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

[Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@6wind.com>]

Le 25/03/2026 à 08:10, Stefano Salsano a écrit :
> Il 24/03/2026 17:00, Justin Iurman ha scritto:
>> On Sun, Mar 22, 2026 at 12:06 AM Andrea Mayer <andrea.mayer@uniroma2.it> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> this RFC series adds support for the SRv6 End.DT2U behavior and
>>> introduces the srl2 Ethernet pseudowire device, together with
>>> corresponding selftests.
>>
>> Hi Andrea,
>>
>> Thanks for the work you (and Stefano) put into this series! As
>> discussed offline, there is interest in such a solution.
> 
> Hi Justin,
> 
> thx for your interest!
> 
>> A general comment: I'm not sure about the name "srl2", as we're
>> talking about SRv6 specifically here. 
> 
> fair point
> 
>> 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
Note that the interface name is defined to kind + a number when the IFLA_IFNAME
attribute is not specified:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/net/core/rtnetlink.c?h=v7.0-rc5#n3823

Here, the default name will be 'sr60' :)

'vti6' is already in this case, so it's probably ok. I vote for 'sr6' too ;-)

My two cents,
Nicolas