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

"Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril)" <pcamaril@cisco.com> Fri, 22 May 2020 11:07 UTC

Return-Path: <pcamaril@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 2FED53A0B0B for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 May 2020 04:07:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.587
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.587 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, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com header.b=ClXlaH/C; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=cKJxVTnQ
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 SZ7rOKWwZc-V for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 May 2020 04:07:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com [173.37.86.79]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3B88A3A0B05 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 May 2020 04:07:51 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=18653; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1590145671; x=1591355271; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: mime-version; bh=mryjZyJVfUWKcR5aXXEgjrlWOOwX2wvcGvtwxdWcCyc=; b=ClXlaH/Cx2unv3unioq+9SyjsCNzVZYGJGIscxJEdkrWgIVoKL48Qpua bVo8ZPbUg6z/l7raDxYxiELH8hp0V9/054tOgdHMdFQXzftTZmUYrTDN+ dlpbCeiBHgrD3CG5lC+fYFNdmg2qdzi6xWqMDnNpsaDCZE4OsprlQC/qO M=;
IronPort-PHdr: =?us-ascii?q?9a23=3AsR7tWhNFuMT6Zd3pHFAl6mtXPHoupqn0MwgJ65?= =?us-ascii?q?Eul7NJdOG58o//OFDEvKwx3lDMVITfrflDjrmev6PhXDkG5pCM+DAHfYdXXh?= =?us-ascii?q?AIwcMRg0Q7AcGDBEG6SZyibyEzEMlYElMw+Xa9PBtaHc//YxvZpXjhpTIXEw?= =?us-ascii?q?/0YAxyIOm9E4XOjsOxgua1/ZCbYwhBiDenJ71oKxDjpgTKvc5Qioxneas=3D?=
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0CmCQDXscde/4YNJK1mgQmCbC9RB29?= =?us-ascii?q?YLywKh2ADjUCJeo5CglIDVQsBAQEMAQElCAIEAQGERAKCHCQ4EwIDAQELAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?FAQEBAgEFBG2FVgyFcgEBAQEDEgsQEwEBKQMECAsEAgEIEQQBAS8hER0IAgQ?= =?us-ascii?q?BEggTB4MFgX5NAy4BDqItAoE5iGF0gTSDAQEBBYEyAYQODQuCDgMGgTiCY4l?= =?us-ascii?q?fGoFBP4FUgk0+gh5JAQEDgWQrgxqCLZgIJYEJiVCPJDNKCoJUiCmLVYR4gmO?= =?us-ascii?q?JAYMrjm+QTYltgkyRKAIEAgQFAg4BAQWBaSKBVnAVGiGCNQEBMlAYDZQyhRS?= =?us-ascii?q?FQnQ3AgYBBwEBAwl8i3YBgQ8BAQ?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.73,421,1583193600"; d="scan'208,217";a="770643564"
Received: from alln-core-12.cisco.com ([173.36.13.134]) by rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 22 May 2020 11:07:49 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-003.cisco.com (xch-rcd-003.cisco.com [173.37.102.13]) by alln-core-12.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 04MB7nwE029881 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 22 May 2020 11:07:49 GMT
Received: from xhs-aln-002.cisco.com (173.37.135.119) by XCH-RCD-003.cisco.com (173.37.102.13) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Fri, 22 May 2020 06:07:49 -0500
Received: from xhs-rcd-001.cisco.com (173.37.227.246) by xhs-aln-002.cisco.com (173.37.135.119) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Fri, 22 May 2020 06:07:49 -0500
Received: from NAM12-MW2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (72.163.14.9) by xhs-rcd-001.cisco.com (173.37.227.246) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2 via Frontend Transport; Fri, 22 May 2020 06:07:49 -0500
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=PWKfxOB7iXMupvyPWb/cXFdlNkxehlWj6635IKaCA2GJGVI5jarRmRVc1AQymbOxof7zbQKMsJAPV/71d2jQ43eyXTacZqyIOpoOFSvuOhJk0zK7fNw1EFtFDDiotuD74z5ueBtYcffqhYeOEHAoRWQKUz/wavtB+zM58MaBCDrDdNS8nIg1yuftNTg3duSk/wtEywAYgyAGDj1MrNjVXRWURIDz60BwBYYSWiVZ5GtuA3LrLvtKQTGIGaLoK45jSs9Z/Gca0aAtbfyBiTMc26ELbHUgvdYt86XBhSbAAeDV0BBML0HStzQrxTrjF21IqHd+XftLJHca1run/EDZqQ==
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=hI3PlWqIzltS14wolEbWpZOCP3S2n777eNlYCOGBOLk=; b=WTVXi67/GIktjikP+SQ0bUk2DiD/iqGmgI1utQQMYljrDc6QThweTheKjMGaASGEIEWMVcqOvEkCf9lFYD71+TvxwtVki80VZgyDdT3Wph4TmS2i1Mud11081saBpZG7fhQwsdR2TNGu1zihsKpZHlhu1B7Va8QHlwT9omk7TvhEp+LaqNsYKcz6IFXB5pM+4OywAti1GzSJxaeFul58LBijD6aKHnwNVY3NDXhJDd/83PB/3hu4IkCc3E0nrUBVyX8stY30sVhv1TebxPXy/ldEpZueyoJCvRrnozaqvjfSTvmSesPN0bjbWd+ToMlUWESbUk080gP2FI/8NgfCfw==
