Re: [spring] Progressing Standardizing SR over IPv6 compression

"Bernier, Daniel" <daniel.bernier@bell.ca> Thu, 05 August 2021 16:24 UTC

Return-Path: <prvs=844bbc775=daniel.bernier@bell.ca>
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 CA2A73A1849 for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Aug 2021 09:24:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=bell.ca
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 7PpPuM9zpS86 for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Aug 2021 09:24:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ESA1-Dor.bell.ca (esa1-dor.bell.ca [204.101.223.58]) (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 7C5413A1848 for <spring@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Aug 2021 09:24:11 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=bell.ca; i=@bell.ca; q=dns/txt; s=ESAcorp; t=1628180651; x=1659716651; h=from:to:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-id:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:subject; bh=nIFDIf8fL8ID9Yq68eVv3KeO1otGk5bMj3Ri8+cqPmQ=; b=MpSljE1VOnZ5fcMiy4djfq3Mf1VWtCKOmUN9Pxxpu56w6ux8To6q2/YK a5WBcek86f52sGEhKZFmJ+zms4Q3rUqZYwiVmaGqw8g9W9tiubCRQIc63 SSTyIkd2E5hgsFgl/7uAh2UOwahlJOHIui1UGYxhicXxAF8zpB48FNQSF /VCi7TO1wss8BI1FYUv6J5/+2MYcIbD56cHcetDq4wSA8IbLHbCHp01BJ w/seiLegEhKtoSUQgQ+nP4YHgIvZvkhFUjRJpmT2zCoFjjlm7SpY9fUkb 0yUwGDEfGsCE7SX4sberp4CWJ4Sg+x9V8UM4WxDppqMgJB0zrMWfJkwdu A==;
IronPort-SDR: Phd9z1f7NiT3rw1x9IGtqlvG5fzfEUEr9OaYuXG83N/zoXAVZFQYyicFczAhl28ng/TrBKL79A iRY8DbKImK8A==
Received: from dc5cmy-d00.bellca.int.bell.ca (HELO DG1MBX03-WYN.bell.corp.bce.ca) ([198.235.121.229]) by esa01corp-dor.bell.corp.bce.ca with ESMTP; 05 Aug 2021 12:24:10 -0400
Received: from DG1MBX04-WYN.bell.corp.bce.ca (2002:8eb6:120e::8eb6:120e) by DG1MBX03-WYN.bell.corp.bce.ca (2002:8eb6:120d::8eb6:120d) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.18; Thu, 5 Aug 2021 12:24:09 -0400
Received: from DG1MBX04-WYN.bell.corp.bce.ca ([fe80::8d9b:1c8a:173a:e6d1]) by DG1MBX04-WYN.bell.corp.bce.ca ([fe80::8d9b:1c8a:173a:e6d1%22]) with mapi id 15.00.1497.018; Thu, 5 Aug 2021 12:24:09 -0400
From: "Bernier, Daniel" <daniel.bernier@bell.ca>
To: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>, "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [EXT][spring] Progressing Standardizing SR over IPv6 compression
Thread-Index: AQHXiWHmGmVflFbtn0yPsL96fCVSo6tlGdyA
Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2021 16:24:09 +0000
Message-ID: <52220D21-7D29-49D7-8878-27C21AF954FC@bell.ca>
References: <4c03c28c-2b7d-0a90-c2bb-5fff53d0bc4c@joelhalpern.com>
In-Reply-To: <4c03c28c-2b7d-0a90-c2bb-5fff53d0bc4c@joelhalpern.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/16.51.21071101
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [172.24.112.76]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <6FECDE1689176543916BEE408A21FE0F@exchange.bell.ca>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/kF8lhfqKEqw7OzJ7m8T-rtRg4eA>
Subject: Re: [spring] Progressing Standardizing SR over IPv6 compression
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: Thu, 05 Aug 2021 16:24:17 -0000

Hi, 

Similar to my comment on the chat during SPRING last Monday. The mailing list has been flooded of opinions, exchanges, technical arguments on all variations, to the extent that it triggered the WG to initiate that DT effort to help get better clarity.
I really do think that it would be counterproductive to go back to the list, restart another lengthy technical discussion thread and discard the outcome of what the DT has produced.
 
This discussion has slowed progress on various aspects of the industry (from ASIC SDKs, to large incumbents and new vendors support)  and in turn slowed down our ability to deploy. Nonetheless, the community is moving forward with efforts like SONIC 
on normalizing CSID and SRH within the SAI for broad homogeneous adoption. 

So, to the question "Should the working group standardize one data plane behavior for compressing SRv6 information?"

I would say a Yes and please follow the outcome of the DT work

Cheers, 

Dan B

On 2021-08-04, 2:52 PM, "spring on behalf of Joel M. Halpern" <spring-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of jmh@joelhalpern.com> wrote:

    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
    spring@ietf.org
    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    External Email: Please use caution when opening links and attachments / Courriel externe: Soyez prudent avec les liens et documents joints