Re: [spring] Is srv6 PSP a good idea

Fernando Gont <> Wed, 26 February 2020 20:41 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BF343A13FD; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 12:41:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ggTOt82m-T5e; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 12:41:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C85653A13FB; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 12:41:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] (unknown []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B8FCC803F0; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 21:40:56 +0100 (CET)
Subject: Re: [spring] Is srv6 PSP a good idea
To: "john" <>, Robert Raszuk <>, Sander Steffann <>
Cc:, 6man WG <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
From: Fernando Gont <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2020 17:40:27 -0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2020 20:41:06 -0000

On 26/2/20 17:22, john wrote:
> I would suggest that people read RFC 7282 - "On Consensus and Humming in the IETF"...
> My question is: How do you reach Consensus when the complaint is about how many milliseconds it takes to shoot down a proposal?

This document proposes a *major* change to IPv6. This group has been way 
overly conservative even for very minor modifications to the IPv6 specs, 
well within 6man charter.

Given that, I would have expected that a long time ago, a long queue of 
folks (including the relevant AD) had made it crystal clear that this is 
an update to RFC8200, and given the depth of the change, outside of the 
charter of 6man.

It is in a way unbelievable the amount of energy we spend on polishing 
maintenance updates to IPv6, but then fail to even recognize that what's 
being proposes by this document is a major update to IPv6, out of the 
scope of 6man (which stands for "IPv6 maintenance", and not for "IPv6 
major surgery").

The amount of nonsense we have had to deal with, including this proposal 
not violating RFC8200, this proposal being something else other than 
IPv6, etc., has also been pointed out by others.

> Is this about the proposal or the vendor involved?

It is about the proposal, indeed. I have sent dozens of emails 
expressing technical concerns for this proposal. And the only reference 
to "vendors" has been about the conjecture regarding why it has been 
acceptable for us being fooled around.

Full disclosure: You didn't ask, but I don't mind being very open about 
it: I don't work for any router vendor, or OS vendor, nor do I have any 
kind of ongoing, past, or future contract with any of them, or any other 
party involved in a competing technology.

I have technical concerns about the proposal (expressed ad nauseam), and 
also concerns about how this process has been going on.

Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492