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

Lihao <> Tue, 14 September 2021 08:33 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B87D3A0FEC for <>; Tue, 14 Sep 2021 01:33:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yd8Ye6IxY-vm for <>; Tue, 14 Sep 2021 01:33:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 364B03A0FEB for <>; Tue, 14 Sep 2021 01:33:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP id 18E8V3TP002610; Tue, 14 Sep 2021 16:31:03 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2242.12; Tue, 14 Sep 2021 16:31:06 +0800
Received: from ([fe80::f963:2fad:283e:6b1c]) by ([fe80::f963:2fad:283e:6b1c%2]) with mapi id 15.01.2242.012; Tue, 14 Sep 2021 16:31:06 +0800
From: Lihao <>
To: Weiqiang Cheng <>, "'Joel M. Halpern'" <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [spring] Conclusion from WG poll on dataplane solution for compressing segment routing over IPv6
Thread-Index: AdepQtQF7dy3C+diTkC8QUgwUbULug==
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2021 08:31:06 +0000
Message-ID: <>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
x-originating-ip: []
x-sender-location: DAG2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MAIL: 18E8V3TP002610
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: Tue, 14 Sep 2021 08:33:43 -0000

Hi Chairs&Weiqiang

Many thanks to DT's excellent contributions!

As an equipment vendor, I believe that CSID is a single data plane solution from the perspective of implementation.

Two flavors carry different functions, but follow the same processing principles.

it will be good if WG could adopt the CSID draft

发件人: spring [] 代表 Weiqiang Cheng
发送时间: 2021年9月8日 11:25
收件人: 'Joel M. Halpern' <>;
主题: Re: [spring] Conclusion from WG poll on dataplane solution for compressing segment routing over IPv6

Dear Chairs,

Many thanks for your hard working.

We are happy to see that the CSID draft has significant interest to be adopted as a WG document.

Regarding the dataplane, the authors believe that the CSID draft contains only one dataplane solution with two different flavors[1]: NEXT-CSID-FLAVOR and REPLACE-CSID-FLAVOR, rather than two dataplane solutions.

Both the flavors are defined based on the SRv6 data plane(one data plane), and the SIDs with these two flavors can be encoded in a single SRH just like we can encode PSP Flavor SIDs and USD flavor SIDs together in a SRH.

The inter-op test of CSIDs had been done almost one year ago[2], and everything was OK.

Furthermore, the mechanism defined in the draft has been stable and mature.

With the consensus, the authors hope WG can consider to adopt the CSID draft.

Best regards,
on behalf of CSID authors


发件人: spring [] 代表 Joel M. Halpern
发送时间: 2021年9月7日 01:27
主题: [spring] Conclusion from WG poll on dataplane solution for compressing segment routing over IPv6

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.

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.

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?

As a loosely related side node, the chairs will also observe that we do not see an obstacle to informational or experimental publication of other solutions, as long as there is sufficient energy in the working group to deal with those.  Also, only documents for which there is at least one implementation will be progressed this way.

Thank you,
Bruno, Jim, and Joel

spring mailing list

spring mailing list
This e-mail and its attachments contain confidential information from New H3C, which is
intended only for the person or entity whose address is listed above. Any use of the
information contained herein in any way (including, but not limited to, total or partial
disclosure, reproduction, or dissemination) by persons other than the intended
recipient(s) is prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify the sender
by phone or email immediately and delete it!