Re: [spring] Is srv6 PSP a good idea

Fernando Gont <> Wed, 26 February 2020 21:26 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 969053A05A0; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 13:26:27 -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 ztJkNyp4myR3; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 13:26:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6795C3A058F; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 13:26:26 -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 5530D80367; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 22:26:23 +0100 (CET)
Subject: Re: [spring] Is srv6 PSP a good idea
To: Sander Steffann <>, "john" <>
Cc: Robert Raszuk <>,, 6man WG <>
References: <> <>
From: Fernando Gont <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2020 18:26:02 -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: 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: Wed, 26 Feb 2020 21:26:28 -0000

On 26/2/20 18:20, Sander Steffann wrote:
> Hi John,
>> ´╗┐So you are saying that other than the PSP issue, you support moving the document forward?
> Yes. As long as it doesn't violate existing RFCs and with that potentially causes trouble for implementations that expect those RFCs to be followed I'm fine with it. It's not something I would deploy, but I'm not going to stand in the way of those who want it if it's not going to hurt others.

Indeed, that's the underlying principle: don't violate existing specs, 
and if you mean to, propose a formal update of RFC8200.

(I don't remember of the top of my head if PSP was the only part of the 
document violating RFC8200, hence my general comment).

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