Re: [spring] Is srv6 PSP a good idea

Sander Steffann <> Wed, 26 February 2020 21:20 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4F5A3A0474; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 13:20:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id C1wmU3P7F-9G; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 13:20:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6FD623A046E; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 13:20:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 126574B; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 22:20:51 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;; h= x-mailer:references:in-reply-to:date:date:subject:subject :mime-version:content-type:content-type:message-id:from:from :received:received; s=mail; t=1582752049; bh=k9E7cqcYDz2xjl/eSSH bf5Nb+4OyMtTAARDo0y9amSc=; b=WWz61d+iACdpPmH0XfLwnimjVzCkx+I9RCR 6yVEF0kE5yEDYmgVNW83eZv+fP/8p2pqVFI2ZwzOalnGGciRNLPWEs71m0bDokPI fDV912xvlYSRq5FEBPff18ewOW6IZBLP+yis9Lhg16u0/LXI6MqaZ5HSGCu2Qdaj 8KyRlqIU=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id zbSM9hNUbp5D; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 22:20:49 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [IPv6:2a02:a213:a300:ce80:14c4:c307:a46b:5e84] (unknown [IPv6:2a02:a213:a300:ce80:14c4:c307:a46b:5e84]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DA4A13C; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 22:20:48 +0100 (CET)
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
From: Sander Steffann <>
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_C10D708D-C3C6-4242-9E26-1CEB09BB9511"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha256
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.0 \(3594.4.19\))
Subject: Re: [spring] Is srv6 PSP a good idea
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2020 22:20:41 +0100
In-Reply-To: <>
Cc: Fernando Gont <>, Robert Raszuk <>,, 6man WG <>
To: "john" <>
References: <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3594.4.19)
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 21:20:55 -0000

Hi John,

> ´╗┐So you are saying that other than the PSP issue, you support moving the document forward?

Yes. As long as it doesn't violate existing RFCs and with that potentially causes trouble for implementations that expect those RFCs to be followed I'm fine with it. It's not something I would deploy, but I'm not going to stand in the way of those who want it if it's not going to hurt others.