Re: [spring] Is srv6 PSP a good idea

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Wed, 26 February 2020 21:18 UTC

Return-Path: <fgont@si6networks.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4681F3A046E; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 13:18:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
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 mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cVa2qMCH72fE; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 13:18:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fgont.go6lab.si (fgont.go6lab.si [91.239.96.14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E4C9B3A046D; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 13:18:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.0.10] (unknown [181.45.84.85]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by fgont.go6lab.si (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9EADF83190; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 22:18:53 +0100 (CET)
Subject: Re: [spring] Is srv6 PSP a good idea
To: "john leddy.net" <john@leddy.net>, Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>, Sander Steffann <sander@retevia.net>
Cc: spring@ietf.org, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
References: <7B51F0BE-CE40-42B8-9D87-0B764B6E00C5@steffann.nl> <47B4D89B-D752-4F4C-8226-41FCB0A610F0@retevia.net> <CAOj+MMGYtGOi2n_E57TTfD_3kWvkqWGWhhfev4Z2GVwJD5oSnQ@mail.gmail.com> <e0fb41cc-b830-3c72-c03d-591f9ff0722b@si6networks.com> <626312047.530170.1582748522771@webmail.networksolutionsemail.com> <247af621-864b-a726-cc71-baff76ba2c64@si6networks.com> <1350080398.533463.1582750964295@webmail.networksolutionsemail.com>
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Message-ID: <68111ad2-d19b-9225-dad7-c4a4d26b1e40@si6networks.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2020 18:18:45 -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: <1350080398.533463.1582750964295@webmail.networksolutionsemail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/XVeoB8XFPq9oyFzAxoxVkiUz0GU>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2020 21:18:58 -0000

On 26/2/20 18:02, john leddy.net wrote:
> So you are saying that other than the PSP issue, you support moving the document forward?

A number of us had repeatedly expressed their concerns with the 
document. Please check the mailing-list archives.

I haven't argued in favor or against the document. I simply asked the 
existing specifications be complied with.

It's a waste of time to be rehashing the same discussions all the time.

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492