On 12/28/2017 12:14 PM, Robert Raszuk wrote:
Hi Eric,
A lot of your comments are an indication that you treat SID to be IPv6
address fully responsible for demux to proper VRF or CE. This was
never the intention.
Imagine egress PE having /64 loopback. Then you have remaining 64 bits
to put there a 20 bit VPN label (as we know it :) and even much more
then that. You can attach new arbitrary new functions to this single
"VPN SID".
And further notice that this has no bearing on SID being routable or
not. Only the first /64 bits of the dst address need to be routable in
order for forwarding packets to happen ... So by no means there should
be a case to have per vrf IPv6 address or per CE IPv6 address and make
it fully /128 routable.
I'm not sure what you mean by "fully /128 routable". If there is a
route for a /64 prefix, then a /128 that begins with that prefix is
routable.
I'm not sure what you mean by saying it is "not the intention for the
IPv6 address to be fully responsible for demux to proper VRF or CE". If
the IPv6 adress contains the "VPN label" in its low-order part, then the
IPv6 address is used for the demux. The VPN label is part of the IPv6
address, no?
I'm not sure which comments you consider to be invalid.
_______________________________________________
BESS mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
