Re: [spring] Is srv6 PSP a good idea

Robert Raszuk <> Wed, 26 February 2020 19:45 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 988B33A12FC for <>; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 11:45:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rU6bD74kZEYf for <>; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 11:45:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::32a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1AA6F3A12D8 for <>; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 11:45:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id i6so587830otr.7 for <>; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 11:45:03 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=kQoVRBkXWEG10lw0stA6phMlF7Xcm3IHEufjxqtExSw=; b=NOala5/kIkIDh96TT3QV6Ry98SGlmzNq8MpFvX2pENn9yefA9pYntyhV+fJpqiB73n WdVQBV4yhJcFEykubb9CO4SRC2Qvs8yFyaPbPHyL7r3WB9QNxP3EIumjpv4NjhLrqiai 5UYe5ZVUarGP0rBLh708QRk6ZP2GLBpXqRWbwIF4R8Qds4xI7CMQcoidx7jASFVlkgLu xB/QFsEYH+ZTAeMJ5rD4n+H9w/OHoS4VD1tgq4WvpyUcp/p6m1KwWgT8EeBdMuPLo5OW IstCw9ERbkZ0WoKBfXxpvmiJHTu2k6+sX5ALZL9P7wC9KU1yTtt6ERh0VwfDZP5E6MMl 9URA==
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; bh=kQoVRBkXWEG10lw0stA6phMlF7Xcm3IHEufjxqtExSw=; b=S0JMEpZMsFN1yUKfpJiKcXSiEdkwqC9SlcqqNnkhnYh7SkJe/oSebQ/55aEIKKoYuB 76YLD6n6Av5F4OakNj9f/82aOxxdEgSmjguYORlwWGVk6CyngONK9RAFe2AGuyHUwnQl bduH9UD8wpPyxWpfiTwEfiXh4FLo5lxuV9DLpr014bPDqfReJv8Rft1xCj6Tyjj83I5W 0PU2OR2FiHFrYvkHS+aZGtrQgH9GHcIcsTKspEPMT9cKek/eP3UJBZRdWT06m1jnD6pW qqjGU7CxdpNt7wbhgndRpIBcNSHKJ8uAfNa+TwVikMoYQw0PrLMTUg6ZEGaTZUQPqzQO ZJSg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXXvRF0nTA+Q4lqkibWL32DCT6safa/Etagu2G+pH80mraiPeOC QIBJ6q+nCqtcnAo95B1i+PmnRVc2xZWg008GNH7HhA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqza3W0G1B3xZODBpruIBqSbHTjWxj5wFmYHS5W++1oI5ObGFulxJgxIZ0/wFCEW6pC7sSofv4n53kC7IbrTvFU=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6830:160c:: with SMTP id g12mr353708otr.82.1582746303149; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 11:45:03 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Robert Raszuk <>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2020 20:44:52 +0100
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: [spring] Is srv6 PSP a good idea
To: Sander Steffann <>
Cc: "" <>, 6man WG <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000002b50e1059f7fd78f"
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 19:45:12 -0000

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 :)

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.

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


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