Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

["Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril)" <[e-mail]>]

Nick,

The draft does not require changes to address assignment policy.
SRv6 has been already deployed using IPv6 addresses already available to the operator.
As an example for Softbank (all this is based on their public information that they have reported): 
They have a /20 IPv6 prefix available from ARIN. They have deployed SRv6 using only one millionth! of their /20 prefix. 

Cheers,
Pablo.

-----Original Message-----
From: ipv6 <[e-mail]> on behalf of Nick Hilliard <[e-mail]>
Date: Thursday, 27 February 2020 at 14:56
To: Andrew Alston <[e-mail]>
Cc: 'SPRING WG List' <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

    Andrew Alston wrote on 27/02/2020 10:35:
    >  1. The burn of address space required to adequately deploy some of this
    >     (something that there was agreement on in Montreal that there would
    >     be analysis on – which was never done)
    
    I'm a bit alarmed by the lack of engagement here between the authors of 
    this draft and the RIR community about addressing. This draft has the 
    capacity to require significant changes to address allocation / 
    assignment policy, but so far there's been no discussion about how this 
    might work within current or future RIR allocation / assignment 
    policies, or indeed upstream at IANA.  Could the authors provide some 
    information on how they intend to approach this issue?
    
    Nick
    
    --------------------------------------------------------------------
    IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
    [e-mail]
    Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
    --------------------------------------------------------------------