Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing Header (CRH)"

Mark Smith <> Sat, 16 May 2020 03:04 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E33303A08DC for <>; Fri, 15 May 2020 20:04:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.597
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.597 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM=0.001, HK_RANDOM_FROM=0.999, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tSh5E1ejqWYb for <>; Fri, 15 May 2020 20:04:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::32e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DF8AA3A08D2 for <>; Fri, 15 May 2020 20:04:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id x21so2876849otp.13 for <>; Fri, 15 May 2020 20:04:46 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=1ahQYuoWIk/zQx+w6pKaVeJsugrQYzVAw09fKm6/4n4=; b=iyvQL6BeApCHeqfpfEccUd036N3mkUNYQC+/Fwo1yDE43fBrsMDB+eLE/dwLvFs4x+ US5snV3J9UaoDD36nf7ly/Ne+mCwz1LoWrs54sAcOSpTbiocvjzAbQLxG8Z+mvbbc9su SXiC5eXnPmW4Xut2M6bHKndlbtF+mrq1C9rb60jhss8gd/xUZqsUADYc0RwbZ5TKqslE Shvr/9wUF7YaWOT9Uid/CCDfnv2lVwYVfjnRcu2yc/euZ8C8TmzL73ckEwW3GTPlDvEG rHYokw677YKATv5vMOWgUku2nUFhFyTRVmegFKWrhIpRr7d+mULqtqT2cZEMqTzeEOWB cGlA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=1ahQYuoWIk/zQx+w6pKaVeJsugrQYzVAw09fKm6/4n4=; b=LQRqN5umylq2AMmm3V53YFL7wJHBaDl/snHiKnVcO6+95UYnAp+DSNPVBic2wVYp+9 uzLhLwdVcFtchE0J4FiYlwIh5ivt67uNN19Qyp/K1QOACvwwZrakoLa0kDTaxTVXkX0d eGDLVpbxBORK8x4cDh+TV1Ejz3Eqb50kZtVvfEnly7nd3bpOPfx3cYO9zxkva8zqOD5N UQ8FSLL33J+v2rfWM1v9Iy3187rFSE5ApHFECrHE4wOB89xqVnjyU9W6+g4L0L36EpqN wffFgAcTHKTfI+tVnu5UtAlVUf3+jv/QQLy8Tonq4uD3vfHtW5wIZ0aFOismIYHMRBla 3SWg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532QWkCGmbjdcZSVtAV/17nECFTabjEV1Evt7jJ8KblpHesELMnx veoZKsYl315MjVrsIeXDRzHaV3RO9pDxCq+Jsk8=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxAJ+9SvjD7xvG3nwq4/+yBrsTXxIe7QUtKbe/hxWzpRcoocekBoQ66jFwnJL+yWGY1m0QHybzF4r+8ZkPa6a8=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6830:120a:: with SMTP id r10mr4727216otp.74.1589598286222; Fri, 15 May 2020 20:04:46 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Mark Smith <>
Date: Sat, 16 May 2020 13:04:35 +1000
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing Header (CRH)"
To: "Xiejingrong (Jingrong)" <>
Cc: Bob Hinden <>, IPv6 List <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000002f977505a5bb3178"
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 16 May 2020 03:04:49 -0000

On Sat, 16 May 2020, 12:43 Xiejingrong (Jingrong), <>

> Hi WG,
> My main concern is the security aspect.
> It has been in discussion in another thread "Questions regarding the
> security mechanisms".
> Hope it could be carefully considered and discussed, especially there is
> the painful example of RH0 deprecated by RFC5095.
> There is of course RFC6554 and RFC8754 which is designed later after the
> deprecation and which could be carefully learned and referenced.
> Ole said and repeated that "In fact I don't see how the CRH draft prevents
> the RFC5095 attack to happen inside of the CRH limited domain."
> I was even worried about whether such attack could happen from Internet if
> there is no mandatory and deployable security mechanism on the wide
> boundary of a network.
> Brian observed the "limited-domain" pattern that is widely used in modern
> protocol design and put the heavy emphasis on the domain boundary security.
> The RFC8754 section 5.1 IMO is the only boundary security mechanism
> operable/controllable/deployable so far I've seen for an IPv6 network that
> is widely connected to Internet.
> Please correct me if you have some other better ones.

RFC4193, a limited domain and local network only address space.

See also slide 50.

"Getting IPv6 Private Addressing Right"

> BTW:
> I don't think it deserved to throw away everything that SRv6/SRH have
> worked out (e.g., the RFC8754 section 5.1) just to claim the independence
> on them.
> I have an I-D of IPv6-EH using many of the design patterns of SRv6/SRH
> with a reference to RFC8754 but I still insist and show its independent
> part.
> Thanks and Best wishes,
> Jingrong
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ipv6 [] On Behalf Of Bob Hinden
> Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2020 6:14 AM
> To: IPv6 List <>
> Cc: Bob Hinden <>
> Subject: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing Header (CRH)"
> This message starts a two-week 6MAN call on adopting:
>  Title:          The IPv6 Compact Routing Header (CRH)
>  Authors:        R. Bonica, Y. Kamite, T. Niwa, A. Alston, L. Jalil
>  File Name:      draft-bonica-6man-comp-rtg-hdr-21
>  Document date:  2020-05-14
> as a working group item. Substantive comments regarding adopting this
> document should be directed to the mailing list.  Editorial suggestions can
> be sent to the authors.
> Please note that this is an adoption call, it is not a w.g. last call for
> advancement, adoption means that it will become a w.g. draft.  As the
> working group document, the w.g. will decide how the document should change
> going forward.
> This adoption call will end on 29 May 2020.
> The chairs note there has been a lot of discussions on the list about this
> draft.   After discussing with our area directors, we think it is
> appropriate to start a working group adoption call.  The authors have been
> active in resolving issues raised on the list.
> Could those who are willing to work on this document, either as
> contributors, authors or reviewers please notify the list.   That gives us
> an indication of the energy level in the working group
> to work on this.
> Regards,
> Bob and Ole
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> Administrative Requests:
> --------------------------------------------------------------------