Re: [spring] Progressing Standardizing SR over IPv6 compression

Satoru Matsushima <> Fri, 20 August 2021 16:32 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD06E3A1532 for <>; Fri, 20 Aug 2021 09:32:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iZDt0kC4M1dt for <>; Fri, 20 Aug 2021 09:32:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::436]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1BE1B3A1530 for <>; Fri, 20 Aug 2021 09:32:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id i21so9063331pfd.8 for <>; Fri, 20 Aug 2021 09:32:30 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:cc :date:message-id:references:to; bh=phQQGPT+pV2V0agd6ZLVmTqeaoMBuq2bRYIQ7mfzZtY=; b=hf1E/99z/s7UNYt9TWIZWV1yWFAHnvpb0/KC6GH8oVZUYOPmYijvCIl4As6Jc4iIYR dXHi7NmQsUCtVQgUwFdnVQKlWlPgZPefiWzNT71WJKgpmWHQcHYe5Dv76K4fW8fbjEM+ 4CsXnt3e7fPOiXqLyH9si9kWRNFJiPKd32inrMEAC45Qfz82SizCpz17ZkLwbh6Y+YWr 71jKWIg1mDj8qMllgj0bVP1xHrnq4H1zdQquf9mJaKr31G428pyXYFrncMedMmG9vm8h D6l26XW1fXPzUuTWzTvgurki09L0Ybgk1reXG9G8Diujd4Gl05lfy/GZO6nJg10AoxM6 zymg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:subject :from:in-reply-to:cc:date:message-id:references:to; bh=phQQGPT+pV2V0agd6ZLVmTqeaoMBuq2bRYIQ7mfzZtY=; b=Nmi9P/PaUFgF+psBtcWias9NA8NNdy/97z2XrPjQ006tO/NFCVkr4OIKUwJz9h7Czi MNqH2ccuOF7euRAvwQrTIhdIr67AQSt1uIcAFB8Srup6fXLoMLZSp6bsryGo1UYxfyRG 0n91omsRATmTIPTFiXJxGv1i1GWBZrM6aaZ419EU5Bkr/++oyn5TZzNXXEw/vBZVR2b3 fm1eFq4xoyZSK95pdJiea60yrMOHiAXZedR3NkiaAnYhw7Oc+T2zOZ8xz1JeoF279ZN5 mLf7nTrqtBv15BSWkcoQ8J1s73fx5f4ilJGEhGy+yNfR7vMNT/y/Ulj+qKq9eiXgMF13 gVaw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530dfMt4OS4keb0gtPM1377YDCQk+5LjnTHO844fWHUpLiCJzCcf vIkyV/0k55T9btI8L6s1ufA=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJy/J5GaSjw7Ysx4ccrdArUFgt/1k8XfeXFGtHLxzCG/TX8hCVdg1MTskZxxsLM7XtZIFDKM0w==
X-Received: by 2002:aa7:850c:0:b0:3e2:edf3:3d09 with SMTP id v12-20020aa7850c000000b003e2edf33d09mr13886150pfn.42.1629477147868; Fri, 20 Aug 2021 09:32:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([2400:2411:8900:0:f4d5:1c08:2e55:decc]) by with ESMTPSA id y13sm7862596pfq.147.2021. (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 20 Aug 2021 09:32:27 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Satoru Matsushima <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Cc: "Joel M. Halpern" <>,
Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2021 01:32:25 +0900
Message-Id: <>
References: <>
To: James Guichard <>
X-Mailer: iPad Mail (18G82)
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: Fri, 20 Aug 2021 16:32:36 -0000

Hi Chairs, and WG,

As an SRv6 network operator, I support that the WG adopts one single data plane behavior and standardize it as the SRv6 SID list compression spec. It is simple and IMO the best way for all of us.


> On Aug 18, 2021, at 5:28, James Guichard <> wrote:
> Dear WG:
> If you have not already done so please do provide your comments to the mailing list as soon as possible. 
> Thanks!
> Jim, Joel & Bruno
> -----Original Message-----
> From: spring <> On Behalf Of Joel M. Halpern
> Sent: Wednesday, August 4, 2021 2:52 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