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

Greg Mirsky <> Fri, 10 September 2021 19:52 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BAE73A1835 for <>; Fri, 10 Sep 2021 12:52:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 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, 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 ZI0Knv8ovF0x for <>; Fri, 10 Sep 2021 12:52:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::533]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AA8E33A1833 for <>; Fri, 10 Sep 2021 12:52:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id g8so4079050edt.7 for <>; Fri, 10 Sep 2021 12:52:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=LpvtiMOxqLH0VePtgV3xOisc0FmEy7mlRgsoh4Id6O0=; b=BWeNPm2W3tbXF+259l1Iw+t6XwjP7+RTVmU52f1m3AcJRcHlmIjTAvvvazujo8ZmHN VvVFlmwzrvfNinl4rrMYXuPhZ6EeL/ougMQq4jnWG+qWJWy8shf/C5H3iA6z/TCIUkmS ze6R6WdrSHClWgY8ZT9v7VfvAfxAUJVp0UaQBxOPwjhksi2Ob/TRXtI3ohtZfakD4M6E 4EFezMyThzGQhIp2w8J7bdBzmxEEA878eIVGbpCSu6u62em4xnoqL7ZwXhOZ/mFpWGyw YfgzIZ2V208cOklyTUKSldRYjkfGo2ksOeT4XGUhAKNnsuro23Qblr5u0aM9cTwvFuzL tsiw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=LpvtiMOxqLH0VePtgV3xOisc0FmEy7mlRgsoh4Id6O0=; b=GjogOmHXdhXVkBHnDGnDZRLrvpcYpttLnAfFfgzic17l0Dvq4/cLkYR5eWNzkSgqs0 DTh8F9hANiED5rc67o2qHtZT++/Aogt6idTQjDTemWnXHuhK4lzaBPBQqliIBJbbUj8j uDuwSTsegklI9ft3y90qfGEHiKR7YPhiWE22QTa4Uju1xtDJsz73xN5M4dmCnjWXK24g LLVIs4rWoaEeqf+gBVRzuUUCctLga3Qq759NHD3KkQr1tcjq9Rd2xNd72ZWYGN/0icsI as5+QC7LMmMPwMwg+GRegM3OC84Cr6dngWu48pfeyeutSjloopgwa5FEnvieZGGqi4X5 b72Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530rnauY1IZMzjOgMDQlcNNUpA5HSItMNsnECpr8mkbXoSr5AgIo 1uA/ukv7yKhe3ltkqrapBclTQL73k8bHZJ450+hRy1EQ47smPA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzPFbVptUgUgSaEVG0MDP5aeYWJ+7byXiR7aFAnFP3Zq6d+K5LwAR2Gw5rfgOtg1iBzbYGZ1Laqd5jsHd88nbM=
X-Received: by 2002:a50:9e8b:: with SMTP id a11mr10572879edf.126.1631303545813; Fri, 10 Sep 2021 12:52:25 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Greg Mirsky <>
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2021 12:52:14 -0700
Message-ID: <>
To: "Joel M. Halpern" <>
Cc: "" <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000005e7d2505cba9741e"
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: Fri, 10 Sep 2021 19:52:35 -0000

Hi Joel et al.
in evaluating a draft during a WG AP I am looking for three questions:

   - Is the document written reasonably well to clearly convey the problem
   and proposed solution?
   - Does the problem statement reflect a real existing challenge, an issue
   that needs to be solved?
   - Is the proposed solution technically viable?

Reading the CSID draft (draft-filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-compression
I could positively answer the first two questions. While deciding on the
third question, I've got sense that the document describes two different
behaviors in the data plane, two ways to encode variable-length SIDs in the
SRH extension header. I agree that it can be resolved through either the
authors selecting one solution, or the WG working on that. Personally, I
encourage the authors to do that.


On Mon, Sep 6, 2021 at 10:27 AM Joel M. Halpern <> wrote:

> 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