Re: [spring] Progressing Standardizing SR over IPv6 compression

Aijun Wang <> Wed, 11 August 2021 02:49 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E4E13A0A10 for <>; Tue, 10 Aug 2021 19:49:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OGcgn9b1KIxY for <>; Tue, 10 Aug 2021 19:49:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4FB413A0A0A for <>; Tue, 10 Aug 2021 19:49:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from DESKTOP2IOH5QC (unknown []) by (Hmail) with ESMTPA id 0D66C1C0277; Wed, 11 Aug 2021 10:49:35 +0800 (CST)
From: "Aijun Wang" <>
To: "'Joel M. Halpern'" <>, <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2021 10:49:34 +0800
Message-ID: <008b01d78e5b$8477a280$8d66e780$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Content-Language: zh-cn
Thread-Index: AQLVRtL56u3oGmLxcChjlrbPi/F5qqlyJgcA
X-HM-Tid: 0a7b331d7a99d993kuws0d66c1c0277
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: Wed, 11 Aug 2021 02:49:50 -0000

The answer to the question is: 

Having more data plane behaviors requires the operator to solve the
interoperability issues, or all vendors supports all solutions. 
Such results should be avoided by the efforts of standard community.

Best Regards

Aijun Wang
China Telecom

-----Original Message-----
From: <> On Behalf Of Joel M.
Sent: Thursday, August 5, 2021 2:52 AM
Subject: [spring] Progressing Standardizing SR over IPv6 compression

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