Comments on draft-bonica-spring-srv6-plus

[Tom Herbert <[e-mail]>]

Hi Ron,

Thanks for the draft.

I think the name SRV6+ might be a little misleading in that it could
be misinterpreted as SRV6+ being a superset of SRV6. Specifically,
SRV6+ doesn't allow 128 bit SIDs which seems inherent in SRV6 and so
the primary function (and implementation) of SRV6 isn't compatible. It
doesn't seem like it would be that much effort to allow a 128 bit SID
size to be compatible.

I don't understand the rationale for needing a MSV to be explictly
configured throughout the domain. Couldn't the appropriate SID size be
chosen by the sender at run time. For instance, if all the SIDs in a
list are less than 65,536 then 16 bit SIDs can be used, else 32 bit
SIDs are used (I assume 16 and 32 bit SIDs are in same number space).
Since CRH has the bits stating the SID length there is no ambiguity at
the receiver. SID compression is opportunistic and it's always good
practice to avoid situations that require wide scale renumbering.

Please add a section on mutability requirements of protocol fields so
that there is no ambiguity.

Tom