Re: IETF Last Call conclusion for draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis-08

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



The issue is the encap/decap pair - like an old circuit model.

Do we add the encap/decap function into a Domain doing native SRv6 and the complexity of choosing which to use - into all the vm's?  Or do we extend the new SRv6 domain to the legacy infrastructure.   If we do this, there is no tunnel.  There is no encap/decap pair - you need to proxy for the legacy gear/services.

John

> On Mar 30, 2017, at 4:38 AM, Mark Townsley <mark@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On Mar 30, 2017, at 12:09 AM, Tim Chown <tjc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> 
>> Understood, but why do you require direct insertion rather than using encap as per 2460bis?
> 
> The same reason we have MAP-T and 464xlat. 
> 
> - Mark
> 
>> 
>> Tim
>> 
>>> 
>>> John Leddy
>>> Comcast
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 





[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]