Re: [mpls] draft-ietf-spring-ipv6-use-cases - almost completed WGLC

"Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <> Fri, 05 May 2017 17:06 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CAD7127863; Fri, 5 May 2017 10:06:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.523
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.523 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 pRrOGDx9TyFl; Fri, 5 May 2017 10:06:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C1DC51294C8; Fri, 5 May 2017 10:05:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=1766; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1494003959; x=1495213559; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=I5hgm+seTrLjQFL8/iFjadh3IfeJP5bV44s31nYgS0U=; b=GL9RNVJOcP9cwIseWzyhcsTTCZUXvK3gC2D3q4gnVciIBG4jYe/so9RV Kdytrp4y4VFGcPKu+tcftnZpDzNwDHbIlBLBhW8FNhsNIWPVOfDIrDVWz h4cTT7PEVkP894rvXhDzei2pww/4oZf/ual1Y9esRYQGReEZ5nM6F83NU A=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0CNAQBwsAxZ/5FdJa1bGgEBAQECAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QgBAQEBgyorgW4Hg2GKGJFWlXCCD4YkAhqELz8YAQIBAQEBAQEBayiFFgEEASM?= =?us-ascii?q?RRQULAgEIGgImAgICMBUQAgQBDQUfiXkIsTyCJopoAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAQEBHYELhVSBXiuCcIRjgwYugjEBBJZhhw4BkxYLgXmFOYorlDYBHziBCm8?= =?us-ascii?q?VWAGGX3aHaIENAQEB?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.38,293,1491264000"; d="scan'208";a="419405468"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 05 May 2017 17:05:59 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v45H5wJE007942 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 5 May 2017 17:05:59 GMT
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Fri, 5 May 2017 12:05:58 -0500
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Fri, 5 May 2017 12:05:58 -0500
From: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <>
To: Loa Andersson <>, Stewart Bryant <>, "" <>, "" <>
CC: "<>" <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [mpls] draft-ietf-spring-ipv6-use-cases - almost completed WGLC
Thread-Index: AQHSxW17bKDzWOmEkEaSkH1DswbWnKHmCaMA
Date: Fri, 5 May 2017 17:05:58 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/f.1f.0.170216
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [mpls] draft-ietf-spring-ipv6-use-cases - almost completed WGLC
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 May 2017 17:06:03 -0000

On 5/5/17, 3:01 AM, "Loa Andersson" <> wrote:



> Is it possible to give the MPLS wg time to review this? As far as I can
> see this was never brought to the attntion of the MPLS wg.

This draft is not about MPLS, it is about documenting IPv6 use cases.  More explicitly, it is about the case where operators don’t want to use the MPLS control plane with segment routing.

Stewart (in his GenArt review) correctly pointed at the fact that the document used the perceived lack of ability to run MPLS on an IPv6-only network as part of the justification for IPv6-based segment routing.  I think that the correct way to address that is to take the focus away from MPLS – there’s no need to even mention it in use cases that won’t use it.

The authors have agreed to refocus the document that way.

In summary, I don’t think it is necessary for the mpls WG to consider this document.  Even though we already finished IETF LC, it will still take me several weeks before the IESG considers approval (because I’m forwarding this document in a cluster with other related ones), so you can still send comments about it.  However, please wait for the authors to refocus the text and at least post -11 before looking at it.