Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing Header (CRH)"
Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com> Fri, 29 May 2020 05:23 UTC
Return-Path: <hayabusagsm@gmail.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 0311F3A0848 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 May 2020 22:23:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 aAbjgoPmYtaV for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 May 2020 22:23:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io1-xd2b.google.com (mail-io1-xd2b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d2b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 430A63A084F for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 May 2020 22:23:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io1-xd2b.google.com with SMTP id h10so1001139iob.10 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 May 2020 22:23:34 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=yfhf+uR2CYydmgtDzDv149aUoMan1NJea1+pF4KdQbY=; b=ZG32+7085hB1AcNhOAMLXh2icYJYkK6M4SkF/q0KV6bl2WqMmShKUEDWd2npl6rptq y4pMlvgUr/X4zjnEbul3d8z7/IuUGsw4QSakObwqmpwUExFOvPEUt5f2BXs5RNtY46Uj q/CvEHEm7W4kdhzlrdfT0bTn/77uCCwFQ+07USLvvNGxnllA++jPzsVG9teoqBgOOBa/ pLs/Y8PHpOvq4jR9+nWtwlgn3nOBKktzDm6IC7o/5KoRSlOlWc1n2JgzwJoYfG1s0k+e mrqAcRm+KhO1FzmV54jW2qBfVnRMJS1qnBK/we17UbzyGmEwqdM3v4gAz6gJDCfFVFs3 Z6oA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=yfhf+uR2CYydmgtDzDv149aUoMan1NJea1+pF4KdQbY=; b=ZzLTL9pYZJqDm1hQmR7bdVxMMt+G/JF7cwhZMjIsSbg3k7zI3DmJam822kGGkDF/Df tV/ckCoIfL8jHjmm5M+vbxi8+Gb25z879ibDje9CspCPBdPooaOXsflJ1SWVdqeFXRRv /D8q4zW6HknAzold2exP3hp1CYa380uzRTWHZO5b1/yuj2PBszbNjCe5t/bi4JHIMJ+O WumWU80G9gF0oL6xGDDameoBEuS5h01Eeo0JJMEftOqkn454kjgHWW5ujLdnCHLxxp9a B4pIpngaEHFYSxYT4VqncE/AtgRrjQdkU3o+kfiGyS34lDAy7ecwfwNAbS3XgPgfCI05 +zFQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531hnqULdrgFxzyyrj9Jmm45SZe3ZcC8rSjjN6f++Hh0hB9IE5m1 RjdpcrSbCdUe4UNhENQIHWrzl1iXhDhAzjJ4SPs=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxHBRuZ+KeXnHQjCwvdWDTG2B4xxlBYE+b9rNugt0jOOU81ny8GDBjjBNuwsfCiAMxy29aQa8EaQW0Qp7SB0sA=
X-Received: by 2002:a6b:e60e:: with SMTP id g14mr5218581ioh.141.1590729813442; Thu, 28 May 2020 22:23:33 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <19D30186-B180-4F65-BF00-7AD07CEF3925@gmail.com> <defcf5c6292345e7a333d600c4f47561@M10-HQ-ML02.hq.cnc.intra> <5eff7c35-f4f1-fa8f-2343-66896f3b42d9@joelhalpern.com> <CALx6S34zxH2k=27uuGjOL8-bT5m2WTSBcxxHDmGAvejEsM6R9g@mail.gmail.com> <CA+RyBmXpy++6sfo50AHdEzuOdYVVUXE4+7Tq3BJVSHG3nTJK0Q@mail.gmail.com> <CALx6S34hG=PTpja_PhMbtcCL+QnaBhqTfk6u_4kzatXARpoWPQ@mail.gmail.com> <CA+RyBmWsJUxuxJr9YwBx2q9n=Xiw+V8AwNZAyCpRc1HjFeBjXA@mail.gmail.com> <CALx6S35Ju_+u7SjD0CYdu1_RkG=rfHJgXuk2Cvx39uwx_Zhjog@mail.gmail.com> <b66a8e505bc94a15bb56f8d895d1a7be@nokia-sbell.com>
In-Reply-To: <b66a8e505bc94a15bb56f8d895d1a7be@nokia-sbell.com>
From: Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 29 May 2020 01:23:22 -0400
Message-ID: <CABNhwV2h5Vzb=_q2NNg4ZLw+1GrQ3baCAAVMiapi_5Je6o-_HQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing Header (CRH)"
To: "Wang, Weibin (NSB - CN/Shanghai)" <weibin.wang@nokia-sbell.com>
Cc: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>, IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>, "Ran Pang(联通集团联通网络技术研究院本部)" <pangran@chinaunicom.cn>, Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000076c81d05a6c2a5db"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/5CeZK82dOKXU2Xp2TLUN7nHRyto>
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: Fri, 29 May 2020 05:23:37 -0000
