IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Sat, 16 May 2020 23:48 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
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 4535E3A0C18 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 16 May 2020 16:48:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 RisaT4BcsSET for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 16 May 2020 16:48:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6F2413A0C1A for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sat, 16 May 2020 16:48:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD46038A86; Sat, 16 May 2020 19:45:57 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id H5KOURjjwk2k; Sat, 16 May 2020 19:45:41 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3981038A85; Sat, 16 May 2020 19:45:41 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09E4EA3; Sat, 16 May 2020 19:47:39 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing Header (CRH)"
In-Reply-To: <7291c5c7-cb3b-6e42-46fb-0b2ec2c17252@gmail.com>
References: <19D30186-B180-4F65-BF00-7AD07CEF3925@gmail.com> <92cff01e5eeb4a1e85357e61c8ca63fd@huawei.com> <CAO42Z2zq4=QS7=NwnYtshf8rOUym+axC-F54ZnJxJs7jM8RP-w@mail.gmail.com> <24b140e4f15a41ceb3de9f91cde35e74@huawei.com> <CAO42Z2wUoQoWaLAemOpNUJXNBJbTMT2wyDsWvgk91Bj8bB8k-A@mail.gmail.com> <7291c5c7-cb3b-6e42-46fb-0b2ec2c17252@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Sat, 16 May 2020 19:47:39 -0400
Message-ID: <8555.1589672859@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/4FyVBdoNb_46r0cD25aOehmVLWA>
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: Sat, 16 May 2020 23:48:24 -0000

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
    > Another thing is that ULAs work. People seem to be scared of them for
    > some reason, but they just work straight out of the box. As many /48s
    > as you want, for free, in parallel with whatever you got from IANA.

Given my very limited understanding of how CRH will be used, and the really
long thread about leaking that I 99% ignored, I would be happier if we also
allowed for ULA-C to be defined and made operational (through RIRs or IANA or
a service like sixxs used to offer for registering ULA-R).
{Maybe I'm repeating that thread}

This WG has not been that interested in persuing ULA-C, but I'll review CRH
again to ask if it wouldn't benefit.

Being able to track a leak back to it's origin is pretty important
operationally.  {RFC1918 has been used by stupid ISPs at times, and it has
caused disasters when they leak... I'm seeing ULAs used by ISPs as
router-IDs, which is even dumber}

    > Choosing ULAs for the ANIMA autonomic control plane was a no-brainer,
    > for all the reasons Mark gives, plus the benefit that the prefix itself
    > can be auto-generated if wanted. Since we will surely need more and
    > more automated configuration with these increasingly complex
    > technologies, I think that a prefix capable of automatic generation is
    > a strategic choice. Why would we want to configure 48 bit numbers by
    > hand?

+1

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email