Re: [spring] Question about SRv6 Insert function

Robert Raszuk <> Fri, 06 September 2019 08:18 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD1BD12008F; Fri, 6 Sep 2019 01:18:12 -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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 wFE0Z7YetDNh; Fri, 6 Sep 2019 01:18:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::432]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5F7B812001E; Fri, 6 Sep 2019 01:18:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id w22so3868537pfi.9; Fri, 06 Sep 2019 01:18:11 -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=YTVOdlGamwp4DYEhj6OIa/jBGMp+vBFDcEq6Y939LZQ=; b=EKQAiiB/ZIr8kM63iyeujq2eqqJymL5UGqMsaogEsuVso7s8xDgGdIB/Aw2CBQcAHN tCF0keVQEeauYWbaf4GZi/Lb49ndCc7w8NS3/l1JhdZBGBCH9CSKPqj8TY4AiOe+Ju9t AZNxzSir4Ml3x7Hbj92FKA8ObdEZ0fa+WyFe291g6zPhrxONrlUdRMiGsfI7RRlnopBk WnPL4GRwmsAins0leIXxy2OyLdYk3UpAj91/TefCQgfiJ8pS7DqDHj6obeVPG4YewQiF uIEPAnjH+KhzuDbdq7EKRU6+Blp5PUoCUqvh5avwQiACjjsIPbk8KwaUycm2RorCrX8u 7VGA==
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=YTVOdlGamwp4DYEhj6OIa/jBGMp+vBFDcEq6Y939LZQ=; b=VR+DMWW/nruk1dPKIP1V8QPLlMb5a+s0U5dUQcEtr5u2A2lX4OW3UZWqh9zMuUs8qy AmZaWvYaQC+7B7Fva7OuNs00MAHsn0L8ZuzYG+S2IM0mVQWblhEu6TXBn6UB4OBOe4uS OL1TYwJmCrjXdDUvfLPUayV5eh9Pk/Mwb4+wKSPDnnrssnZ+VlO54lgPqOoOmCgWxWIN p4dDkTTkdUu2123yc9BzlwfzYE0GHFxK93clIMHQl1eO1z3KsJ/mJN337i3nyNcnCSB1 jbMeetJoQKOEex+YbOYDdWD/zNSi/vm47Hpx9y0ft4cww0fZbIGh0DKDqoJKGfJ9175/ AAYg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVgsh4vUkvur1Je3mIZqPrGzV9ubDVRmgCpkShLmlwsuCqnIsX4 bm9QFPjUmB+MEPabZxMPmjBmUjsWj+oEkeBmiYY=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzAjZKK7/Tz0hjKaZvYyds2cctI8yoFYq46c7QVQUQGKcRtQmx2IHu6GgTSWVlG+fEaEeMfEXPmbmM+m9pD1cg=
X-Received: by 2002:a63:711c:: with SMTP id m28mr6749122pgc.396.1567757890312; Fri, 06 Sep 2019 01:18:10 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <> <> <28214_1567694772_5D711FB4_28214_238_1_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A48BFA9F3@OPEXCAUBM43.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Robert Raszuk <>
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2019 10:17:59 +0200
Message-ID: <>
To: Ron Bonica <>
Cc: "Darren Dukes (ddukes)" <>, Fernando Gont <>, "" <>, "" <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000255ef10591de1495"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [spring] Question about SRv6 Insert function
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 Sep 2019 08:18:13 -0000


> They remind us that draft-ietf-spring-network-programming are far from

To me it actually highlights something quite contrary. It is that some
folks are pretty far from appreciating or even grasping the value of the

In your other note you have extensively elaborated well on how to
effectively kill innovation in IETF. If we would be following your advice
there would be almost non documents which build on former work and update
former work.

But most importantly documenting something does not force anyone to
actually use it if they choose so. This entire smoke about header insertion
from what I have been told has some technical concerns about real source
awareness about say MTU issues. Well for one if I am doing insertion in my
network I better make sure I do not drop the packet based on the MTU. It is
so basic ... of course I must clean up when I fwd the packet to other
domain but this is basic network hygiene.

In the same time folks are happy to encap + add EHs, DOs etc ... on the
grounds that src of the encap will be in the packet. Is this sufficient ..
even if ICMP is sent to such src (domian ingress) I bet such domain ingress
will not notify the original packet src anyway. And with encap the packet
gets much bigger anyway.

But I was not part of v6 creators and I think I will keep it that way based
on that little thread we had here :)