On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 10:04 AM Robert Raszuk <rob...@raszuk.net> wrote: > > Hi Tom, > > I don't think so, but I admit I may not be aware of some interesting use > cases ....
Robert, Based on previous discussions, my understanding is that there was some intent to allow this. Maybe it should be a clear MUST NOT in the draft to resolve the issue. Tom > > Many thx, > R. > > > On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 5:57 PM Tom Herbert <t...@herbertland.com> wrote: >> >> On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 9:40 AM Robert Raszuk <rob...@raszuk.net> wrote: >> > >> > >> > Actually looking at this from the perspective where SRH may be omitted I >> > see in the subject draft this clearly stated: >> > >> > A source node steers a packet into an SR Policy. If the SR Policy results >> > in a Segment List containing a single segment, and there is no need to add >> > information to the SRH flag or add TLV; the DA is set to the single >> > Segment List entry, and the SRH MAY be omitted.¶ >> > >> > >> > That to me indicated that host computed checksum will be correct all along >> > the transit nodes. So no issue either here. >> > >> > Could someone illustrate with a drawing of packet's traversing the network >> > their assumed header format and forseen issues ? >> >> Robert, >> >> Are there any cases in segment routing where the Destination Address >> is changed in flight and a routing header is not present in the >> packet? >> >> Tom >> >> > >> > Thx, >> > R, >> > _______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
