Re: CRH and RH0

Darren,

The way RH0 was deprecated in RFC5095, specifically the rules on how a router should treat receiving an RH0 option, I think it is clear this is not a replacement for RH0 (as in reusing the routing header type).   To me, it clearly proposing a new Routing Header, and as such it does have to deal with the issues that caused RH0 to be deprecated.

I note that values 5-252 are Unassigned, so we can support a few more :-)

Bob

> On May 12, 2020, at 11:54 AM, Darren Dukes (ddukes) <ddukes=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi Ron,
> 
> The introduction spends its time likening CRH to RH0 and says it differs by “encoded in fewer bytes” and “addresses security vulnerabilities”
> 
> I was left with the impression that you are attempting to recreate another general use IPv6 routing header for the internet.  Like RH0.
> 
> It's only in section 9 where there is a hint that is not the case, you say “Networks that process the CRH MUST…”.  I could not find a definition of these networks.
> 
> Darren
> 
> 
>> On May 12, 2020, at 2:32 PM, Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Darren,
>> 
>> The second issue is already addressed in the Security Consideration section.
>> 
>> I would be glad to add a sentence saying that CRH is not a replacement for RH0, but I am not sure what value that sentence will have to someone who will read the document in 25 years. Could you help me understand the benefit? Why would the reader care?
>> 
>>                                                                           Ron
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Juniper Business Use Only
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Darren Dukes (ddukes) <ddukes@cisco.com>
>> Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 2:27 PM
>> To: Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>
>> Cc: 6man <6man@ietf.org>
>> Subject: CRH and RH0
>> 
>> [External Email. Be cautious of content]
>> 
>> 
>> Hi Ron,
>> 
>> You mentioned in the 6man meeting that:
>> 1 - CRH is not intended to be a replacement for RH0
>> 2 - CRH is not intended for use on the internet (i.e. only within a domain).
>> 
>> Will you be updating draft-bonica-6man-comp-rtg-hdr to reflect that?
>> 
>> Thanks
>> Darren
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: CRH and RH0

Attachment: signature.asc