CRH
Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> Fri, 15 May 2020 10:48 UTC
Return-Path: <robert@raszuk.net>
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 337423A08D1 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 May 2020 03:48:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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, 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=raszuk.net
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 yqd6QID3_kzO for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 May 2020 03:48:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ej1-x633.google.com (mail-ej1-x633.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::633]) (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 DC9A33A08CD for <6man@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 May 2020 03:48:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ej1-x633.google.com with SMTP id o10so1814364ejn.10 for <6man@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 May 2020 03:48:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=raszuk.net; s=google; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=v09zbKvpwhYLytk0XBoYHpKkDmZwPWEfR8v+j0HJoEA=; b=YXQHw4XCwNza1nNz3WZ2Thb0C1SpqNIw5wqXnvC+6PZf2p3bBy32aemPy7HEupfRJ4 07zdNAFkiQ81TYxUNM4ZxwGK/OfUWq6jWAeLdbfIJGaC/LQdJJlTpkW1F9OQJuqzal7v VOMv29ZS5cZPa9IatDKZSwhFhnGpYkIxg8eYrhytzv2f1qLX8bmnkPkAWeyNhbD5ar3l T6NFenE4W3uzDPAFg4GXUcMGhPf9/07c4TURnKwTgMWO/+aQ3niiEKYB8Re4+N8hg1UV IjD2gySuQf94Z9OMUp6dL5QsKOxBFrLV7ERhdR27F8N9CZu3kWzVOoGMqbJRVkjXIEJB vvfw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=v09zbKvpwhYLytk0XBoYHpKkDmZwPWEfR8v+j0HJoEA=; b=iIAt+4AwYGU2+LNGD1zGgX8vQX3moRzr19viB0XinE8d8Zy/d5p2wCmh0SSCrtZyAk TF8maLW6+bvlFVCFFSlqJ5xYfiFC+z4ljOG/8YLmjxRZ5aPGMNPMEvRuPNw2S6I20kbb bBStLyATEUCVn8VaA1Kqam9fFfmpKADVzIDzxfCmBDtbyM+3ktF/jWCGF4q4vjQhm9Kj WnWuSW3YFq4DvEU857TiTm50HYESP+ha1z6k++AUR61LvRyXBFfQzvwu/BdloHIWNsKM naWTi1mH1IQbWcda8xklXniNR2IHlxOS9I1LpILH5MH0XNQpiy+duJSzRAU6TsJwAV4y 1CKQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530zVZ0R25UzQWJxChMO30NH4FowKLkTl6zhrR7u1rlaLJARfYti Cx/nvfmFaH8tUZAZwxs7Y6fpFWu2Hlt7s6Xy3a8l4pTGZZQ=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzF3sVtZiQ8V8JQq8KcMrA8LVIuOWvkwBr8GaggaowRrjy+/AvuBI4o+4MAD1ubcaKN68La9DW/9UkVTxjGSmU=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:eb1a:: with SMTP id mb26mr2115308ejb.362.1589539702423; Fri, 15 May 2020 03:48:22 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Date: Fri, 15 May 2020 12:48:13 +0200
Message-ID: <CAOj+MMGf=Thwwoq9ZMmX1b4XcgjMMR7xbwNx3E6nvjAiK=3NLQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: CRH
To: 6man <6man@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000051decd05a5ad8d4d"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/7_aEF5M6owrIqb3t3BNFdCSZ3jM>
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, 15 May 2020 10:48:27 -0000
Dear WG, CRH at best seems to be just a building block (lego brick) on how to accomplish yet one more solution for path engineering in a domain. Alone as defined in the draft draft-bonica-6man-comp-rtg-hdr-NN it is pretty much unusable. Network operations require consistent mapping to function end to end. No one sane would be using static configuration to plance IPv6 to SID mapping along the paths. Statements that CRH delivers path engineering alone and in its purity is based on RFC8200 are not correct. It requires much more to be useful - IGP/BGP extensions or dynamic state imposition to the network elements in a central manner. We have not seen other then SRm6 related to any document how to take CRH as a building block and practically apply it in any network. Yet authors claim to cut themselves from any dependency on SRm6 that there is zero relation to it. Last but not least - how without dynamic routing extensions distributing mapping domain wide - CRH based path engineering would propose to solve TI-LFA or microloops avoidance problems ? So putting any overlap between this proposal and SPRING WG aside IMO before proceeding anywhere with CRH it should be required to see the full picture (read architecture document) not just focus on one single element of it. Kind regards, Robert.
- CRH Robert Raszuk