Re: [spring] Progressing Standardizing SR over IPv6 compression

Martin Horneffer <> Fri, 06 August 2021 08:07 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 727293A23FC for <>; Fri, 6 Aug 2021 01:07:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=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 2TROScvsqP-d for <>; Fri, 6 Aug 2021 01:07:27 -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 112B53A23F3 for <>; Fri, 6 Aug 2021 01:07:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] (localhost []) by localhost (Mailerdaemon) with ESMTPSA id 4B024C06A1 for <>; Fri, 6 Aug 2021 10:07:13 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=dkim; t=1628237240; h=from:subject:date:message-id:to:mime-version:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:references; bh=P/SWwdYxSw1qhjr/aAhSzoUQ7ZrdcG+bP+yEe4UmST8=; b=zITAU8FhNgmIG+zU0cnCQpIjB1NNTVm/80u1ohDD+1C36TPxVucwEHFBgt1s9fFKjzJz60 vAaJjzKVRgYITShoOt6MCUeSBAiwAX5+bq9s8V35TQKD6L6n92KAmvmfwU4vZVq/aDKIvQ 0/aVBbrMXoxZcdPjiOB/hhJgS4XGe+stVjS8gUhyXlbKHv4wPhw22etSMULfwkgz5UmcdP /vu/K7fpDECf3GHz1SwadNutiF1ItI9B+rp5nHrZucGZxpk2difC7D6OU5HMzs07yiK1Kd 0csTfrqZweFXd8AZaGs+DuMB6oN12XbVN6732YoOqSJmMqTMtOXICHgBH1APwQ==
References: <>
From: Martin Horneffer <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2021 10:07:08 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.12.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Last-TLS-Session-Version: TLSv1.3
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: Fri, 06 Aug 2021 08:07:33 -0000

My opinion clearly is: The WG should standardize ONE solution for SRv6 
header compression, and it should follow to results of the DT.

Reason: As an operator I could theoretically ignore the effort vendors 
have for implementing solution that I do not care for.
In reality however that usually does takes critical ressources away from 
implementing the technology that I need.
The effect is much later interoperability.

Best regards,

Am 04.08.21 um 20:52 schrieb Joel M. Halpern:
> 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