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

Mark Smith <> Fri, 15 May 2020 23:52 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EFE43A005B for <>; Fri, 15 May 2020 16:52:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.597
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.597 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM=0.001, HK_RANDOM_FROM=0.999, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id b45yJYwjL7Q8 for <>; Fri, 15 May 2020 16:52:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9E1333A0029 for <>; Fri, 15 May 2020 16:52:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id o24so3851895oic.0 for <>; Fri, 15 May 2020 16:52:50 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Mtn9AwIJZ7w3gVrFa2r+psd/dP1sTwUu8W8xDI1Sti8=; b=Q1uagdOMSoVipSOwdcFeJMdd9iW7Tg3Ji/bmj0RCo19RwygmJwEj6ILo8P2JJDIEgu CF/lmHm3X2te9JDpr3FT+H626FCxvuHxsAtwKasKD1tNBA1wbttt+EfwP5LjjICVVlTN PrwpPyGq9a118SAo6TQVzP9CS/Y2bk5TVDt8cnSuaAbUfUtv529ActfGnVW6kKM6BpAP BuPlBhbQB8o+Um3UazEGwYmR9tmHoTNGK5sM7f/qeFKvE02mPNGPhKVrZnJt8ba0uzVe FYleIEXuRjRMUpvJzdN5Nc2HKb0pEYno34yaOwxuijv6F0YlHgfX8yo40bMl4n4K3lRt npyw==
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=Mtn9AwIJZ7w3gVrFa2r+psd/dP1sTwUu8W8xDI1Sti8=; b=hzi8r3CGf28p2mEBaGV6W3mvCiYPY8BohjLUVCZ9WfzKyawFyRVxaCxesSRgsMsr05 SCVN1bysA0jlcZDJ6UuPth+esLai/OOwO89GDpdYwu4wIJ8VkDQZ43kXIt0l/3S9/huX +sRIUDBSpZ16yRtJITTpESyM8DP20+oJW/W4VnCcBOC42a1blR2b/iNhPXJjhNSut0yN hm4IUwKJknmZpoQ2ZsF6L3PHZWDZz45nU5zS6/3p7brR9tgn1DOls9SnsYiNpFF5tcH9 lLDy0PhNBWg4skxJz7jYzhHX2GzedQZQFMrUj7dszlO1L+KasDCht3UaWynwzOd7TwCe WDaQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5311Hp7gYFJjK0YmTJyFiWtZd62Ou/IZb5XLTgjSx/K6ies6ogrx hdFx8as4JFMmtzQCYSrxRCmGiC9LBYHEZrcR8Mw=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzptSod4Lc1lKvv/tXmVRlqN4S7GCHNvWz+t166wlw2FRkdJqqWNOEd75ux0HqEm23m5mbdz8pCHeXP8nF3pYM=
X-Received: by 2002:aca:ba85:: with SMTP id k127mr4044375oif.60.1589586770022; Fri, 15 May 2020 16:52:50 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Mark Smith <>
Date: Sat, 16 May 2020 09:52:38 +1000
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing Header (CRH)"
To: Bob Hinden <>
Cc: IPv6 List <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000c455d705a5b882e4"
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: Fri, 15 May 2020 23:52:53 -0000

I support adoption.

The argument that this working group can't adopt CRH without a whole suite
of supporting control plane protocols doesn't apply in my opinion.

This working group didn't define OSPFv3, IS-IS extensions for IPv6 or
Multi-protocol BGP support for IPv6 itself either - they were developed in
other working groups.

This working group defines the IPv6 protocol building blocks upon which
others can use to build upon.

I am willing to commit time to working on CRH, as it solves a problem that
has existed since RFC 1883 - the overhead of a source route with a set of
128 bit addresses.

It is not a new problem. What is relatively new (3-4 years or so) is the
recognition of the significance of the overhead of using 128 bit addresses
in a source route, due to SPRING's work.

6man need to solve this problem in a way that is consistent with both the
architecture and design of IPv6, in a way that is compatible with the
existing, very "brownfield" deployment of billions of IPv6 capable nodes.


On Sat, 16 May 2020, 08:14 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:
> --------------------------------------------------------------------