Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 0/3] seg6: SRv6 L2 VPN with End.DT2U and srl2 device

[Ferenc Fejes]

Hi

...

> 
> > I would personally love to have
> > "l2srv6", although I suspect we may end up with "l2seg6" to remain
> > consistent.
> 
> I'd like to keep it as short as possible, our initial idea was
> seg6l2, 
> very close to your last suggestion, then we opted for srl2 losing the
> "6" concept
> 
> now it comes to my mind that l2 is somehow redudant in an interface
> type 
> name, as an interface is an l2 concept per se, so my preferred option
> becomes:
> 
> sr6

For this type I agree that srl2 and sr6 both makes sense. For the long
run, maybe someone else want to implement [SR-]MPLS pseudowire for L2
in linux (AFAIK only L3 LSR mode supported right now). For such
interface type, srl2 name would make more sense.

Or use "pwl2" or "srpw" which would cover both SR-MPLS and SRv6 case?

If case SR-MPLS PW and SRv6 L2 must be different iface types, I would
use seg6 or sr6 to be consistent with the naming we have in iproute2
right now. Linux/iproute2 use seg6 and seg6local instead of the IETF
names like SRv6 H.End and SRv6 End, so I think its more consistent if
we stick to it. 

> 
> (short and memorable...)
> 
> as an alternative seg6 can work but I strongly prefer sr6
> 
> ciao
> Stefano
> 
> 
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > Justin
> 

Best,
Ferenc