Re: [spring] Is srv6 PSP a good idea
Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Wed, 26 February 2020 14:31 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 A7D7E3A07DE; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 06:31:45 -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 bJD9qVmsK3Hs; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 06:31:42 -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 E42633A07E2; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 06:31:41 -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 43AFC86C11; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 15:24:56 +0100 (CET)
Subject: Re: [spring] Is srv6 PSP a good idea
To: Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com>, Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl>, Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Cc: "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
References: <5c2a4b36-0c59-709e-23eb-00f4aa1ce52f@joelhalpern.com> <9B89F4C2-5594-4D31-8893-21F3F4A0DF6C@cisco.com> <BN7PR05MB569969EE8D1929E7069E1BB0AE550@BN7PR05MB5699.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <58ED78D3-9E0C-4556-8853-8754B361DF6D@cisco.com> <BN7PR05MB5699D79B1FC40662EE9E95B6AE500@BN7PR05MB5699.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <81A30B25-9857-467E-85AE-1FE84B6F3197@cisco.com> <CAO42Z2zq0chKx08d10JBNkpa5e8J4MWAJWk+2Qs1DD7y_wkYUw@mail.gmail.com> <05981e2ea71c4b3083ed6e15c7e20641@huawei.com> <CAO42Z2wzk7W4_gy6j+sW=1z+xoyMMxsjnUbZkaf=jcG0zZqddg@mail.gmail.com> <CAOj+MMHE7XaWKSy=y5-0kz5aOT9vWgMCRmc=WURX12-LX1TOzg@mail.gmail.com> <7B51F0BE-CE40-42B8-9D87-0B764B6E00C5@steffann.nl> <DBBPR03MB541529B1A1859DC25E324E13EEEA0@DBBPR03MB5415.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com>
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Message-ID: <74aa12a7-2f20-2aa4-77c7-69f5937db178@si6networks.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2020 11:24:25 -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: <DBBPR03MB541529B1A1859DC25E324E13EEEA0@DBBPR03MB5415.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/t94rhMFx-Gtt7MBhvjc_xXuCWgE>
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 14:31:46 -0000
On 26/2/20 11:15, Andrew Alston wrote: > +1 Sander. > > Furthermore – if indeed that is the contention – then – I suggest you > move the whole thing out of SPRING – I quote from the SPRING charter: > > /The Source Packet Routing in NetworkinG (SPRING) Working Group is > the////home of Segment Routing (SR) using MPLS (SR-MPLS) *_and IPv6 > (SRv6)._*/*/__/* > > Relevant portion in bold. > > You can claim that SRv6 is a new routing header – you cannot claim that > it is not part of IPv6 – the IPv6 base header is maintained – you are > adding a routing header – done/done – no point even entertaining this > line of thought any further The fact that this is still going on is at least alarming. Thanks, -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492
- Re: [spring] Is srv6 PSP a good idea Sander Steffann
- RE: [spring] Is srv6 PSP a good idea Andrew Alston
- RE: [spring] Is srv6 PSP a good idea Andrew Alston
- Re: [spring] Is srv6 PSP a good idea Fernando Gont
- Re: [spring] Is srv6 PSP a good idea Tom Herbert
- Re: [spring] Is srv6 PSP a good idea Robert Raszuk
- Re: [spring] Is srv6 PSP a good idea Sander Steffann
- Re: [spring] Is srv6 PSP a good idea Fernando Gont
- Re: [spring] Is srv6 PSP a good idea john leddy.net
- Re: [spring] Is srv6 PSP a good idea Sander Steffann
- Re: [spring] Is srv6 PSP a good idea Sander Steffann
- Re: [spring] Is srv6 PSP a good idea Fernando Gont
- Re: [spring] Is srv6 PSP a good idea john leddy.net
- Re: [spring] Is srv6 PSP a good idea Fernando Gont
- Re: [spring] Is srv6 PSP a good idea Sander Steffann
- Re: [spring] Is srv6 PSP a good idea Fernando Gont
- Re: [spring] Is srv6 PSP a good idea Mark Smith
- Re: [spring] Is srv6 PSP a good idea Robert Raszuk