Cheng,
I have no problem with changing the name. SR-MPLS over IPv6 may not be
appropriate, because MPLS is not part of the solution.
Something like SR-extensible-6 or SR-compressed-6 might work.
Ron
Juniper Business Use Only
Oh, I misunderstood the BSID in CRH in last email, sorry for that.
Yes, the SID is not an IPv6 address in CRH, but a 16/32 bit value like MPLS
label.
Therefore, IMHO, it may not comply with RFC8402:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8402#section-3.1.3
If possible, I suggest to change the name of
Hi Ketan,
Thanks for the complete answer. And sorry for my delay in responding.
More inline [Bruno]
From: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) [mailto:ket...@cisco.com]
Sent: Friday, August 2, 2019 4:37 AM
To: DECRAENE Bruno TGI/OLN; SPRING WG List
Cc: idr wg
Subject: RE:
Cheng,
In SRv6+, it would be very difficult to pollute the architecture because:
* A SID is either 16-or 32-bits long
* An IPv6 address is 128-bits long
* Therefore, it is impossible to copy a SID to an IPv6 address or an IPv6
address to a SID
The binding SID will be a 16-or 32-bit
On Sun, 22 Sep 2019 at 23:52, Robert Raszuk wrote:
>
> Hey Mark,
>
>
>>
>> The entire use of the word "insertion" is incorrect if the ID is now only
>> proposing encapsulation/tunnelling to carry transit traffic across the SR
>> domain.
>
>
> That is not what the discussed draft says. The draft
