On 14/02/2017 03:34, Stefano Previdi (sprevidi) wrote: > >> On Feb 13, 2017, at 3:20 PM, Veerendranatha Reddy Vallem >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Using ULA for Adj segment/special segment is good option. > > > absolutely, ULA make sense in many use cases are fully supported in the > segment routing architecture.
That was my assumption. I'm very sensitive to the terminology trap, however, since I discovered the hard way that the Python ipaddress module thinks that ULAs are non-global. This confusion may exist in other programming environments too. (Also see draft-bchv-rfc6890bis.) Brian > >> We can generate these addresses automatically and assign for adjacent >> neighbors. > > sure. > > > > s. > > >> >> Thanks and Regards, >> Veerendranath >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: 11 February 2017 01:33 >> To: Stefano Previdi (sprevidi) <[email protected]>; Veerendranatha Reddy >> Vallem <[email protected]> >> Cc: [email protected]; >> [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [IPv6 SR] Regarding 128 bits IPv6 address in Segment List of SRH >> >> On 10/02/2017 22:31, Stefano Previdi (sprevidi) wrote: >> ... >>> In the IPv6 dataplane a SID being an IPv6 address, it makes the SID a >>> global IPv6 address (even in the case of Adj-SIDs). This of course is >>> orthogonal to the control plane that may or may not advertise such address. >> >> By the way, be careful with the phrase "global IPv6 address". I think you >> mean "global scope" (which includes ULA), not "globally reachable" (which >> excludes ULA). >> >> Brian > > _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
