Hi Ketan, KT> Since these "group of folks" don't care about SRv6/CSID, they wouldn't > be deploying it and therefore aren't SRv6 operators? Therefore, there is > nothing to demux for these "group of folks" in their networks (for at least > those amongst them that are operators) since they won't have SRv6 in their > limited domains. SRv6 operators are already doing this demux using the > recommendation of RFC8754/8986 (SRv6 SID block) in their deployments - that > said, we may be digressing from the main topic of this thread. >
This is actually getting interesting here. If end hosts start to talk native SRv6 (no SRH no encap) there is literally no way to distinguish SRv6 from IPv6. So here goes all of great stories about limited domains :) I think those SRv6 agnostic operators may one day try to debug IPv6 issues. And perhaps will see lot's of checksum errors. Yes sure they can see those errors for various reasons but those reasons are encoded explicitly in the packets. SRv6OPS will be a fun group for sure :) For now from my perspective what Francois has added as section 9.3 acknowledges the issue so I am good. Cheers, Robert
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
