On Thu, 27 Feb 2020 at 06:46, Robert Raszuk <rob...@raszuk.net> wrote: > > Hey Sander, > > No worries ... three IPv6 musketeers have already presented themselves well > to this discussion. This was just one more demo of it. No need to apologize - > at least me :) >
You realise that the 3 musketeers were heroes in that story? > And while you can call someone's opinion the way you like - the fact that > SRv6 builds on top of IPv6 does not make it automatically IPv6 extension. > SRv6 is not building on top of IPv6 when it is proposing fundamental changes to the way IPv6 packets are processed. SPRING WG charter: "SPRING WG should avoid modification to existing data planes that would make them incompatible with existing deployments. Where possible, existing control and management plane protocols must be used within existing architectures to implement the SPRING function." Regards, Mark "Athos" Smith. > My perhaps subtle point was that while politically it has been sold like > minor IPv6 extension from technical point it does not need to be positioned > like one. The sole fact that it reuses the same ethertype does not make it an > extension. > > Now as I have already been through my round of circular explanations in the > previous months - now I just sit and watch how it goes round and round again. > > Best, > R., > > > On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 8:22 PM Sander Steffann <san...@retevia.net> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> >> Regardless if folks agree or not with that SRv6 is a new data plane. SRv6 >> >> != IPv6 that's obvious. >> >> >> >> It also does not attempt to *extend* IPv6. It reuses some IPv6 elements >> >> and makes sure non SRv6 nodes can treat the packets as vanilla IPv6, but >> >> that's it. With that in mind all of this going back and forth between >> >> SPRING and 6MAN to me is triggered by wrong positioning of SRv6 as a new >> >> transport. >> > >> > This is completely bogus. SRv6 is not a new L3 protocol that just happens >> > to be compatible with IPv6. That is insane BS. >> >> I have been told by good friends that my language was inappropriate. It >> probably is, but I'm not going to apologize for it. I and others have tried >> the polite way unsuccessfully and are still ignored by the authors. This has >> been going on for far too long, and if it's necessary that someone stops >> being polite and call it out then I'll be the one to do it. >> >> Cheers, >> Sander >> >> > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > i...@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
