> it seems acceptable to block all packets with SRH And such statements you are making are exactly my point.
Just curious - Is there any other extension header type subject to being a good enough reason to drop packets at any transit node in IPv6 ? Thx, R. On Mon, Oct 10, 2022 at 3:53 PM Joel Halpern <jmh.dir...@joelhalpern.com> wrote: > Protection from leaking inwards is required by the RFCs as far as I know. > > Note that there are multiple ways to apply such protection. It is > sufficient for the domain only to block packets addressed to its own SID > prefixes. If the domain is using SRv6 without compression or reduction, it > seems acceptable to block all packets with SRH. After all, they should not > be occurring. But we do not tell operators how to perform the filtering. > It is up to them what they do. > > Yours, > > Joel > >
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
