Re: SRH insertion vs SRH insertion + encapsulation

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

On 9/9/19 22:37, Robert Raszuk wrote:
>  
> 
>     > 6man "is not chartered to develop major changes or additions
>     > to the IPv6 specifications." Of course it's a matter of judgment,
>     > but I agree that changing this is "major".
> 
>     I cannot think of many other changes that could be considered major as
>     this. It even changes the end-to-endness of IPv6.
> 
> 
> 
> Please observe that today packets are already transported encapsulated
> in L2VPN/VPWS transport within number of domains using IPv4 or MPLS. If
> such encapsulated packet in say IPv4 domain would "leaked" or "escape"
> outside the domain without proper decapsulation it would naturally die
> as no other AS would be able to neither route nor properly decapsulate
> them. 

I have no idea what's the connection between the text you quote, and the
response below.

I repeat: Allowing EH insertion seems a major addition/modification to
IPv6. 6man is not chartered to do so.

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: [e-mail]
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492