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=hI3PlWqIzltS14wolEbWpZOCP3S2n777eNlYCOGBOLk=; b=cKJxVTnQ5fQOxxV+ZvxmuZenTWdA1fdzcypyOYQYrKbIY5Qc6TZDp+RqmRJZqKybeXJDRi/u1TnNq0Us2bxdHBv+n8U1yZxfQ6CJFEYBeHaSGH3k/AbTd9IIjHFjFq198Y5gItAU0Z4Q/nfEdB05RgryE66OFcAxEwvDSvJcbe8=
Received: from MWHPR11MB1374.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:300:24::8) by MWHPR11MB2048.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:300:27::17) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.3000.26; Fri, 22 May 2020 11:07:47 +0000
Received: from MWHPR11MB1374.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::3919:ef10:f837:9efc]) by MWHPR11MB1374.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::3919:ef10:f837:9efc%9]) with mapi id 15.20.3021.027; Fri, 22 May 2020 11:07:47 +0000
From: "Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril)" <pcamaril@cisco.com>
To: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>, IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing Header (CRH)"
Thread-Topic: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing Header (CRH)"
Thread-Index: AQHWKwY4GBs9ahMSgUitoGcS9ml+GKiz4lcA
Date: Fri, 22 May 2020 11:07:21 +0000
Deferred-Delivery: Fri, 22 May 2020 11:07:00 +0000
Message-ID: <MWHPR11MB1374A8212FD04309F25C2C5CC9B40@MWHPR11MB1374.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: <19D30186-B180-4F65-BF00-7AD07CEF3925@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <19D30186-B180-4F65-BF00-7AD07CEF3925@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: gmail.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;gmail.com; dmarc=none action=none header.from=cisco.com;
x-originating-ip: [173.38.220.57]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: fbfd8ef4-1381-4374-93f9-08d7fe405c69
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: MWHPR11MB2048:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <MWHPR11MB204823F5584A9C1DAC0D9CC0C9B40@MWHPR11MB2048.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:9508;
x-forefront-prvs: 04111BAC64
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:MWHPR11MB1374.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; PTR:; CAT:NONE; SFTY:; SFS:(4636009)(39860400002)(396003)(376002)(366004)(346002)(136003)(8676002)(53546011)(76116006)(66476007)(316002)(86362001)(6506007)(26005)(71200400001)(186003)(966005)(55016002)(66946007)(110136005)(66446008)(64756008)(8936002)(66556008)(5660300002)(52536014)(7696005)(478600001)(6666004)(9686003)(2906002)(66574014)(166002)(33656002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101;
x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata: Bo57ftbKWEOmA0mX0TsU8IXmQwqWJtZvSkWbsHIrxKd3yPUH4PJu53gMWarEI7TECFoyBf6wX3S4abtAqk0dhtQSP6DZPdCI3a67hMHDMvk9A2rCmfXAxXuw6WZsW9EnQeqGzsBvkOqI8WGF0DP5irom++KT9OVkgr7ykYLfqMPTMj3n2SfXdOZnqc6D+cgNI0FMWEcU00zPE2RlSrpmY5Iti0rm4CbLbgsPgLM961ZS5F/F/LDoUyC720Dp+eI+acjSxolBZYVzWCzq92EQ+3bJ48x2bKksB2RYi2qxnul1XzmHA/88NyYyj6Nahv2Zi0Nq3k5EeY5itSBqxLPltU+T8LXNrTzBpiaO/OlJxeerGQVNP3naRyNpu9OzdDp00ojWNCp07om3GeCSZzOVmk/meYaia6DAy6HzJ2BjQKRUYIshXQ4PoSEwanU/p9ecq91W91C8n+4VTkycLmn/7uaD22x066y+y3UhYVetV5c=
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_MWHPR11MB1374A8212FD04309F25C2C5CC9B40MWHPR11MB1374namp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: fbfd8ef4-1381-4374-93f9-08d7fe405c69
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 22 May 2020 11:07:47.7319 (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: kxIoAgZTsquPVTSu0cmWmiWHpL4hJJD2C58MV27vX0sxTS1R5B8f+0vUPCGGu+sRgkZ0r9lwL+gDxEprXPHUTA==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: MWHPR11MB2048
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.37.102.13, xch-rcd-003.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: alln-core-12.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/5csFPA14MX_9cPKNW8QgQ5io9xA>
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, 22 May 2020 11:07:55 -0000

