Re: [spring] Progressing Standardizing SR over IPv6 compression

Gyan Mishra <> Thu, 05 August 2021 06:47 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C124E3A10FE for <>; Wed, 4 Aug 2021 23:47:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.087
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.087 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_REMOTE_IMAGE=0.01, 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 3_-4OfUHTM2X for <>; Wed, 4 Aug 2021 23:47:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1029]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D36E03A10FD for <>; Wed, 4 Aug 2021 23:47:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id u13-20020a17090abb0db0290177e1d9b3f7so12633565pjr.1 for <>; Wed, 04 Aug 2021 23:47:12 -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=HUK/4GdmkjgjPLUgR2nctnnhU/Q9/RI5yomYYdxkwkY=; b=P3qSY2QhYNHDBOGhdvvH/PvUMGbUy8ucupugDuJDmQbeAk0hUwGrDqXrYokG6SdGGO QyGXTh84u5SFJ0Dckwbj84/fLTgtWFojGr5F6z1F6S7r6WrtXIp1DfIgbz0pZvmMfC9l l9YtfnSggPrNTN9qOQiWja9MLY1U5BZxiYAD2PkbMts+2Eb5E+6C/c70fvMZJWtW0YnX NARvcGoWBezRd4oXJ0Pe3U8pC777Vy6/WSO/pSmdMg7b9U5eCkcNUTW2D82iJEk6Pmrb yWWld8I3m8Imdht+CiGbB85p5jKdOAjo2vlz79jD4UXLz+8gYXayXrDs2jq4BnVMbSqb GLYw==
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=HUK/4GdmkjgjPLUgR2nctnnhU/Q9/RI5yomYYdxkwkY=; b=Z+ZJuWSqA5fFRPINjqqsy42sMLPfiafmK/dalNKLsQwGwmMJZxTz5bHEe/QH/TN+j9 BIUTSewo/hm1TzRjV6AT2GgE3/kFxfwiHmT6knn9TJ112LRsXwkVvZzb2CqP5jIqEzPR aU5HhdRFkWLqR7WLujewFqNVfYqLmsdTzSGaE2YH4s5ts0YyYmq1uWMKxT+6qATRYp1P 3ZEe73RObg3xcuC9tS46KKWockic+TGbCcipLpycRCTyVfqgOybyas/heeL7C0RFEeF1 ViSrYkQqns+zYiD9VCZmP6GNBSQPEFDBMonCejBj7A4lNMFvxSDUArr+g2S2phdGKhyl CFog==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531UuyswZmQzoyFcNJkx4+Jfy1tvCF94sZxutevbsA2uJTailup2 8k9M0uyJhQxmgZils1S5uvTTADV24EHFuAjN438=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyprzm6jsv1E5+dWI1Wx+vTHNLNYv2J67MSfoP3i45mQrmVnp8D6azrGBSkSWiv++FFoZqC31CPR9HyNAQSCVU=
X-Received: by 2002:a63:504a:: with SMTP id q10mr22718pgl.383.1628146031400; Wed, 04 Aug 2021 23:47:11 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Gyan Mishra <>
Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2021 02:46:59 -0400
Message-ID: <>
To: "Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)" <>
Cc: "Joel M. Halpern" <>, "" <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000d81a0605c8ca4910"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [spring] Progressing Standardizing SR over IPv6 compression
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: Thu, 05 Aug 2021 06:47:18 -0000

The question we are asking you to comment on is:

Should the working group standardize one data plane behavior for
compressing SRv6 information?


>From an operators perspective interoperability is critical and utmost
importance, so we cannot risk having vendors pick their own solution they
like and develop that solution.

One of the primary goals and objectives of the IETF and all the
stakeholders in the industry rely on the IETF to maintain uphold the high
bar when it comes to standardization.

The major risk in having multiple solutions for a data plane is the risk of
interoperability as vendors may pick and choose their favorite and what
they want to develop which can really hurts the entire router industry.

Kind Regards


On Thu, Aug 5, 2021 at 12:09 AM Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp) <> wrote:

> I will repeat what I said before, given this has to be implemented in HW
> it is better for everyone to have a single solution.
> Also for interoperability purposes 1 solution will help us all.
> *From: *spring <> on behalf of Joel M. Halpern <
> *Date: *Wednesday, 4 August 2021 at 20:52
> *To: * <>
> *Subject: *[spring] Progressing Standardizing SR over IPv6 compression
> The SPRING Working Group Chairs thank the design team for their efforts
> on the requirements and analysis drafts.  The question of how the
> working group wants to progress that part of the work will be the topic
> for a separate email a bit later.
> Right now, we are hearing the discussion about how many solutions, and
> the perspectives being expressed.  While the topic was well-raised, the
> discussion to date has not been structured in a way that makes clear to
> everyone what the purpose is.  In particular, the chairs have decided to
> re-ask the question.  We ask that even those who have responded in the
> discussion respond to this thread.  Preferably with both what their
> opinion is and an explanation of why.
> The question we are asking you to comment on is:
> Should the working group standardize one data plane behavior for
> compressing SRv6 information?
> Please speak up.  We are looking to collect responses until close of
> business PDT on 20-August-2021.
> Thank you,
> Joel, Jim, and Bruno
> _______________________________________________
> spring mailing list
> _______________________________________________
> spring mailing list


*Gyan Mishra*

*Network Solutions A**rchitect *

*Email <>*

*M 301 502-1347*