Tom: Hi!
I understand your point. I put the option out there because it came up at last week’s spring meeting and it should be discussed. Thanks! Alvaro. On March 25, 2024 at 2:58:48 PM, Tom Herbert (t...@herbertland.com) wrote: On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 11:17 AM Alvaro Retana <aretana.i...@gmail.com> wrote: > > FWIW, I agree with most of what Joel wrote. ;-) > > I see another path forward: Given that the issue is constrained to an SR domain, the draft could also point out the issues as operational/deployment considerations. Operators can then make an informed decision on whether they want to/can use C-SIDs without an SRH in their network. This path forward (or leaving it out of scope, as Joel suggests below) is something the spring WG can reach consensus on by itself (i.e., without needing to consult or agree with other WGs). Alvaro,. This wouldn't be robust and would seem to violate the "be conservative in what you send clause". Punting this to the operators doesn't seem practical either, in an even moderately large network they wouldn't be able to know all the potential problems they might hit in devices. They're about one misconfiguration away from having to debug a rather unpleasant problem. For instance, if operator gets a packet trace from a router they would see a whole bunch of packets with bad checksums, but they would have no way of knowing if these were cases of segment routing or actually corrupted packets. Tom
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
