
of any value when detached from rest of control plane).
Thx,
Robert.
On Sun, Oct 24, 2021 at 8:33 AM Sander Steffann <san...@steffann.nl> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > On this basis, I'm objecting to the adoption of
> draft-filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-compression as a WG draft, and
> respectfully suggest that the spring wg does not adopt any draft in future
> which allows for different C-SID lengths but doesn't encode C-SIDs as
> {length,value} tuples.
>
> I support this argument, so +1 to the objection.
>
> Cheers,
> Sander
>
> _______________________________________________
> spring mailing list
> spring@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
>
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
