Re: Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

Nick Hilliard <> Thu, 27 February 2020 13:55 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 876B93A0913; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 05:55:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id riyXTNdyh-4v; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 05:55:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a03:8900:0:100::5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E49493A0912; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 05:55:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cupcake.local ( [] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id 01RDtXJq088698 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 27 Feb 2020 13:55:33 GMT (envelope-from
X-Authentication-Warning: Host [] (may be forged) claimed to be cupcake.local
Subject: Re: Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming
To: Andrew Alston <>
Cc: "'SPRING WG List'" <>, "" <>
References: <> <>
From: Nick Hilliard <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2020 13:55:31 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 PostboxApp/7.0.11
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-GB
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
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: Thu, 27 Feb 2020 13:55:39 -0000

Andrew Alston wrote on 27/02/2020 10:35:
>  1. The burn of address space required to adequately deploy some of this
>     (something that there was agreement on in Montreal that there would
>     be analysis on – which was never done)

I'm a bit alarmed by the lack of engagement here between the authors of 
this draft and the RIR community about addressing. This draft has the 
capacity to require significant changes to address allocation / 
assignment policy, but so far there's been no discussion about how this 
might work within current or future RIR allocation / assignment 
policies, or indeed upstream at IANA.  Could the authors provide some 
information on how they intend to approach this issue?