Re: [spring] Is srv6 PSP a good idea

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Wed, 26 February 2020 20:10 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 F26973A1332; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 12:10:38 -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 MRlCFiltpfxx; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 12:10:37 -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 9255D3A131D; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 12:10:37 -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 9116382D96; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 21:10:34 +0100 (CET)
Subject: Re: [spring] Is srv6 PSP a good idea
To: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>, Sander Steffann <sander@retevia.net>
Cc: "spring@ietf.org" <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>
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Message-ID: <e0fb41cc-b830-3c72-c03d-591f9ff0722b@si6networks.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2020 17:09:47 -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: <CAOj+MMGYtGOi2n_E57TTfD_3kWvkqWGWhhfev4Z2GVwJD5oSnQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/YrF1-5Y_YS5LSaSF5yz0XZc8t0w>
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 20:10:39 -0000

On 26/2/20 16:44, 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 :)
> 
> 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.

Yeah, it's not an extension: it's a major surgery to IPv6, and a major 
change to the IPv6 architecture (nobody would even call it "IPv6 
maintenance").

A number of us wonder how many milliseconds it would have taken for this 
proposal to be shot down if it wasn't being pushed by a big vendor.

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