Re: [spring] Question about SRv6 Insert function

Robert Raszuk <> Tue, 10 September 2019 20:49 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23C1D12022A; Tue, 10 Sep 2019 13:49:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ILlwxYqC6COw; Tue, 10 Sep 2019 13:49:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::430]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 33ED7120090; Tue, 10 Sep 2019 13:49:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id w22so12238554pfi.9; Tue, 10 Sep 2019 13:49:25 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=JnuIb5tsPuU+e6oPjEY6+FS0LqWUaSjKzoSADQLAdac=; b=Xvk7qk3hHiiA4S1JLEQwYaA11MsNVtXhmGvjEyCb3OSe2g6BUpHuhnmsad0aUFljEm VGiveKv72qGOmF67Uy7YOl0Lcmp66CUWCO5pHg1/tNHW4wp4O9Cob9W9JYkmR6BtmgIj paFJlCF+SBerCRTopmRgQCIJ2B2vZTqJu/+Syhl0aWfyi3h/o8YU+39udijzyXvd+uwx 32Bsrj/4ra0DYVzSHyIi4VC/1owbAcsIOadVfGmsG+iDlnP9ftYVrqRtmXLx4u/TZmcD sxvhkIxp7NyOyQDUj6x3Z+EoPPPa6SrW9FCvl8bttvYgLnET6hVFxX/zm+FkhZ4P+HSH EnzA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=JnuIb5tsPuU+e6oPjEY6+FS0LqWUaSjKzoSADQLAdac=; b=UKsY5SIH8cDq98wehLt9KRlOWDTBw0K/cvGdY/Hbt6F4gQPzJg6WRvSkaFNbUvThmK ogUfCugpQDGQN6ozqax/iw5nN9vkTieu1pWO/Ks/U4pEhME5NjhT5bE80BLogyQMRElo Z3c9jA8p+BGWrh4rtVlaupjnHOQQuOkYj0tyIBs2HBCZKSdchj2UWQ5Vchp+yD8tOguV Lmmxbaw/VAZaC+MsY/HudC/iChSwKddpLnBDvBAFrP+0C5u4i8vtR/Mb8jLkraZ9iswI JC79KKd+sUirdGB6ldCBvaRPd9FX/RxG9xG8ipgKQXoeGDvilf/sCHO2VpBQSY2HC9ra Y+YQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXVBITgBI5LPlwLsZJamEwujzgTbzlHO2qJtlmYf15Nxqrr1OcW k40swgO5wKMO01c/ngTtUYLSM0StIg3AS5hPXJs=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxnwk4OLvlE+rARd6wFNJcK6IHxRBb2Z6QKR/JvgwJ33ADRsasC/OCf0N+ppG8oFmBLdI+VoSM/uasy8fwmxr8=
X-Received: by 2002:aa7:9aa5:: with SMTP id x5mr37434821pfi.16.1568148564238; Tue, 10 Sep 2019 13:49:24 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <> <> <28214_1567694772_5D711FB4_28214_238_1_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A48BFA9F3@OPEXCAUBM43.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <> <17120_1567700712_5D7136E8_17120_341_1_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A48BFAEF1@OPEXCAUBM43.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Robert Raszuk <>
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2019 22:49:13 +0200
Message-ID: <>
To: Brian E Carpenter <>
Cc: li zhenqiang <>, "" <>, Fernando Gont <>, Fernando Gont <>, Ron Bonica <>, "" <>, "" <>, Suresh Krishnan <>, draft-voyer-6man-extension-header-insertion <>, draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000002064b70592390ad8"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [spring] Question about SRv6 Insert function
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Source Packet Routing in NetworkinG \(SPRING\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2019 20:49:27 -0000

Hi Brian,

> the first discussion should be whether we (as a community) believe we
> standardise features that only work within a specified domain, or
continue with
> the assumption that standardised features must work across the open

Indeed I agree.

Just to rephrase the question:

Is IPv6 to be used only as end to end host to host protocol or should IPv6
also be used as transport protocol natively in the networks.

Solid deployments prove it can be used for both. Many people think it can
and should be used for both.

But if there is solid IETF formal statement that it is *only* to be used as
end to end host protocol then we should really start putting more work into
other encapsulations which will allow to simply transport IPv6 datagrams as
payload or alternatively industry will seek other standards to conitinue
work on IPv6 as transport protocol. Just imagine how it can be called ...
IPv6+ :)

Many thx,