Re: [spring] Conclusion from WG poll on dataplane solution for compressing segment routing over IPv6
liu.aihua@zte.com.cn Wed, 08 September 2021 06:40 UTC
Return-Path: <liu.aihua@zte.com.cn>
X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4BF73A1BF8 for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Sep 2021 23:40:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
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 mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id x82w431ejxz9 for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Sep 2021 23:40:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxhk.zte.com.cn (mxhk.zte.com.cn [63.217.80.70]) (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 980163A1BF3 for <spring@ietf.org>; Tue, 7 Sep 2021 23:40:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mse-fl2.zte.com.cn (unknown [10.30.14.239]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTPS id 2C69E5CF871FE765CD3E; Wed, 8 Sep 2021 14:40:08 +0800 (CST)
Received: from kjyxapp04.zte.com.cn ([10.30.12.203]) by mse-fl2.zte.com.cn with SMTP id 1886dkPH058485; Wed, 8 Sep 2021 14:39:46 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from liu.aihua@zte.com.cn)
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: <202109081439467000032@zte.com.cn>
In-Reply-To: <AM0PR07MB4497408DE82F3C7DCDF94E9F83D49@AM0PR07MB4497.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
References: d060f258-4e7d-51a8-2ced-69cfe2daa31f@joelhalpern.com, AM0PR07MB4497408DE82F3C7DCDF94E9F83D49@AM0PR07MB4497.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
From: liu.aihua@zte.com.cn
To: wim.henderickx@nokia.com, chengweiqiang@chinamobile.com
Cc: jmh@joelhalpern.com, spring@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====_001_next====="
X-MAIL: mse-fl2.zte.com.cn 1886dkPH058485
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/cUrXFuj9g2flkksAHzKKGq2MrT0>
Subject: Re: [spring] Conclusion from WG poll on dataplane solution for compressing segment routing over IPv6
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: 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, Aihua 原始邮件 发件人:Henderickx,Wim(Nokia-BE/Antwerp) 收件人:Joel M. Halpern;spring@ietf.org; 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 spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring 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 <spring-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com> Date: Monday, 6 September 2021 at 19:27 To: spring@ietf.org <spring@ietf.org> 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 spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
- [spring] Conclusion from WG poll on dataplane sol… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [spring] Conclusion from WG poll on dataplane… Tony Li
- Re: [spring] Conclusion from WG poll on dataplane… Weiqiang Cheng
- Re: [spring] Conclusion from WG poll on dataplane… Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)
- Re: [spring] Conclusion from WG poll on dataplane… liu.aihua
- Re: [spring] Conclusion from WG poll on dataplane… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [spring] Conclusion from WG poll on dataplane… Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)
- Re: [spring] Conclusion from WG poll on dataplane… Darren Dukes (ddukes)
- Re: [spring] Conclusion from WG poll on dataplane… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [spring] Conclusion from WG poll on dataplane… Chengli (Cheng Li)
- Re: [spring] Conclusion from WG poll on dataplane… zhen han
- Re: [spring] Conclusion from WG poll on dataplane… liu.aihua
- Re: [spring] Conclusion from WG poll on dataplane… Lihao
- Re: [spring] Conclusion from WG poll on dataplane… Qiuyuanxiang
- Re: [spring] Conclusion from WG poll on dataplane… linchangwang
- Re: [spring] Conclusion from WG poll on dataplane… Gyan Mishra
- Re: [spring] Conclusion from WG poll on dataplane… Lizhenbin
- Re: [spring] Conclusion from WG poll on dataplane… Zafar Ali (zali)