Hello, Gyan, On 7/9/19 19:58, Gyan Mishra wrote: [...] > > I think when the SRv6 programming RFCs were written that violated the > 6man WG RFC 8200 with EH only being allowed by the source node to insert > EH and no other node when Spring WG decided to make this a requirement > for SRv6 functionality they should have asked for 6man WG consensus > approval and at that time RFC 8200 could have been updated to allow this > one exception for EH for SR insertion by and node along the path. > Unfortunately this was not done that way from the beginning and now we > are trying to fix what should have been fixed from the beginning.
The above is incorrect. EH insertion *was* discussed in 6man. And the text that explicitly banned EH insertion was added in response to the proponents of EH-insertion claiming that RFC2460 was ambiguous in this respect. We are not trying to fix anything. You cannot fix what's not broken. If anything, folks are asking for a (major) modification in IPv6 -- with the proposal failing to answer trivial questions such as "What problem are we trying to solve?" and "Why are not we solving the problem in standards-compliant ways?". Thanks, -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: [email protected] PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492 _______________________________________________ spring mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
