Re: [spring] Progressing Standardizing SR over IPv6 compression

Dirk Steinberg <> Wed, 25 August 2021 06:46 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83BBF3A0A04 for <>; Tue, 24 Aug 2021 23:46:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.895
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.895 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_DNS_FOR_FROM=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id P7_FIid0XhIG for <>; Tue, 24 Aug 2021 23:46:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::629]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B51333A0A3F for <>; Tue, 24 Aug 2021 23:46:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id mf2so30829198ejb.9 for <>; Tue, 24 Aug 2021 23:46:17 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=Rk6AD6DbFzV5xWU4v9gFsJwOy7+Uau145uqKznzN//w=; b=Z7h+9EFw5lwd89M6uqmfs76emXy56JMcLuc0WVnqDobmoiBpEGRSaGDp3KWJtHokoO ip7Fv5GdmjefjWq9ZDLABlINMVgnkg43G+fxWN4k2ekVfiKFSRLpkzugyRxpTqFnkxy8 ckyJ/YuHFlbQVuyVpfI/h9aqb7/OCWBxbrQrKbZxCtTEgBY1XJOZ2EJb6AyvXPsYdc5m eXOT54MjDO2FuDd81Cz5XGuORVOTBZlEY2Dn6R07lAr7Y/baxyNxwM4W/wARAFlU6Dpl em0LHpWKMYK+RWP1Y303TSsePTuiictp/2oyPIDeRh8UglAW5F5KyudOmL1NrEsSw7JL pbxA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=Rk6AD6DbFzV5xWU4v9gFsJwOy7+Uau145uqKznzN//w=; b=WUml5cSCTYlIUJIq/FhwaqxqmrZ7mjRktDXElRVj+8iYAAQ0wttQ+BCU01csaoUQuc 3je3mchbw7mSxMg7aXhtN5G5xRBwqxzhSASQgO2uBanl6exMHIndkeIah2EfRNiG+QQ/ Y41FRZnUVcJU56EJvFg+G/mhXI7KAF+vgK3v1F4LTkNfRvxNEOEBBTD3hYcT+SdF9eJS yPXqjDHkJIZqLEtKgq5jYtb87q3vDgh2Jm0miJiH1YfSK3XAECRlMAcgFwFuY2uzmQwY LeMSBK+VWV6UBIRP48WAMloJMAccAJG1LmgcWE24DBYw2xE2UdZFiczsa2ZyGpD2yySz eVig==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5339KjWbwAeKaky3Ua1TY4+e12YZrzAo/l0eOQCidvUttF2hwPdB 7IXSlF2Vgfc4UbnJAwG13okmh+ST/9yQiqOizW24ykd3CMk=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzQI3UD99ubAn/fjjjBQgzQ4q6jk72bZ7FTYcTVpKir/peLs+FviBHBwFd0GyroDx00mYe9awTTMy1PcaG/8/o=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:4d4d:: with SMTP id b13mr20310395ejv.528.1629873973835; Tue, 24 Aug 2021 23:46:13 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Dirk Steinberg <>
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2021 09:46:03 +0300
Message-ID: <>
To: "" <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000003d561405ca5c9b72"
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, 25 Aug 2021 06:46:38 -0000

Dear Chairs,

please excuse my late reply, I am catching up with the list after some
weeks of travel.

I strongly believe that the WG should standardize one and only one solution
for SRv6 header compression. More than one solution would mean pain
for both vendors and operators.

Based on the DT analysis it appears to me that CSID meets the
requirements and is the best solution.

I support adoption of CSID as a SRv6 header compression standard.


On Sat, Aug 21, 2021 at 3:36 PM Darren Dukes (ddukes) <ddukes=> wrote:

> Hi chairs, I’m just catching up on SPRING after a few weeks away for
> summer vacation.
> Yes we should standardize one SRv6 compression proposal. CSID meets the
> requirements and I would like to see it adopted.
> Darren
> ------------------------------
> *From:* spring <> on behalf of Joel M. Halpern <
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 4, 2021 2:53 PM
> *To:*
> *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
> _______________________________________________
> spring mailing list