Re: [spring] Conclusion from WG poll on dataplane solution for compressing segment routing over IPv6

Robert Raszuk <> Wed, 08 September 2021 09:49 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C734D3A2228 for <>; Wed, 8 Sep 2021 02:49:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EoJ7lWBRR0lB for <>; Wed, 8 Sep 2021 02:49:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9BA5E3A223B for <>; Wed, 8 Sep 2021 02:49:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id w4so2463190ljh.13 for <>; Wed, 08 Sep 2021 02:49:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=PHouNZj1fVCM5FENyL8obW1jlBNoahjyq99ClvbBV8A=; b=NU7lgm/JnnQYHWrdJFTkGNyY4zdPkMrEo9KJ83it6uyhEX0dRD8y9nyOIMZpl0TKk3 K7YebtxnLmll8F0IyhW5tjxXs1FctykiPC0aD4WXdEweIObGP9X156o5NlZnGGpiGJ6q I6Oeq+Ugq1/jXJGc3d3FIS7X01fapSKMBZBDeOyEisfgOEXxDRqWLzvmLy08iWHICEs0 IhS+bZWeIX9OeKptSiZE0y+q2YODS/Swthq3bDyrwyPLrL9YQCLm/qGbH0O2XO4VgkYs 9b2XrqfBEndaKAhMuX2jF0OswIehTrnQ4xbmE+YdTHx6+SHLQXhiL9sXvggXu6bIdbc5 VIqQ==
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=PHouNZj1fVCM5FENyL8obW1jlBNoahjyq99ClvbBV8A=; b=TLQNKPxvFaLAXqGfhHdkzTodU4YP0PFhWJQlsDd11YBrMoUckz5fFih+wm9V5EWrGu o2jKqMaFTPjM6GJ3dG/KI640BwzkATodplmZMAiol7BK+J/rB7VCACytDeW7IcQhksCb zcmvOLM2+Ee8L3LAEVwmE3iS2qr7/CopFEpkBGbTy36NlMahMGZGUR0tI1hDMBMCbZB7 sTq85yamo5BVeWgAIfcDALHiWDQp0F+sb0Itn9Qo13NBVxSIpYYkjV0SFw1P+HtCDLhJ bCc5FRJmYUA1UkTYUNGZBZpdEqXLVEGR+47gyEUZ7zWRzPRENQUgyOox/6jtHmFHjTvB PBTw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531XmO6d/Jp61MVdiT+mfLEDfiETG5DSSKFpJqfL6WzBwMdmdPGg /tRNkcXmBU/mbw3OiR4VUnvDySHebmis+QLgsDRXW8ysc2JZsQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyPDYe1ZjGEq/mq7T0hcUw7fnGTN0djwFzDbShfH6zyBTY/eNFy8cBSRLTrVqluFHw9v7cTDDK5bKsx1g53XKQ=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:8008:: with SMTP id j8mr2046592ljg.233.1631094564038; Wed, 08 Sep 2021 02:49:24 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Robert Raszuk <>
Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2021 11:49:41 +0200
Message-ID: <>
To: Tony Li <>
Cc: "Joel M. Halpern" <>, "" <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000015bb6805cb78ccd9"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [spring] Conclusion from WG poll on dataplane solution for compressing segment routing over IPv6
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: Wed, 08 Sep 2021 09:49:33 -0000

Hi Tony,

May I ask if the "check" you are recommending is to be done only based on
reading a few drafts or maybe also something else ?

I personally think that while reading the specs may give some hints as to
how the solution is supposed to work the real crux of the matter is in
details of hardware implementations and various design choices made there.

So to me if this WG is to make some choices (which I am not sure if it
should or is capable of specifically in regards to hardware impact of any
solution) much more useful is to document actual shipping and deployed
implementations and support it with actual data from the field (both
production deployment as well as early field trials).

Data presented so far clearly indicates that CSID data plane with two
flavors has most vendor and operational experience behind it.

Meanwhile let's see if the below two drafts will be adopted as WG doc:

If they will IMHO this will be good technical as well as formal input to
the choice to be made.

Many thx,


On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 12:58 AM Tony Li <> wrote:

> Dear chairs & WG,
> > Our thanks to the working group members for speaking up clearly.  There
> is a rough (quite clear) consensus for standardizing one dataplane solution
> to compressing segment routing over IPv6.
> I’m very pleased that we’ve found the courage to say that we want to make
> a decision.
> > As chairs, there are some related observations we need to make.
> > There appears to be significant interest in using the framework in the
> CSID draft for addressing the above.
> I concur that there is interest in CSID.  However, as we have not yet done
> a consensus check to select the specific proposal, I hope that this is not
> your assertion that CSID is the result. This is a major decision by the WG
> and it does deserve a formal and explicit check.
> > However, before we issue a call for adoption on that, the chairs would
> like to understand how the working group wants to solve a technical
> problem.  The CSID draft contains two dataplane solutions.  The above rough
> consensus is for one dataplane solution.  Does the working group want to
> choose one?  Do the authors want to suggest that one of the two is the one
> we should standardize, and get working group agreement?
> > Should we adopt the document, with a note indicating the problem, and
> solve the problem afterwards?  (That itself does not solve the problem, it
> merely kicks it down the road.) Do folks see another means to avoid putting
> the WG in conflict with itself?
> If the authors of the CSID proposal, or any proposal, would like to revise
> their proposals before we make a selection, this would seem to be an
> opportune time.
> Tony
> _______________________________________________
> spring mailing list