Brian,
I'm glad you brought this up, because I certainly have been thinking it.
Ron
Juniper Business Use Only
-----Original Message-----
From: Brian E Carpenter <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2020 7:11 PM
To: Robert Raszuk <[email protected]>; Zafar Ali (zali) <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>; Ron
Bonica <[email protected]>; [email protected]; 6man <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Limited domains ...
[External Email. Be cautious of content]
On 28-May-20 10:39, Robert Raszuk wrote:
....
> Maybe we should just drop right here this "limited domain" restriction/scope
> for any solution being discussed here ?
In that case we should definitely never have adopted
draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header, whose first reference is RFC8402, which
is very explicitly a description of a limited doman model:
"Segment Routing domain (SR domain): the set of nodes participating in
the source-based routing model... It is expected that all
nodes in an SR domain are managed by the same administrative entity."
The CRH draft says essentially the same:
" o Is designed to operate within a network domain."
Brian
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
