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

["Darren Dukes (ddukes)" <[e-mail]>]

I paused my replies for a while to see where the conversation went.

What I observed in my objection to 6man adopting this document is being highlighted by others.
"This draft will require substantial work related to the 16/32bit identifier (CP and OAM) that is not ipv6 nor ipv6 maintenance and for which this working group does not have a mandate nor, traditionally, expertise to drive.”

Some examples are:
- Why 16 or 32bit, why not one or the other, or why not 24, 48, 64?
- OAM and mapping table debugging will be an issue requiring more tools and standards.
- Realization that an “SDN” controller isn’t enough, BGP, ISIS, OSPF, other protocol work will be needed for mapping table distribution?
- ID ranges and how they are carved is not clear.
- What is the global vs local scope, how is conflict resolution handled, this has been mentioned a few times.

The IPv6-ness of this header ends at its routing header type.
Beyond that, the mapping of IDs is not IPv6 nor a 6man thing.
At best they are a subset of work SPRING has defined for the MPLS and IPv6 dataplanes.

If the intent is to be a general purpose IPv6 routing header within some limited domain, the WG may be better off looking at the compressed header in RFC8138. Or if tags are needed RFC8663 and calling it a day.

Thanks
  Darren



On May 16, 2020, at 9:59 AM, Darren Dukes (ddukes) <ddukes=[e-mail]<mailto:ddukes=[e-mail]>> wrote:

Hi Bob and Ole.

I’m not supporting the draft for adoption by 6man. I know you’re shocked ;).

I have one main concern with 6man adoption that I think many can agree with.

This draft will require substantial work related to the 16/32bit identifier (CP and OAM) that is not ipv6 nor ipv6 maintenance and for which this working group does not have a mandate nor, traditionally, expertise to drive.

Others have said “this is not 6man’s concern” and I agree because 6man is an ipv6 maintenance WG, not the segment mapping working group.  I believe the authors should find a WG with that concern to drive this work. I know starting work without requirements is fun and exciting, but you will likely end up at the wrong destination.

Brian had one suggestion on this topic.

In the past I’ve suggested SPRING, or if the authors desire, a BOF to build consensus and gather requirements for its parent SRm6 work or some variant of it.

I hope the authors, WG, chairs and AD consider these points during this adoption call.

Thanks
  Darren


________________________________
From: ipv6 <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> on behalf of Bob Hinden <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Sent: Friday, May 15, 2020 6:14 PM
To: IPv6 List
Cc: Bob Hinden
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


--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------