> interestingly enough MPLS took the same approach Well not really. As you know, MPLS unicast and multicast have a new ethertype.
SRv6 folks were just too nice and thought to leverage 0x86DD. I think that was a mistake. I further think we should fix it. Cheers, R. On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 2:44 PM James Guichard < [email protected]> wrote: > Hi Sander, > > RFC8402 explicitly says in section 8 security considerations that "by > default, the explicit routing information MUST NOT be leaked through the > boundaries of the administered domain". The intent therefore seems clear > that "global internet" does not apply; interestingly enough MPLS took the > same approach and has been widely deployed for years. > > Respectfully, > > Jim > > -----Original Message----- > From: spring <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Sander Steffann > Sent: Friday, February 28, 2020 8:25 AM > To: Wang, Weibin (NSB - CN/Shanghai) <[email protected]> > Cc: SPRING WG List <[email protected]>; 6man WG <[email protected]>; Andrew > Alston <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [spring] RFC8200 update? > > Hi, > > > In the bearer of srv6 traffic, srv6 domain is only one part of the whole > packet journey. Because the srv6 domain is trusted by single operator, it > is no necessary for the outer IPv6 header (for performing SRH function) to > inherit all IPv6 extension headers specially designed for the initial > end-to-end IPv6 communication, for example, the AH is not must for outer > IPv6 header and its SRH. Therefore, the outer IPv6 processing of srv6 > traffic can appropriately relax the restrictions, that is to say, the outer > IPv6 encapsulation only inherits a part of IPv6 spec. > > No. It uses IPv6 and must therefore follow the rules of IPv6. What I > propose is to update IPv6 to make this possible, but you can't break the > rules in a standard without consensus that the rules can be changed. > > > For example, it is allowed to perform functions such as PSP within SRv6 > domain; Could we treat IPv6 headers function of internal and external > layers differently, after all, their purposes are different. > > Let's not use implicit definitions of "internal" and "external" layers. > They don't make sense in a global protocol (and despite your claims that > SRv6 is limited to a specific domain, it really isn't. It uses global IPv6 > addresses and can traverse the global internet). Let's define global rules > that apply to everybody instead, and standardise this behaviour. > > Cheers, > Sander > > _______________________________________________ > spring mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring >
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
