[spring] 答复: 答复: IPv6+??

Lizhenbin <lizhenbin@huawei.com> Sat, 04 July 2020 11:57 UTC

Return-Path: <lizhenbin@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8926A3A0A97 for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 4 Jul 2020 04:57:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id k1rmyuMPPQYJ for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 4 Jul 2020 04:57:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7E29B3A0A96 for <spring@ietf.org>; Sat, 4 Jul 2020 04:57:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhreml701-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown []) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 097F873CECFAF4598A16; Sat, 4 Jul 2020 12:57:46 +0100 (IST)
Received: from lhreml701-chm.china.huawei.com ( by lhreml701-chm.china.huawei.com ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1913.5; Sat, 4 Jul 2020 12:57:45 +0100
Received: from DGGEMM406-HUB.china.huawei.com ( by lhreml701-chm.china.huawei.com ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_0, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA_P256) id 15.1.1913.5 via Frontend Transport; Sat, 4 Jul 2020 12:57:44 +0100
Received: from DGGEMM512-MBS.china.huawei.com ([]) by DGGEMM406-HUB.china.huawei.com ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0487.000; Sat, 4 Jul 2020 19:57:38 +0800
From: Lizhenbin <lizhenbin@huawei.com>
To: Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>
CC: Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com>, SPRING WG <spring@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: =?gb2312?B?W3NwcmluZ10gtPC4tDogSVB2Nis/Pw==?=
Thread-Index: AQHWUV/XdivlUhERMkWwlNxvQxGzYqj3D6aj//+mWYCAAJjPTQ==
Date: Sat, 4 Jul 2020 11:57:38 +0000
Message-ID: <5A5B4DE12C0DAC44AF501CD9A2B01A8D937AB421@dggemm512-mbs.china.huawei.com>
References: <E23B5DB3-F364-43CA-817E-DC6099B555AF@liquidtelecom.com> <5A5B4DE12C0DAC44AF501CD9A2B01A8D937AB113@dggemm512-mbs.china.huawei.com>, <CAO42Z2xbs=+K51=D5a5Am8-jsWZJ9uNw7AqGYaCFZcR64X2=Sg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAO42Z2xbs=+K51=D5a5Am8-jsWZJ9uNw7AqGYaCFZcR64X2=Sg@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_5A5B4DE12C0DAC44AF501CD9A2B01A8D937AB421dggemm512mbschi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/GUcR7bXegNnWvcPUUpkGPouXETs>
Subject: [spring] =?gb2312?b?tPC4tDogILTwuLQ6IElQdjYrPz8=?=
X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Source Packet Routing in NetworkinG \(SPRING\)" <spring.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/spring>, <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/spring/>
List-Post: <mailto:spring@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring>, <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 04 Jul 2020 11:57:54 -0000

Hi Mark,

I explained that there are group solutions for IPv6+ instead of that IPv6+ is a single technology.

There are the internet drafts for these solutions which are also proposed in the IPv6+ website.

You can learn more through visiting the website.

It is also always complained that the IETF work on a specific solution is distributed in multiple

working groups and it is hard to understand the whole picture.  I have ever proposed the following

draft and wish it could be helpful to understand the possible work distributed in multiple IETF areas.


You can see that the work in IPv6+ is another try to cope with the issue.

Best Regards,


·¢¼þÈË: Mark Smith [markzzzsmith@gmail.com]
·¢ËÍʱ¼ä: 2020Äê7ÔÂ4ÈÕ 18:39
ÊÕ¼þÈË: Lizhenbin
³­ËÍ: Andrew Alston; SPRING WG
Ö÷Ìâ: Re: [spring] ´ð¸´: IPv6+??

Where are the IPv6+ Internet Drafts?

On Sat, 4 Jul 2020, 18:08 Lizhenbin, <lizhenbin@huawei.com<mailto:lizhenbin@huawei.com>> wrote:

Hi Andrew,

Thanks for your paying attention to the website. Please refer to my clarification.

a. SRv6 is the technology based on IPv6. In the past 20+ years IPv6 has being deployed. One of the most important drives is the address space. The development of 5G and cloud proposes the new chances for the development and deployment of IPv6. Depending on the native IP reacheability and providing rich attributes based on the IPv6 extension headers, IPv6 can provide flexible connectivity to satisfy the requirements of 5G and cloud. SRv6 is the typical representative solutions. This makes this round of IPv6-based innovations and deployments shows the new characteristics of the times to some extent. Then IPv6+ concept is proposed.  It means the solutions is based on IPv6 and used for the scenarios of 5G and cloud.

b. IPv6+  has nothing with the New IP. It is apparent that the solutions proposed in the IPv6+ are based on the IPv6 and all the standardization work is being done in IETF and has nothing with ITU-T.

I am not sure if it is appropriate to discuss this work in the mailing list of SPRING WG.  More questions and comments can be sent to ipv6plus@outlook.com<mailto:ipv6plus@outlook.com>.

Best Regards,


·¢¼þÈË: spring [spring-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:spring-bounces@ietf.org>] ´ú±í Andrew Alston [Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com<mailto:Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com>]
·¢ËÍʱ¼ä: 2020Äê7ÔÂ4ÈÕ 1:31
ÊÕ¼þÈË: spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org>
Ö÷Ìâ: [spring] IPv6+??

Hi All,

I came across this website: https://www.ipv6plus.net/

Now, I wish to clarify a few things.

  1.  This website seems to imply ¨C strong ¨C that Srv6 is not infact IPv6 ¨C but rather IPv6+ - is this the position of the member of this working group or is this simply someones bizarre idea?


  1.  This site seems heavily related to the new ip stuff that was presented to the ITU ¨C does anyone here know if there is any actual relation between this and that crowd?



spring mailing list