Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing Header (CRH)"
"Darren Dukes (ddukes)" <ddukes@cisco.com> Tue, 19 May 2020 23:51 UTC
Return-Path: <ddukes@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 707683A0788 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 May 2020 16:51:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.597
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.597 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com header.b=D2qJH+4c; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=IljcHcNP
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lt4w4hQjCA8X for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 May 2020 16:51:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-4.cisco.com (alln-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.142.91]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0D73E3A0770 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 May 2020 16:51:25 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=63485; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1589932285; x=1591141885; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=c868jug63r7x8rCMhUnthc4FxwvYj7+rl3UrCQq+88o=; b=D2qJH+4cUOVscJwmIW1+K6o4wSJsnxroXrcZb4gfnTp4V+yROfn2ffMX JVimBVUMU+hVHrsFqcLyXgTqDfEfL7uN+GSTg73ic1hlx2yVCq2Ohwf3D gAIODAz5lmuoi25bXLdMKHYR47se8DSDE5aBVKciZUGTn0sZ2aIrEsKqb o=;
IronPort-PHdr: 9a23:ZNL4xRdQh5u+R7rerd6HxVo0lGMj4e+mNxMJ6pchl7NFe7ii+JKnJkHE+PFxlwaTAdfX7vtegKzXvrzuH2sa7sXJvHMDdclKUBkIwYUTkhc7CcGIQUv8MLbxbiM8EcgDMT0t/3yyPUVPXsqrYVrUry6+6DcIEVP+OBZ7YOPvFd2ag8G+zevn/ZrVbk1Bjya8ZrUnKhKwoE3Ru8AajJEkJLw2z07Co2BDfKJdwmY7KA==
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0CbBQClcMRe/4ENJK1mHAEBAQEBAQcBARIBAQQEAQGCB4ElAS5RB29YLywKhBqDRgONRIEBiHqOQIJSA1QLAQEBDAEBIwoCBAEBhEQCF4F2JDgTAgMBAQsBAQUBAQECAQUEbYVWDIVxAQEBAQMSCwYdAQEpAwsBDwIBCBEDAQEBIQEGAwICAh8RFAkIAgQOBSKDBAGBfk0DLgEOp3UCgTmIYXaBMoMBAQEFgTYCDgMPL4MbDQuCDgMGgTiCY4JIhxcagUE/gREnHIIYNT6CHkkBAQIBAYFgCAEPCQ0Jgl4zgi2OQQ6CUz2GIiWKU49RSgqCUIgmi0uEVh2CXYhwkgmaLoJKjQ1Kg0cCBAIEBQIOAQEFgWkigVZwFRohKgGCPj4SGA2QQAwXg0+FFIVCdAI1AgYBBwEBAwl8jQsBgQ8BAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.73,411,1583193600"; d="scan'208,217";a="481701625"
Received: from alln-core-9.cisco.com ([173.36.13.129]) by alln-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 19 May 2020 23:51:23 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-005.cisco.com (xch-aln-005.cisco.com [173.36.7.15]) by alln-core-9.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 04JNpNpV015307 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 19 May 2020 23:51:23 GMT
Received: from xhs-aln-002.cisco.com (173.37.135.119) by XCH-ALN-005.cisco.com (173.36.7.15) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Tue, 19 May 2020 18:51:23 -0500
Received: from xhs-rtp-002.cisco.com (64.101.210.229) by xhs-aln-002.cisco.com (173.37.135.119) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Tue, 19 May 2020 18:51:22 -0500
Received: from NAM11-CO1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (64.101.32.56) by xhs-rtp-002.cisco.com (64.101.210.229) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2 via Frontend Transport; Tue, 19 May 2020 19:51:22 -0400
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=h9VwsDGmkJVguj+0m0roqPccKiG8LrSIeuJS2KhZeF2V7/YRf0EHmV4tlGMy4XOUJ6aLpo/hba2YYkDvL9nkuyzATkvgH/lp+6FlxO59BXeH+NMDEBxw1Fm3pvqp7EXxdTBQZto5LOW4MmSi/zljPWjKqSTbWvU6aYs31TM8G328FaclbEOThQW9r6/isFb7HCzN6ejoTBGDGTmHmClWWFpLutqsidKP+vRjj8bhigtkl79PGh2CVgC6XN/RPpMJNfWinnOhroQRKAWHMecFjCwENfupJDXW+oSsO/VT0RaoAFrBtDdiO8BIZ0gapO3RXieQveus9rB9X6oEOO3cNA==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=c868jug63r7x8rCMhUnthc4FxwvYj7+rl3UrCQq+88o=; b=KDkC9KzlNG35mC5Gesqj1DQJcaRobZnzf6lkHb0FuFnE+aSgPMoNapBeByrMHXKZmntCK+LAvHCIVgbFKSZ3XgZ5Hsa+3R81bxbbfiAApMhHK2c+IhEkmg+X4FEduJdIQ1yXfP00+HhyBgm/ma90vcrJlDT6Sp/MxsixhZWHYUfUUHqfx3vpkkUIfN7yklYs576+v1zJfESWCrcBfe1jI33SSnh+eZ0L82Z13IiIB2qxZHr5j6y0ajw6x/BVWczi0ONbUR9tIfpmefiAsS+OTZKKtypt5kUUg7TdhlDDcCH2fjiBcyqhtOHpqAyiwn/1sza+itTHvelxwG998i8FCA==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=cisco.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=cisco.com; dkim=pass header.d=cisco.com; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-cisco-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=c868jug63r7x8rCMhUnthc4FxwvYj7+rl3UrCQq+88o=; b=IljcHcNPFy9RMH99ZF1mKt340PGI0RYAFVjaYMVvrFQ7W++5gZ+AL4zGKVSzeVTzVAPCUV3ONIGsqbo9vieyoh+uDHE4bQBCve2vHnWQa75JSv2APWj85TdS3tYl6xFD/2M1AsNVAluFuiuhO95LC2hoTTfj6OG1x4Q+6qXO1Pk=
Received: from BN6PR11MB4081.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (10.255.128.166) by BN6PR11MB4067.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (10.255.130.35) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.3000.24; Tue, 19 May 2020 23:51:20 +0000
Received: from BN6PR11MB4081.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::c8dc:287c:17c2:28a7]) by BN6PR11MB4081.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::c8dc:287c:17c2:28a7%6]) with mapi id 15.20.3021.020; Tue, 19 May 2020 23:51:20 +0000
From: "Darren Dukes (ddukes)" <ddukes@cisco.com>
To: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
