Re: [spring] Is srv6 PSP a good idea

Sander Steffann <> Wed, 26 February 2020 13:49 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F0A13A02BE; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 05:49:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.1
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YPYM3BV8vSlc; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 05:49:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9D57D3A00D9; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 05:49:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 360384D; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 14:48:53 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;; h= x-mailer:references:message-id:content-transfer-encoding:date :date:in-reply-to:from:from:subject:subject:mime-version :content-type:content-type:received:received; s=mail; t= 1582724931; bh=LBK0FY5uAn0fLR7dZ5QNaCfF85kEBpIKLcl/3+GLMC0=; b=R qK1dE150YohI0RJdQp+JMMHol0VfWugeHwGSTrM9P0xHasIpwfAW7hKMDoa9QDod 7K8yQqH+tunUHPcXK9YrBTTfdCEcPvXBAuZfGAeAex/UW7qQEsR+j0WM3d3F/qnO YqpjKLsm3rWrbF9VBPBA2uEhLJm1VOJ8Cy2T/jED+I=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id Rd-5Gt-YGOc7; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 14:48:51 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:9e0:4:12:a9e3:64e4:1d33:28d8] (unknown [IPv6:2001:9e0:4:12:a9e3:64e4:1d33:28d8]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2DE014B; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 14:48:51 +0100 (CET)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.0 \(3608.\))
Subject: Re: [spring] Is srv6 PSP a good idea
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
From: Sander Steffann <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2020 14:48:50 +0100
Cc: "" <>, 6man WG <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
To: Robert Raszuk <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.
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 13:49:17 -0000

Hi Robert,

> Regardless if folks agree or not with that SRv6 is a new data plane. SRv6 != IPv6 that's obvious. 
> It also does not attempt to *extend* IPv6. It reuses some IPv6 elements and makes sure non SRv6 nodes can treat the packets as vanilla IPv6, but that's it. With that in mind all of this going back and forth between SPRING and 6MAN to me is triggered by wrong positioning of SRv6 as a new transport. 

This is completely bogus. SRv6 is not a new L3 protocol that just happens to be compatible with IPv6. That is insane BS.

> Sure if SRv6 would be extending IPv6 then updates to RFC8200 would be needed - but here RFC8200 should at best be informative reference. I am not even sure why SRH needs to be 6MAN RFC. IETF is designed to build and improve prior art not be locked by it. 

Because you are building SRv6 on IPv6, plain and simple.