Re: [spring] Is srv6 PSP a good idea

Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl> Wed, 26 February 2020 20:27 UTC

Return-Path: <sander@steffann.nl>
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 7E1693A13C7; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 12:27:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
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: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=steffann.nl
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 knV5-lCBENUD; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 12:27:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.sintact.nl (mail.sintact.nl [83.247.10.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C91383A13D0; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 12:27:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.sintact.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A9543C; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 21:27:55 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=steffann.nl; h= x-mailer:references:message-id:date:date:in-reply-to:from:from :subject:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-type:received :received; s=mail; t=1582748873; bh=Hqh3JyVAYF3CGZ1q0JugIeusVQYd EH8lwC3YTFA+OGU=; b=V1FSwKHcflvkixDJd2LrSgnCmRWCEesEURxEupfCH63Q Ti1r2xGxxhXQ/5Vp/4WBbUu22xeXCTUYnMJ138+YrhINN6K+/Nam3LOKmNckoseQ tljaR9qvkerSYzy7OAh+B4n8xFjeFn88A2zNfGGkUK3lEBC0tIGmonmBrG9hkUE=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mail.sintact.nl
Received: from mail.sintact.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.sintact.nl [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id 1PLy-I2a0I0t; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 21:27:53 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [IPv6:2a02:a213:a300:ce80:e1db:2079:7e02:1779] (unknown [IPv6:2a02:a213:a300:ce80:e1db:2079:7e02:1779]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mail.sintact.nl (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 647954B; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 21:27:53 +0100 (CET)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_F92AE79C-E5CA-45C0-AC7B-5CA7A6904E21"; 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
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
From: Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl>
X-Priority: 3
In-Reply-To: <2C1C557C-5698-4A11-8F29-7BECC99C8EDD@steffann.nl>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2020 21:27:52 +0100
Cc: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>, Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>, Sander Steffann <sander@retevia.net>, spring@ietf.org, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Message-Id: <388753D4-34B0-4DF6-9C77-1F866F2F190B@steffann.nl>
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> <2C1C557C-5698-4A11-8F29-7BECC99C8EDD@steffann.nl>
To: "john leddy.net" <john@leddy.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3594.4.19)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/zvX_t_wYcyMMZWox92QmkdEu8QA>
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 20:28:05 -0000

> Definitely the proposal. That a vendor seems to have an inappropriate amount of influence on the IETF process is just an additional concern.

PS: that the vendor is Cisco in this instance is not relevant. Any vendor doing this would be equally bad. Any major vendor has played inappropriate games using the IETF. This is just what is currently on the table.