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

Robert Raszuk <> Wed, 27 May 2020 11:04 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5AF283A0D81 for <>; Wed, 27 May 2020 04:04:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7S_nwVhMtahD for <>; Wed, 27 May 2020 04:03:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::62d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1DE143A0D7E for <>; Wed, 27 May 2020 04:03:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id x1so27560827ejd.8 for <>; Wed, 27 May 2020 04:03:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=2Ol1siPiMTPOwq3NZStYYZ1ByArAfovdtRztjTDwAVw=; b=fz+yOR5dGqur8fuBCjhiczu4X7BFLBfbUAbLkvK2ZRItrI+vhE0LorlJfBSznwlTc3 NmxURZI7PkU0lmDt2hzXNHWzuS2EiiY+dDyDY/BzafxZuFQHlh8zJFlhReBxm/7AXJp+ MKk6OTBSEQLLD73BeE/iIpxsvk4ySQatRbh4sUdrk4K08YGU7g/oruPSqZQvMjuRTqjd HQ86Qqy5wm9FNspMOW2UpqqLuLav1fFgjMpbA4y6Tu/XaVx1we8KMrn9PneOiPgjBQac vFUAeUN7nJBfgQ7lHYQjqo2mORy4kF86mB+8pV+eFd3rIMGVw+HczE+MaMe2lOhkUwVw saJw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=2Ol1siPiMTPOwq3NZStYYZ1ByArAfovdtRztjTDwAVw=; b=cqd1yDQL/LNEQmVoF9xHhSac5db6pWNl8xLiuhN2PW1C99W9UXikLRvXYoO2pD8al6 lznqmkcaWM4Hcizff8EDYcar6//ak6da6SnpQZmzMcS2nrUJmKCRrXrhFv9OzVLR6mOA WiIfUfyU2x6liiIG1ZhYblzCSbZ8UelQlxB0Kfz05TyHJ4mJSsndGcFiEaNJORt60AxC b4rMp+EIXT+/mfQBirizrhQp0U8qgxr0AAP9cKh8SdyVzFg5nhlXQ9lggkIWgRHI4H4o ULVYTAIVATHjqIzkAlLLtFQiGaCWRFmaIndPbAUfCBgmR1mCizry4mAbmI6hW8BgNWtb Quzg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533prwGDgtbtkWsEYGIB1YjuU9dy0kuky2onTgU9DjOpkKFVl+6L VCzY2uKvH+fLxy/itnOgzMIdj/4HlaSintW3rGBYCu5284I=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw0OHRA7i0HviUWWnSIylSFjPzlzt5wZOJecmavaOf8ntMT3e+4BciZjG4BmqpdhonoSoE5YS8Qcj9yZwK9jRo=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:f747:: with SMTP id jp7mr5389861ejb.110.1590577435462; Wed, 27 May 2020 04:03:55 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Robert Raszuk <>
Date: Wed, 27 May 2020 13:03:41 +0200
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing Header (CRH)"
To: Bob Hinden <>
Cc: IPv6 List <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000076ed305a69f2b21"
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 May 2020 11:04:02 -0000


I would like to formally state that I do not support adoption
of draft-bonica-6man-comp-rtg-hdr


* Those interested in source routing with IPv6 can use existing solutions.
If current set of solutions lacks some functionality SPRING WG can be the
right forum to discuss the missing elements or for that matter to discuss
rational to specify new SRH TLV which could even carry CRIDs if WG decides
it is a good idea.

* Those however interested in zero overhead, simple IPv6 based path
engineering can use Reference based Routing (RbR) proposal which either
does not require any protocol changes at all or could define a new routing
header to only carry 32 bits reference ID irrespective of number of
midpoints to traverse. Ref:

Kind regards,

On Sat, May 16, 2020 at 12:14 AM Bob Hinden <> wrote:

> 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
> 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
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> Administrative Requests:
> --------------------------------------------------------------------