CC: Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com>, IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing Header (CRH)"
Thread-Topic: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing Header (CRH)"
Thread-Index: AQHWKwY4fpz+MrGRFkKhGm0j4mXCqKiqqXZtgAAheQCAANT2gIAB77CAgAKLJ4A=
Date: Tue, 19 May 2020 23:51:20 +0000
Message-ID: <8019E61F-50B2-4AFC-B9DC-6607F9B7AA7B@cisco.com>
References: <19D30186-B180-4F65-BF00-7AD07CEF3925@gmail.com> <BN6PR11MB408104884A42DC2A393D0C09C8BA0@BN6PR11MB4081.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <89EA4005-4972-4284-9ADA-35FAA1F2A759@liquidtelecom.com> <A7F4BF11-A99A-457E-8F5B-0A2342B80C71@cisco.com> <MN2PR11MB3565A4EB5248033027F3C54AD8B80@MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <MN2PR11MB3565A4EB5248033027F3C54AD8B80@MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.80.23.2.2)
authentication-results: dmarc.ietf.org; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;dmarc.ietf.org; dmarc=none action=none header.from=cisco.com;
x-originating-ip: [173.38.117.83]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 0a02b0e6-bc11-47d4-ec2b-08d7fc4f87d4
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: BN6PR11MB4067:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <BN6PR11MB4067CE10175C3937E3C1563FC8B90@BN6PR11MB4067.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:10000;
x-forefront-prvs: 040866B734
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: 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
x-forefront-antispam-report: CIP:255.255.255.255; CTRY:; LANG:en; SCL:1; SRV:; IPV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; H:BN6PR11MB4081.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; PTR:; CAT:NONE; SFTY:; SFS:(4636009)(366004)(2906002)(8936002)(66574014)(166002)(498600001)(966005)(36756003)(2616005)(66556008)(6506007)(66446008)(76116006)(186003)(66476007)(66946007)(26005)(64756008)(33656002)(53546011)(8676002)(5660300002)(6486002)(4326008)(71200400001)(6512007)(86362001)(54906003); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101;
x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata: 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
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_8019E61F50B24AFCB9DC6607F9B7AA7Bciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 0a02b0e6-bc11-47d4-ec2b-08d7fc4f87d4
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 19 May 2020 23:51:20.6379 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5ae1af62-9505-4097-a69a-c1553ef7840e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: XlE98qNWlASEtmL5QynQU3E3gF5IsKZL1IugWWRh3nYZuwSjXnJxbx3uTNiAS/EisIVoHwKPZjBwboEdKJTXRA==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BN6PR11MB4067
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.36.7.15, xch-aln-005.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: alln-core-9.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/-cKJAXHqAWKN0PeYhFWwEOXcVMA>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 May 2020 23:51:40 -0000
Hi Pascal, thanks for that history and the context it sets. I think this meshes well with the point I was trying to make in this thread - the domain specific expertise within ROLL triggered the building of these IPv6 extensions (HBH or RH) in 6man. Of course you expand significantly past that… Perhaps RFC8138 should be evaluated if it offers a more general purpose compressed source routing header vs CRH. Darren On May 18, 2020, at 5:00 AM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:pthubert=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>> wrote: Hello Darren Since you mentioned RPL, I felt invited. We’ve had the same problems of RH insertion and saturating MTU as you guys, and been chewing them it for a very long time (like, ~ 15 years). To make a long story short, we went through the hassles of inserting routing headers in the RPL domain, many implementations still do that (see for historic purpose https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hui-6man-rpl-headers-00). We used a HbH header (0x63) that was supposed to ensure that an escaping packet would be discarded outside the domain. As you know, RFC8200 made it clear that we cannot count on it. We also tried smaller tweaks like use the flow label in our own way inside the RPL domain (see https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-thubert-6man-flow-label-for-rpl/) So yes we went to 6MAN a good number of times to get IPv6 optimizations in our very constrained environments and the response was usually negative, with the exception that you point out (the HbH header). So where are we now? The key thing is that we have provided a compressed routing header. And by routing we do not mean the SRH but all thing sthat the router needs to look at. It’s RFC 8138, the 6LoWPAN Routing Header (6LoRH). RFC 8138 compresses both the IP-in-IP and the source routing headers. It also compresses the HbH header we wanted to place in the flow labels, and that gives us multi-topology routing and micro-loop avoidance. That’s how we made IP-in-IP and the HbH acceptable on highly constrained MTUs. The consequences of RFC 8138 are: - inside a RPL domain, the RH is compressed statelessly based on common prefix with the previous hop - the compressed packet is logically equivalent to the full IPv6 packet, but easier to handle when forwarding (e.g., no swapping games in the source routing header like RH0 does); - outside the RPL domain, the compression format is not recognized and the packet is dropped as invalid so, to Stewart’s point and like for MPLS, there’s no escapees; - as imposed/suggested/whatever by IPv6 we use IP in IP to protect the RH encapsulation, as it goes that improves the compression since the encapsulator (the RPL root for us) in the same domain shares a prefix with the SRH next hops. