Robert,
In that is what you mean, you might want to do one of the following:
* Remove the sentence entirely
* Remove the ambiguity. One could interpret the sentence as an artifact of
older draft versions in which it was OK for two SRH's to follow a single IPv6
header.
Ron
From: Robert Raszuk <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2019 2:42 PM
To: Ron Bonica <[email protected]>
Cc: SPRING WG List <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [spring] draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-04: Section 2
Hi Ron,
Packet may have many headers. Each header may contain an SRH. So if you look at
entire packet there can be multiple SRH instances there.
:)
Thx,
R.
On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 8:27 PM Ron Bonica
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
wrote:
Authors,
In Section 2 of draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-04, you say:
"SRH: Segment Routing Header as defined in
[I-D.ietf-6man-segment-routing-header]. We assume that the SRH may be present
multiple times inside each packet."
Did you mean to remove the final sentence?
Ron
Juniper Business Use Only
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring__;!8WoA6RjC81c!QMoHREC3wNJ2SvZyoTeYLe0kM1GCQ0nFZIR6j3PqB1hZ_CwbLztSCPdNI9Paq3ya$>
Juniper Business Use Only
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