I believe a few variants of what you propose have been done with the SRV6 compression drafts. Gyan On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 10:30 PM Wang, Weibin (NSB - CN/Shanghai) < weibin.wang@nokia-sbell.com> wrote: > I think it is a good idea to create a new routing type for encoding new > type of SID in RH. > > I also think that, as a result of IPv6 address has 16 bytes length, its > space is big enough, lots of bits-string within it is redundant and > unnecessary in some scenario. so considering the classic SRv6 scenario, we > can only use least significance 64 bits within a fixed /64 prefix block for > all SID assigning for limited domain being deployed by SRv6. > That means, only one same /64 block is enough for all kind of SIDs > assigning within limited domain, so only rightmost 64 bits representing all > SIDs allocated to all prefix-SID and Adj-SIDs and Service-SIDs should be > encoded within SRH with new routing type value. During packets being > encapsulated with outer IPv6 and new RH forwarding through SRv6 domain, its > left-most 64 bits of DA field keep intact and only right-most 64 bits will > be replaced endpoint by endpoint from SRH.SL. > The benefit: > - get half-reduced SRH length compared to classic SRv6 SRH under same > number of SIDs encoded segment list; > - keep same forwarding plane with classic SRH processing; no extra > processing for deducing compressed SID or normal SID coding in SRH; keeping > the simple of forwarding plane is most important for all solution. > - only one /64 prefix as SID block, the complexity level of security > deployment is largely reduced. > - the efforts of control plane protocol extension such as ISIS-srv6 or > OSFP-srv6 have being made previously can be reserved. > - no mapping mechanism at forwarding procedure and control plane. > - the solution is balance between SRH size and complexity of forwarding > plane. > > > Cheers! > > Wang Weibin > > -----Original Message----- > From: ipv6 <ipv6-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Tom Herbert > Sent: 2020年5月29日 4:48 > To: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> > Cc: IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>; Ran Pang(联通集团联通网络技术研究院本部) < > pangran@chinaunicom.cn> > Subject: Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing Header (CRH)" > > On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 1:23 PM Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Hi Tom, > > I agree that "and ignored on receipt" in the definition of the Flags > field makes the future use of the field more restrictive. But I believe > that can be mitigated, as I've mentioned earlier, via control and/or > management plane extensions. Not that we have not faced a similar situation > before and dealt with the challenge in a reasonable way. > > Or just create a new routing type that is universally unambiguous, doesn't > require external information just to understand the header format, and > carries not risk of breaking backwards compatibility. Like Joel said, being > compatible with SRH routing type for compressed SIDs isn't a requirement > and I can think of any reason why it should be. A new routing type is also > an opportunity to revisit all the fields in the header, for instance we can > reevaluate whether Flags, Tags, and TLVs are really needed in a routing > header. > > Tom > > > > > Regards, > > Greg > > > > On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 1:14 PM Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com> wrote: > >> > >> On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 12:54 PM Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > > >> > Hi Tom, > >> > you've noted that "The format of SRH is very specific that SIDs are > 128 bits". True, that is the view, the current view based on the definition > of SRv6 and SRH in RFCs 8402 and 8754. But both may be updated at some > point. Thus we can avoid the introduction of RH per SID length. Would you > agree that it is a viable option? > >> > >> Greg, > >> > >> Unfortunately it's not an option. There is no field in SRH that could > >> robustly be used as a code point to indicate an alternate header > >> format or different length of SIDs. Neither is there any way to > >> retroactively add that this since RFC8754 is already out the door and > >> in deployment. This is analogous to someone wanting to create a > >> compressed version of the IPv6 header to use 64-bits instead of 128 > >> bit addresses-- there is no way to do that without getting a new IP > >> version number. The difference in the analogy, is that the IP version > >> number space is only4 bits, but the routing type space is 8 bits. So > >> allocating new routing types for compressed SIDs really isn't much > >> issue since there are plenty of values available (247 routing type > >> values are unassigned whereas only 5 IP version numbers are > >> unassigned). > >> > >> Tom > >> > >> > > >> > Regards, > >> > Greg > >> > > >> > On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 11:33 AM Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com> > wrote: > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> On Thu, May 28, 2020, 11:22 AM Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com> > wrote: > >> >>> > >> >>> Several people, including at least one I-D, have asserted that > >> >>> there is some abstract requirement for compatibility with SRvc6's > >> >>> SRH. There is no such requirement. That is not a criterion the > >> >>> 6man group needs to consider. In my personal opinion, it is not > >> >>> even a constraint on what SPRING chooses to do. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> Joel, > >> >> > >> >> It's not even clear what compatibility with SRH means. The format of > SRH is very specific that SIDs are 128 bits, and the protocol has no > sufficient extensibility mechanism that allows that to change without > breaking backwards compatibility. As far as I can tell, changing or > compressing SIDs requires a new routing type regardless of the compression > method or who specifies it. > >> >> > >> >> Tom > >> >> > >> >>> > >> >>> Yours, > >> >>> Joel > >> >>> > >> >>> On 5/28/2020 3:38 AM, Ran Pang(联通集团联通网络技术研究院本部) wrote: > >> >>> > Hi WG, > >> >>> > > >> >>> > It seems like CRH is not compatible with SRv6 and SRH. We need > >> >>> > to discuss how CRH cooperates with uSID, G-SRv6 or other SRv6 > >> >>> > header compression solutions before adoption, or whether CRH > >> >>> > will cause difficulties in the deployment of G-SRv6 and other > >> >>> > solutions. At present, we tend to choose solutions compatible > with SRH. > >> >>> > > >> >>> > > >> >>> > Thanks, > >> >>> > > >> >>> > Ran > >> >>> > > >> >>> > > >> >>> > *From:* Bob Hinden <mailto:bob.hinden@gmail.com> > >> >>> > *Date:* 2020-05-16 06:13 > >> >>> > *To:* IPv6 List <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org> > >> >>> > *CC:* Bob Hinden <mailto:bob.hinden@gmail.com> > >> >>> > *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 > >> >>> > > >> >>> > 如果您错误接收了该邮件,请通过电子邮件立即通知我们。请回复邮件到 hqs- > >> >>> > spmc@chinaunicom.cn,即可以退订此邮件。我们将立即将您的信息从我们的发送 > >> >>> > 目录中删除。 If you have received this email in error please notify > >> >>> > us immediately by e-mail. Please reply to > >> >>> > hqs-spmc@chinaunicom.cn ,you can unsubscribe from this mail. We > >> >>> > will immediately remove your information from send catalogue of > our. > >> >>> > > >> >>> > --------------------------------------------------------------- > >> >>> > ----- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org > >> >>> > Administrative Requests: > >> >>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > >> >>> > --------------------------------------------------------------- > >> >>> > ----- > >> >>> > > >> >>> > >> >>> ----------------------------------------------------------------- > >> >>> --- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org > >> >>> Administrative Requests: > >> >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > >> >>> ----------------------------------------------------------------- > >> >>> --- > >> >> > >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------ > >> >> -- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org > >> >> Administrative Requests: > >> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------ > >> >> -- > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > ipv6@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > ipv6@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- <http://www.verizon.com/> *Gyan Mishra* *Network Solutions A**rchitect * *M 301 502-134713101 Columbia Pike *Silver Spring, MD
- 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