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo/ details how we do all those things now, and the complexity of resulting spec says a lot. You’ll note that 6LoRH is not linked to anything else 6LoWPAN, and could be made to apply in a domain that is not a RPL. Maybe part of defining something new should be to look at the existing art. I hope this helps, Pascal From: ipv6 <ipv6-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org>> On Behalf Of Darren Dukes (ddukes) Sent: dimanche 17 mai 2020 05:27 To: Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com<mailto:Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com>> Cc: IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org<mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>>; Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com<mailto:bob.hinden@gmail.com>> Subject: Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing Header (CRH)" Hi Andrew. You say... That 6man – does refer to this working group right? Or am I confused. I think you are confused, but that’s OK, it’s easy to explain. SPRING defined segment routing, the terminology, usecases, problem statement, and protocol extensions. 6man defined the routing header. See section 1 of https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header-00 where this context was given when 6man adopted the document. RPL appears similar, see section 1. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6man-rpl-option-00 I hope this helps. Darren ________________________________ From: Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com<mailto:Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com>> Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2020 10:44 AM To: Darren Dukes (ddukes); Bob Hinden; IPv6 List Subject: Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing Header (CRH)" Darren… Can you please explain the double standard here – where the additional development on segment routing was done in other working groups (IDR/LSR/SPRING etc) – but – last I checked – https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header-26 That 6man – does refer to this working group right? Or am I confused. Now – let me be very clear before someone claims we’re trying to replace the SRH – which is not the case – I am merely contrasting your arguments to another case where a routing header was developed – and the rest of the work – was done elsewhere as needed, and which you had nom issue with. So – to be frank – from my perspective and speaking only for myself – I see this as yet another red herring popped out of thin air. Thanks Andrew From: ipv6 <ipv6-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org>> on behalf of "Darren Dukes (ddukes)" <ddukes=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:ddukes=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>> Date: Saturday, 16 May 2020 at 17:00 To: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com<mailto:bob.hinden@gmail.com>>, IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org<mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>> Cc: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com<mailto:bob.hinden@gmail.com>> Subject: Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing Header (CRH)" Hi Bob and Ole. I’m not supporting the draft for adoption by 6man. I know you’re shocked ;). I have one main concern with 6man adoption that I think many can agree with. This draft will require substantial work related to the 16/32bit identifier (CP and OAM) that is not ipv6 nor ipv6 maintenance and for which this working group does not have a mandate nor, traditionally, expertise to drive. Others have said “this is not 6man’s concern” and I agree because 6man is an ipv6 maintenance WG, not the segment mapping working group. I believe the authors should find a WG with that concern to drive this work. I know starting work without requirements is fun and exciting, but you will likely end up at the wrong destination. Brian had one suggestion on this topic. In the past I’ve suggested SPRING, or if the authors desire, a BOF to build consensus and gather requirements for its parent SRm6 work or some variant of it. I hope the authors, WG, chairs and AD consider these points during this adoption call. Thanks Darren ________________________________ From: ipv6 <ipv6-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org>> on behalf of Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com<mailto:bob.hinden@gmail.com>> Sent: Friday, May 15, 2020 6:14 PM 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 https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bonica-6man-comp-rtg-hdr 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
