On Thu, 12 Nov 2020 18:49:17 -0700 David Ahern wrote: > On 11/12/20 6:28 PM, Andrea Mayer wrote: > > The implementation of SRv6 End.DT4 differs from the the implementation of > > SRv6 > > End.DT6 due to the different *route input* lookup functions. For IPv6 is it > > possible to force the routing lookup specifying a routing table through the > > ip6_pol_route() function (as it is done in the seg6_lookup_any_nexthop()). > > It is unfortunate that the IPv6 variant got in without the VRF piece.
Should we make it a requirement for this series to also extend the v6 version to support the preferred VRF-based operation? Given VRF is better and we require v4 features to be implemented for v6?