Bob, Ole,



I do not support the adoption of this document. Reasons below:



1.- 6man is an IPv6 maintenance group. This proposal is defining a new routing header with no sort of document, input or requirement from the Routing Area.

While certainly this group does not need any sort of permission from routing, uncoordinated protocol development is harmful. This point has already been made by others.



2.- This is not a standalone document. Despite from the document stating that the CRH-FIB will be populated by means of CLI, I think everyone in this group would oppose to that; configuring all 2^16 labels manually in all routers is an operational burden...

We will need control plane extensions such as draft-bonica-lsr-crh-isis-extensions, but again, we do not have the requirements or use-cases from Routing Area as to know what we need to support/build.



3.- The authors have not provided a document discussing applicability,  use-cases or requirements. This approach of building a solution without understanding the problem is in my opinion utterly wrong.

This is already causing confusion as for example in the 16b vs 32b discussion.



Also, from BCP22:

"   Standards track documents must include a description of the protocol.

   This description must address the protocol's purpose, intended

   functions, services it provides, and, the arena, circumstances, or

   any special considerations of the protocol's use.



   The authors of a protocol specification will have a great deal of

   knowledge as to the reason for the protocol.  However, the reader is

   more likely to have general networking knowledge and experience,

   rather than expertise in a particular protocol.  An explanation of

   it's purpose and use will give the reader a reference point for

   understanding the protocol, and where it fits in the Internet.  The

   STD 54/RFC 2328 was recommended to the STDGUIDE working group as

   providing a good example of this in its "Protocol Overview" section.



   The protocol's general description must also provide information on

   the relationship between the different parties to the protocol. This

   can be done by showing typical packet sequences.



   This also applies to the algorithms used by a protocol.  A detailed

   description of the algorithms or citation of readily available

   references that give such a description is necessary."



In summary, we are polling whether to adopt a document that is ignoring BCPs, doing uncoordinated development within the IETF areas, and with a bunch of unanswered technical questions on the mailer.

Additionally, I believe this proposal has issues with scalability, and requires additional ASIC resources as recognized by the authors [1].



Thanks,

Pablo.



[1].- https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/aLhIQ2btTfNkJ4ghruuXbm3zY30/





-----Original Message-----
From: ipv6 <ipv6-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Bob Hinden
Sent: sábado, 16 de mayo de 2020 0:14
To: IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>
Cc: Bob Hinden <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