Re: [spring] Is srv6 PSP a good idea

Mark Smith <> Wed, 26 February 2020 21:31 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FD243A07A3; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 13:31:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.598
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.598 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM=0.001, HK_RANDOM_FROM=0.999, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KpFxVSl19KaC; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 13:31:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::536]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9DA313A07E2; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 13:31:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id y30so272598pga.13; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 13:31:10 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=frgH0+DDZJPmNXccDSHTm8NfSULJqnS7P2Bf4iNtq1k=; b=Mq8jJg4Gu4VcTZ8Ty2ZgwRqmOIIBxo2nHU3LSLYS5G7N3ptqXnjxooAEatiesk5e5t YTuNxqTflQszRfmIbiKDsn0YSZ+fg8IYJJF8SK+IfLI27rIRAxB7jswfCltpVboBbBss 2xeoZ7cn5W/BoG8oDvdyYskmuuA/9cMO29QnOWlvl2J8ZSpgDJ6UgpF40LxnX/5BoSPz NgRLdFBuLS2idL4ftohpc/a7B+6g+t9yzAFJmmnhBTDd48klHOcrqDzJKTSqhaqku7mJ SuqjGiVrQnUiXZ0+WWRqKXP2ACTn+ZyIgqKZUasSM3AXUvtKGNRhww5EyubQGV184vAP p0vg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=frgH0+DDZJPmNXccDSHTm8NfSULJqnS7P2Bf4iNtq1k=; b=atS8i7zOJZEK+wPX/BSKyB2pyF3Agb7r+el454/0Pq97vsKhubUpd+Uf8T90IrLOwd EvP4ICzXWqLinJ80hokgOCVoZ1NhXozohqYqghu0peVfAMFPu+pfmVEfPqTy1/SdOy8x zySoD1aQNH9KakZtEd7XjmtbV21QRp4g624mm0krAmV+1dOB6B30AzCVmWzQcTqtJuoK i+Rf/1HbU0dKFVr9hdV49Za++y0pzw/3ctMusTxU5An7P4W3rYLHKYmIvaUVHnp9Qt1F LK6N+9c288UB9SRfrvMktbWYeIrnjohB2E3VO+gHXydiXTqPhw3+aI+0nFVJBhx74An1 bujw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVN4jWp+HdcIUGnLSAbIE0E9DkaV4FOZ12EqUTimTx6Z9AbBl+3 s5W37XiZNg7bvuWmTaUDckAIdCwmJVN29IzB30g=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqw2sFRbRDj7R98ikT2Vrq6Ior0+89IRAzQy/EppRP3ghR4317BOtkz2Hyj/sn2R3aYwfA4n4hZ+2n5wKDj2tjs=
X-Received: by 2002:aa7:9a52:: with SMTP id x18mr674760pfj.73.1582752669891; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 13:31:09 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Mark Smith <>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2020 08:30:43 +1100
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: [spring] Is srv6 PSP a good idea
To: Robert Raszuk <>
Cc: Sander Steffann <>, "" <>, 6man WG <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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 21:31:19 -0000

On Thu, 27 Feb 2020 at 06:46, Robert Raszuk <> wrote:
> Hey Sander,
> No worries ... three IPv6 musketeers have already presented themselves well to this discussion. This was just one more demo of it. No need to apologize - at least me :)

You realise that the 3 musketeers were heroes in that story?

> And while you can call someone's opinion the way you like - the fact that SRv6 builds on top of IPv6 does not make it automatically IPv6 extension.

SRv6 is not building on top of IPv6 when it is proposing fundamental
changes to the way IPv6 packets are processed.

SPRING WG charter:

"SPRING WG should avoid modification to existing data planes that would
make them incompatible with existing deployments. Where possible,
existing control and management plane protocols must be used within
existing architectures to implement the SPRING function."

Mark "Athos" Smith.

> My perhaps subtle point was that while politically it has been sold like minor IPv6 extension from technical point it does not need to be positioned like one. The sole fact that it reuses the same ethertype does not make it an extension.
> Now as I have already been through my round of circular explanations in the previous months - now I just sit and watch how it goes round and round again.
> Best,
> R.,
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 8:22 PM Sander Steffann <> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> >> 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.
>> I have been told by good friends that my language was inappropriate. It probably is, but I'm not going to apologize for it. I and others have tried the polite way unsuccessfully and are still ignored by the authors. This has been going on for far too long, and if it's necessary that someone stops being polite and call it out then I'll be the one to do it.
>> Cheers,
>> Sander
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> Administrative Requests:
> --------------------------------------------------------------------