Hi Brian, Indeed it is a typo. We will correct it in the next revision of the draft.
Thanks! Pablo From: Brian O'Connor <[email protected]> Date: Friday, 12 April 2019 at 12:39 To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: Mail regarding draft-filsfils-spring-srv6-network-programming Resent-From: <[email protected]> Resent-To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]> Resent-Date: Friday, 12 April 2019 at 12:38 5.1. T: Transit behavior As per [RFC8200], if a node N receives a packet (A, S2)(S3, S2, S1; SL=2) and S2 is neither a local address nor a local SID of N then N forwards the packet without inspecting the SRH. This means that N treats the following two packets with the same performance: - (A, S2) - (A, S2)(S3, S2, S1; SL=2) A transit node does not need to count by default the amount of transit traffic with an SRH extension header. This accounting might be enabled as an optional behavior. A transit node MUST include the outer flow label in its ECMP load- balancing hash [RFC6437]. Hi authors, In this section (version 7), I believe that the two instances of SL should be 1, not 2. S2 is at index 1 in the segment list. Thanks, Brian _______________________________________________ spring mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
