Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH

Fernando Gont <> Fri, 22 May 2020 09:36 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 429D43A095F; Fri, 22 May 2020 02:36:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.307
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.307 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DATE_IN_PAST_03_06=1.592, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TBz6nUuguhCy; Fri, 22 May 2020 02:36:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8BCD13A0958; Fri, 22 May 2020 02:36:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2800:810:464:11f:f597:cad2:df35:f6c5] (unknown [IPv6:2800:810:464:11f:f597:cad2:df35:f6c5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B240128371F; Fri, 22 May 2020 09:36:39 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH
To: "Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)" <>, "Joel M. Halpern" <>
Cc: "" <>, "" <>, 6man <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Fernando Gont <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 22 May 2020 02:52:28 -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: Fri, 22 May 2020 09:36:47 -0000

On 22/5/20 02:20, Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) wrote:
> Hi Joel,
> I'll point you to RFC7855, RFC8355 and RFC8402 that cover both the data-planes for Spring. Then the RFC8354 which is focussed on SRv6. All this body of work along with a whole lot of discussion and brainstorming happening in the Spring WG provided the architecture, use-cases, applicability and requirements for SRH (RFC8754).
> It may be so that many people in 6man focussed on only the IPv6 specific aspects as is their design expertise. But there were others (in 6man, Spring and other WGs) that were able to look at the solution in a holistic manner thanks to the body of work behind it.
> Net-PGM builds on top of RFC8402 and RFC8754.
> To give a real world analogy, let us understand what kind of a car we are trying to build (to carry goods/passengers or both and how much/many, what terrain it is meant for, what weather/environment conditions, how much speed/performance/fuel efficiency parameters required, etc.) before we start designing tyres for it.

Continuing with your analogy, it would seem to me that in the process, 
Net-PGM decided to break the roads and ditch traffic rules so that their 
"new" vehicle could run faster, while ignoring that other folks and 
vehicles need those very same roads to be safe and reliable.

P.S.: Sorry, I couldn't help it.

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