Hello, 1. In secction 3, you mentioned "While looking at the transit nodes it becomes apparent that these addresses are used purely for routing and not for packet delivery to end hosts. " My understanding is that "routing" and "packet delivery to end hosts" are not mutually exclusive , so I propose the sentence should be changed to "While looking at the transit nodes it becomes apparent that these addresses are used for routing prior to deliverying the packet to end host."
2. Section 6 asks IANA to allocate /16 address block for the purposes described in Section 5. Is this just for security control at the border of the domain to avoid the leakage of SRv6 information? Best regards Chongfeng xie...@chinatelecom.cn From: Suresh Krishnan Date: 2022-10-03 10:34 To: Joel Halpern CC: Fred Baker; Chongfeng Xie; IPv6 List; spring Subject: Re: [spring] 6MAN WGLC: draft-ietf-6man-sids Hi Joel, Thanks for clarifying. On Oct 1, 2022, at 12:20 AM, Joel Halpern <j...@joelhalpern.com> wrote: Hmmm. I read "signal" in the draft as "indicate". That is, for example, if there is an address range defined to be reserved for SIDs then that range appearing in the destination address is the "signal". Yes. This was exactly the intent. Fred/Chongfeng, please let me know if there are any text changes I can make to remove any potential ambiguity. Regards Suresh
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
