Skip to main content

Segment Routing over IPv6 (SRv6) Network Programming

Approval announcement
Draft of message to be sent after approval:


From: The IESG <>
To: IETF-Announce <>
Cc: Bruno Decraene <>, Joel Halpern <>, The IESG <>,,,,,,
Subject: Protocol Action: 'SRv6 Network Programming' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-28.txt)

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'SRv6 Network Programming'
  (draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-28.txt) as Proposed Standard

This document is the product of the Source Packet Routing in Networking
Working Group.

The IESG contact persons are Alvaro Retana, Deborah Brungard and Martin

A URL of this Internet Draft is:

Ballot Text

Technical Summary

   The SRv6 Network Programming framework enables a network operator or
   an application to specify a packet processing program by encoding a
   sequence of instructions in the IPv6 packet header.

   Each instruction is implemented on one or several nodes in the
   network and identified by an SRv6 Segment Identifier in the packet.

   This document defines the SRv6 Network Programming concept and
   specifies the base set of SRv6 behaviors that enables the creation of
   interoperable overlays with underlay optimization (Service Level

Working Group Summary

This document is a foundation for SRv6. It has been largely reviewed, commented and supported.
There is a strong controversy regarding the Penultimate Segment Pop (PSP) flavor which allows an IPv6 source node to instruct the penultimate SRv6 EndPoint (identified, in the IPv6 header, by its IPv6 address) to remove the SRH from the IPv6 packet before the packet reach the final IPv6 destination (the Ultimate SRv6 EndPoint). The consensus to keep that section was particularly rough.

An Appeal to the IESG regarding WGLC of draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming was made:

Document Quality

The specification has multiple implementations, deployments and interop tests.
In particular: 
- There are multiple hardware and software implementations. Some are reported in
- There are multiple deployments. Some are reported in
- There have been multiple public interoperability tests


   The Document Shepherd was first Bruno Decraene and then Joel Halpern
   The Responsible Area Director is Martin Vigoureux.

RFC Editor Note