Re: [spring] Conclusion from WG poll on dataplane solution for compressing segment routing over IPv6 Wed, 08 September 2021 06:40 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4BF73A1BF8 for <>; Tue, 7 Sep 2021 23:40:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id x82w431ejxz9 for <>; Tue, 7 Sep 2021 23:40:10 -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 980163A1BF3 for <>; Tue, 7 Sep 2021 23:40:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (unknown []) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTPS id 2C69E5CF871FE765CD3E; Wed, 8 Sep 2021 14:40:08 +0800 (CST)
Received: from ([]) by with SMTP id 1886dkPH058485; Wed, 8 Sep 2021 14:39:46 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from
Received: from mapi (kjyxapp05[null]) by mapi (Zmail) with MAPI id mid13; Wed, 8 Sep 2021 14:39:46 +0800 (CST)
Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2021 14:39:46 +0800
X-Zmail-TransId: 2b0761385ab2cd3aed6f
X-Mailer: Zmail v1.0
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====_001_next====="
X-MAIL: 1886dkPH058485
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: Wed, 08 Sep 2021 06:40:16 -0000

In my opinion, C-SID just presents 1 solution in dataplane, even it has 2 flavors, but they share the same framework and process. Before we accept it it is not important to prefer which flavor.

Best regards,



收件人:Joel M. Halpern;;
日 期 :2021年09月08日 11:53
主 题 :Re: [spring] Conclusion from WG poll on dataplane solution for compressing segment routing over IPv6

spring mailing list


Joel and chairs thx for having us move forward here. On the q if CSID is 1 dataplane or 2 dataplane, in my view there is 2 dataplanes inside the CSID proposal and I am advocating that in case CSID moves fwd we pick 1 of them, not both.


From: spring <> on behalf of Joel M. Halpern <>
 Date: Monday, 6 September 2021 at 19:27
 To: <>
 Subject: [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