Re: [spring] Conclusion from WG poll on dataplane solution for compressing segment routing over IPv6

linchangwang <> Wed, 15 September 2021 15:31 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E03B3A1D08 for <>; Wed, 15 Sep 2021 08:31:19 -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 0dACYrQD_N3N for <>; Wed, 15 Sep 2021 08:31:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 07ADF3A1D06 for <>; Wed, 15 Sep 2021 08:31:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP id 18FFSnuJ046931; Wed, 15 Sep 2021 23:28:49 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2242.12; Wed, 15 Sep 2021 23:28:53 +0800
Received: from ([::1]) by ([fe80::5840:dd59:199d:711a%9]) with mapi id 15.01.2242.012; Wed, 15 Sep 2021 23:28:53 +0800
From: linchangwang <>
To: Weiqiang Cheng <>, "'Joel M. Halpern'" <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [spring] Conclusion from WG poll on dataplane solution for compressing segment routing over IPv6
Thread-Index: Adep3mJ5QKp3PfA6R/+vfgRZuPnXZw==
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2021 15:28:53 +0000
Message-ID: <>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
x-originating-ip: []
x-sender-location: DAG2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MAIL: 18FFSnuJ046931
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [spring] Conclusion from WG poll on dataplane solution for compressing segment routing over IPv6
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, 15 Sep 2021 15:31:20 -0000

Dear Chairs & Weiqiang,

Support WG adoption of these two documents.

The design team has done a great job.
The multi-vendor interworking test of CSIDs had been done , including my company New H3C.
The CSID satisfies all the requirements, it will be great if we can have CSID standardized.

Best regards,
Changwang lin

发件人: spring [] 代表 Weiqiang Cheng
发送时间: 2021年9月8日 11:25
收件人: 'Joel M. Halpern';
主题: Re: [spring] Conclusion from WG poll on dataplane solution for compressing segment routing over IPv6

Dear Chairs,

Many thanks for your hard working.

We are happy to see that the CSID draft has significant interest to be
adopted as a WG document.

Regarding the dataplane, the authors believe that the CSID draft contains
only one dataplane solution with two different flavors[1]: NEXT-CSID-FLAVOR
and REPLACE-CSID-FLAVOR, rather than two dataplane solutions.

Both the flavors are defined based on the SRv6 data plane(one data plane),
and the SIDs with these two flavors can be encoded in a single SRH just like
we can encode PSP Flavor SIDs and USD flavor SIDs together in a SRH.

The inter-op test of CSIDs had been done almost one year ago[2], and
everything was OK.

Furthermore, the mechanism defined in the draft has been stable and mature.

With the consensus, the authors hope WG can consider to adopt the CSID

Best regards,
on behalf of CSID authors


发件人: spring [] 代表 Joel M. Halpern
发送时间: 2021年9月7日 01:27
主题: [spring] Conclusion from WG poll on dataplane solution for compressing
segment routing over IPv6

Our thanks to the working group members for speaking up clearly.  There
is a rough (quite clear) consensus for standardizing one dataplane
solution to compressing segment routing over IPv6.

As chairs, there are some related observations we need to make.
There appears to be significant interest in using the framework in the
CSID draft for addressing the above.

However, before we issue a call for adoption on that, the chairs would
like to understand how the working group wants to solve a technical
problem.  The CSID draft contains two dataplane solutions.  The above
rough consensus is for one dataplane solution.  Does the working group
want to choose one?  Do the authors want to suggest that one of the two
is the one we should standardize, and get working group agreement?
Should we adopt the document, with a note indicating the problem, and
solve the problem afterwards?  (That itself does not solve the problem,
it merely kicks it down the road.) Do folks see another means to avoid
putting the WG in conflict with itself?

As a loosely related side node, the chairs will also observe that we do
not see an obstacle to informational or experimental publication of
other solutions, as long as there is sufficient energy in the working
group to deal with those.  Also, only documents for which there is at
least one implementation will be progressed this way.

Thank you,
Bruno, Jim, and Joel

spring mailing list

spring mailing list
This e-mail and its attachments contain confidential information from New H3C, which is
intended only for the person or entity whose address is listed above. Any use of the
information contained herein in any way (including, but not limited to, total or partial
disclosure, reproduction, or dissemination) by persons other than the intended
recipient(s) is prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify the sender
by phone or email immediately and delete it!