- RE: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Brian E Carpenter
- RE: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
- RE: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Xing Li
- Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing Heade… Bob Hinden
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Mark Smith
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Andrew Alston
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Joel M. Halpern
- RE: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Ron Bonica
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Xing Li
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Tom Herbert
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Brian E Carpenter
- RE: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Xiejingrong (Jingrong)
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Mark Smith
- RE: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Ron Bonica
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Krzysztof Szarkowicz
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Melchior Aelmans
- RE: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Xiejingrong (Jingrong)
- RE: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Xiejingrong (Jingrong)
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Nick Hilliard
- RE: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Darren Dukes (ddukes)
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Andrew Alston
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Tony Przygienda
- RE: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Vishal Singh
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… John Scudder
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Greg Mirsky
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Greg Mirsky
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Gyan Mishra
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Mark Smith
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Michael Richardson
- RE: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Ron Bonica
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Greg Mirsky
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Darren Dukes (ddukes)
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Andrew Alston
- RE: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Wen Lin
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Darren Dukes (ddukes)
- RE: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
- FW: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Zafar Ali (zali)
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Naveen Kottapalli
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… John Scudder
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Brian E Carpenter
- RE: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril)
- RE: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Andrew Alston
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Eric Vyncke (evyncke)
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… John Scudder
- RE: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Parag Kaneriya
- RE: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
- Reply: Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Ro… Chengli (Cheng Li)
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… John Scudder
- RE: Reply: Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compac… Ron Bonica
- 答复: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Weiqiang Cheng
- RE: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Huzhibo
- G-SRv6 (was Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compa… Tom Herbert
- RE: G-SRv6 (was Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 C… Huzhibo
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… 刘毅松
- 回复: Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routi… duzongpeng@foxmail.com
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Srihari Sangli
- 回复: 回复: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routi… Peng Liu
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… stefano previdi
- Re: G-SRv6 (was Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 C… Tom Herbert
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)
- RE: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Ron Bonica
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Ahmed Abdelsalam
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… stefano previdi
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Greg Mirsky
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Gyan Mishra
- RE: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Mach Chen
- RE: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Ron Bonica
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Gyan Mishra
- RE: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Mach Chen
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Gyan Mishra
- RE: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Mach Chen
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… xiechf@chinatelecom.cn
