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>, =?UTF-8?B?UmFuIFBhbmco6IGU6YCa6ZuG5Zui6IGU6YCa572R57uc5oqA5pyv56CU56m26Zmi5pys6YOoKQ==?= <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>rg>; 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