Re: [spring] Is srv6 PSP a good idea

On Wed, Feb 26, 2020, 6:26 AM Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com>
wrote:

> Figured I’d add to this – as I continued to read the charter
>
>
>
> *SPRING WG should avoid modification to existing data planes that would*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> * make them incompatible with existing deployments. Where possible,
> existing control and management plane protocols must be used within
> existing architectures to implement the SPRING function. Any modification
> of -or extension to- existing architectures, data planes, or control or
> management plane protocols should be carried out in the WGs responsible for
> the architecture, data plane, or control or management plane protocol being
> modified and in coordination with the SPRING WG, but may be done in SPRING
> WG after agreement with all the relevant WG chairs and responsible Area
> Directors.*
>
>
>
> If SRv6 is not IPv6 – as is the contention – (which in my view is an
> absolutely false contention
>

+1

> designed to step around a specification because it simply doesn’t suite
> what you want) - well – then what exactly are we doing here – because by
> that claim – we are inventing a new control plane, a new data plane, and
> well, it’s a new protocol – so – do we have the agreement of the relevant
> WG chairs, Area Directors etc – to invent an entirely new everything.
>

That's already happened. SRH has reinvented both protocol options, TLVs, in
the network layer, as well as header authentication.

Tom

>
>
> Didn’t think so….
>
>
>
> Andrew
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>