Re: [spring] Question about SRv6 Insert function

Fernando Gont <> Sat, 07 September 2019 22:40 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A119112018D; Sat, 7 Sep 2019 15:40:52 -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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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 7m48nWw-O2iS; Sat, 7 Sep 2019 15:40:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2E713120145; Sat, 7 Sep 2019 15:40:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4B5C386355; Sun, 8 Sep 2019 00:40:49 +0200 (CEST)
To: Robert Raszuk <>
Cc: Ole Troan <>, "" <>, "" <>
References: <> <> <> <> <28214_1567694772_5D711FB4_28214_238_1_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A48BFA9F3@OPEXCAUBM43.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Fernando Gont <>
Openpgp: preference=signencrypt
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2019 01:40:43 +0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [spring] Question about SRv6 Insert function
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: Sat, 07 Sep 2019 22:40:53 -0000

On 8/9/19 01:23, Robert Raszuk wrote:
>     4) I expect that, as co-chair, you'd agree with me that allowing EH
>     insertion in IPv6 is a major modification/addition. According to our
>     charter, we don't seem allowed to do that:
> Do you need a new charter to be allowed to standardize extensions to
> IPv6 header and their operations like SRH ? That is not what AD and
> chairs said and one would assume they know better how to guide the work
> in the group. 

WGs do have a charter, which specifies what the WG does. That's why, in
the extreme case, 6man doesn't do TCP stuff. Charters are not casted
into stone, though.

> Because if this is really the case - we should indeed stop any efforts
> in this regard and perhaps seriously start considering a new WG
> formation to work on new IP header design perhaps even backwards
> compatible with current IPv6 "legacy". 

Besides having my own personal opinion, I'd say that no matter the path
you want to follow (or need to follow) to pursue this, you really should
have a much stronger and complete document than the current proposal.

> In the meantime - if what you communicate is true WG consensus -

I'm not entitled to communicate things for the wg. I made a comment
about the charter -- a side comment that came up while noting that
EH-insertion does *not* seem to be a minor addition/modification to IPv6.

> proposals for addition of EH to IPv4 become not only nice to have, but
> in fact very useful to have. 

I'm not sure I follow...

Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492