- RE: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Dongjie (Jimmy)
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Reji Thomas
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Robert Raszuk
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Antonio Cianfrani
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Robert Raszuk
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)
- RE: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Van De Velde, Gunter (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)
- RE: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Xiejingrong (Jingrong)
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Srihari Sangli
- RE: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Ron Bonica
- RE: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Templin (US), Fred L
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Greg Mirsky
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Greg Mirsky
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Tom Herbert
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Greg Mirsky
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Tom Herbert
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Darren Dukes (ddukes)
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Martin Horneffer
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Greg Mirsky
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Tetsuya Murakami
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Kalyani Rajaraman
- RE: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Michael McBride
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Tom Herbert
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Ran Pang(联通集团联通网络技术研究 院本部)
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Miya Kohno
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Kentaro Ebisawa
- RE: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… licong@chinatelecom.cn
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Fernando Gont
- 答复: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… qinfengwei
- RE: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Satoru Matsushima
- RE: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Voyer, Daniel
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Miya Kohno
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Tom Herbert
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Greg Mirsky
- RE: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Templin (US), Fred L
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Tom Herbert
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Greg Mirsky
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Tom Herbert
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Kamran Raza (skraza)
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Fernando Gont
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Jakob Heitz (jheitz)
- RE: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Wang, Weibin (NSB - CN/Shanghai)
- Re: Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routi… 이기훈/책임
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Swadesh Agrawal (swaagraw)
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Gyan Mishra
- RE: Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routi… Chengli (Cheng Li)
- RE: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Chengli (Cheng Li)
- Re: Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routi… Rakesh Gandhi
- Re: [spring] FW: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Comp… Dirk Steinberg
- comments on draft-bonica-6man-comp-rtg-hdr (Re: A… 神明達哉
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Francois Clad (fclad)
- Compatibility with SRH requirement (was Re: Adopt… Tom Herbert
- Conclusion of the Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Com… Bob Hinden
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Zafar Ali (zali)
- RE: Compatibility with SRH requirement (was Re: A… James Guichard
- Re: Compatibility with SRH requirement (was Re: A… Greg Mirsky
- Re: Compatibility with SRH requirement (was Re: A… Tom Herbert
- RE: Compatibility with SRH requirement (was Re: A… James Guichard
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Richard Vallee (rvallee)
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Kris Michielsen
- Re: Compatibility with SRH requirement (was Re: A… Tom Herbert
- Re: Compatibility with SRH requirement (was Re: A… Robert Raszuk
- RE: Compatibility with SRH requirement (was Re: A… James Guichard
- Re: Compatibility with SRH requirement (was Re: A… Tom Herbert
- RE: Compatibility with SRH requirement (was Re: A… James Guichard
- Re: Compatibility with SRH requirement (was Re: A… John Scudder
- Re: Compatibility with SRH requirement (was Re: A… Nick Hilliard
- RE: Compatibility with SRH requirement (was Re: A… James Guichard
- RE: Compatibility with SRH requirement (was Re: A… Adrian Farrel
- RE: Compatibility with SRH requirement (was Re: A… James Guichard
- Re: Compatibility with SRH requirement (was Re: A… Tom Herbert
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Jen Linkova
- Re: Conclusion of the Adoption Call for "The IPv6… Erik Kline
- Followup Conclusion of the Adoption Call for "The… Bob Hinden