Hi Suresh,
As you requested one of many quotes from the draft which your clarification
to 2460bis directly contradicts with:
This include either:
A host originating an IPv6 packet.
*An SR domain ingress router encapsulating a received IPv6 packet
into an outer IPv6 header followed by an SRH.*
Cheers,
R.
On Mar 31, 2017 10:32, "Suresh Krishnan"
<suresh(_dot_)krishnan(_at_)ericsson(_dot_)com>
wrote:
Hi Robert,
On Mar 31, 2017, at 9:11 AM, Robert Raszuk <robert(_at_)raszuk(_dot_)net>
wrote:
I do not understand how 2460bis makes it "easier" if proposed change to
the text directly tries to prohibit what is described in a document already
long time back accepted as a 6man working group draft.
First of all, adopting something as a working group document only means
that it is a starting point. Adoption of a document does not mean that
there is WG agrees with all the text in the document. That is why the
document goes under WG change control.
Secondly, I have no idea what you are talking about in this specific case.
What work in
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header-06
do you think is prohibited by this text? Can please provide a text quote
from the draft?
Thanks
Suresh