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

"Joel M. Halpern" <> Thu, 28 May 2020 18:21 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFCAB3A03F3 for <>; Thu, 28 May 2020 11:21:36 -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, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id X-axaJT9YDnX for <>; Thu, 28 May 2020 11:21:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 30FAB3A03F7 for <>; Thu, 28 May 2020 11:21:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49Xwy700LCz1p0Cf; Thu, 28 May 2020 11:21:35 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=2.tigertech; t=1590690095; bh=sO4TP/fREkwclmZC46MSG1anGwWdFlBLBS/wGMwKYqY=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=F48LSTn5HchXoq2zX9WDfurZIweBOldxc03tQ+r6AK8/C+Ig7LDnZMEb/j7sdtIMe vF5D3zJ+ZDCc2UMdxal6useasaPZKUz2/Latzbh68Wukk7NwF1XuiOYm9dFTjgUGdR HE0N2ob+EikxQXZGEUDYOch+x0i4TCp7Rz+HxfqM=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at
Received: from [IPv6:2600:380:195b:37dc:c89c:fb47:4965:78e8] (unknown [IPv6:2600:380:195b:37dc:c89c:fb47:4965:78e8]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 49Xwy472Xbz1p0Bh; Thu, 28 May 2020 11:21:32 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing Header (CRH)"
To: =?UTF-8?B?UmFuIFBhbmco6IGU6YCa6ZuG5Zui6IGU6YCa572R57uc5oqA5pyv56CU56m2?= =?UTF-8?B?6Zmi5pys6YOoKQ==?= <>, IPv6 List <>
References: <> <defcf5c6292345e7a333d600c4f47561@M10-HQ-ML02.hq.cnc.intra>
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 28 May 2020 14:21:31 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.8.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <defcf5c6292345e7a333d600c4f47561@M10-HQ-ML02.hq.cnc.intra>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
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: Thu, 28 May 2020 18:21:37 -0000

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.


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 <>
>     *Date:* 2020-05-16 06:13
>     *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
>     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- 
> 目录中删除。 If you have received this email in error please notify us 
> immediately by e-mail. Please reply to ,you can 
> unsubscribe from this mail. We will immediately remove your information 
> from send catalogue of our.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> Administrative Requests:
> --------------------------------------------------------------------