Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing Header (CRH)"
Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com> Wed, 27 May 2020 19:08 UTC
Return-Path: <tom@herbertland.com>
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 117C33A0903 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 May 2020 12:08:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.886
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.886 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, T_REMOTE_IMAGE=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=herbertland-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 QWYlvbzge_hV for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 May 2020 12:08:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk1-x729.google.com (mail-qk1-x729.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::729]) (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 44FCF3A089D for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 May 2020 12:08:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qk1-x729.google.com with SMTP id z80so683193qka.0 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 May 2020 12:08:15 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=herbertland-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=T4dYjNXA90j+MgJsnfNcjvQs1fRqJpilk17KzWrsrQQ=; b=CoMpPAHg6Rm49NHuXBCXdEqeHUAVVSEz6qIFLEu0BmhkXDds0IxOqlcTbG0UHhA8mv UkEYz/TQpj3JWGVP/x5TbNXWXcyeMrkREyhIzpj4BTioPXC603M+HTNQtDzVEdzgVmV1 j0twDfF2O7RCFC87QU0XReHwtJc9Z6up4iOETY9DPiEPLeo1jEvE38PjAI8afQJS/toE 72NVQWhw9px5eYoDJHh3d6HKuh7i+80L+allpb5Rs4IwYeaop/nkdi99JFYkaQNsZv67 A9nuQGNVPERqrXD4DA8EMa2Qu3v/BID/CsQ1WHBRPBwsaPJ1aP50RoelOKLWoKZEpAZB GxPA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=T4dYjNXA90j+MgJsnfNcjvQs1fRqJpilk17KzWrsrQQ=; b=Fi4kHlGKBtcL3O7wi15sMbUfJGhP2TR7V1m9VNC2wsLmVuJ62UnMJHZquqaGDMCDma i7R4UeEPxs247bkox9Ogt9jh7tXJbHCIxJpNbG0nD3liLWIgQ2ANR/fGyt3XTbbRJ+nQ IpLvg5U/jdk4D1ATlQ56CdegN43xHSpgCUR0uk3aKmhREUfQgkv136tYMgfE3wkYyZHM SJPnhneuS1cM3hbIMvgzfDWlCPUqloTKjFctLe8mRblUAGnKwz7N3OECyV5nSDE6DPmY kCAlXDZQDHZ2I2IMman+eKO01xYQylx7Ore1iLntNFMVoCFmmsfsT7QTJ0KjJ1341Gpa ZxdQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531NOTlBpwNhS9UQRytqZJUjDwheJksnk43yhGZXKN4qLuP44CG1 d9QZRA+ys1GXQx5rRM/fphblSSTKtyGmxkm7WmTaKQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxl1pI89ATaRsR1Ud4Wf324zZHOFs/kPkx0OHp8y12Ie5MZZ6Yve/UWTog2PfzFmG0kbR6mSlaSQumdV99UlT0=
X-Received: by 2002:a37:445:: with SMTP id 66mr5469064qke.146.1590606493775; Wed, 27 May 2020 12:08:13 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <19D30186-B180-4F65-BF00-7AD07CEF3925@gmail.com> <F73A3CB31E8BE34FA1BBE3C8F0CB2AE297BA004D@dggeml510-mbs.china.huawei.com> <CABNhwV10BFryUds0mCLhnX8F-EHaxggvsXASYsX6Z8UYPE3gbw@mail.gmail.com> <CA+RyBmVddXtG5=7O0Va6f8Z8TNnhWF9NG8KhKxEGzCzC0xRmgg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+RyBmVddXtG5=7O0Va6f8Z8TNnhWF9NG8KhKxEGzCzC0xRmgg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>
Date: Wed, 27 May 2020 12:08:02 -0700
Message-ID: <CALx6S36u1Cq7fvbt5iPfSY8yDMzL7s70OeDE0NWmRdGuzCeh3Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing Header (CRH)"
To: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
Cc: Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>, IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000000a0d6d05a6a5ef17"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/GlAZdrGRYeIqfwDlAM36gFjiRLU>
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: Wed, 27 May 2020 19:08:18 -0000
On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 11:47 AM Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Gyan, > one comment to > > CRH uses a new CRH-16 or CRH-32 RH which has a list of routing segments. > The routing segment is an index which identifies a CRH-FIB entry contains > an IPv6 address of the next hop to steer the packet. The CRH-FIB can be > populated via CLI locally or PCE controller centralized model or > distributed model via IGP extension. > > I believe that is equally applicable to the Unified SID proposal > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mirsky-6man-unified-id-sr/> that > is based on RFC 8754. The Unified SID does not introduce new RH types but > rather explicitly expresses the length of SID/index in the Flags field of > SRH. Would you agree that functionally CRH and the Unified SID are very > close? > Greg, Per RFC8754, SRH flags "MUST be 0 on transmission and ignored on receipt". That means if a Unified SID SRH is sent to a legacy implementation the receiver will ignore the flags and hence incorrectly process the SRH as being a list of 128 bits as specified in RFC8754. Similarly tag and TLVs can be ignored on receipt. Fundamentally, SIDs in SRH are 128 bits and there's really no way to change that since there's no field in the header that could serve as a robust codepoint for SID size. I think this is going to be an issue with any attempts to compress SIDs and still use the same SRH routing type, however I also don't think this is really a problem since there are plenty of available routing types left to be allocated, so the routing type can be used to indicate the SID size (as CRH proposes with two routing types for 16 and 32 bits). Tom > Regards, > Greg > > On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 8:40 PM Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> CRH is not a mapping based solution like SR-MPLS where each segment or >> SID is a label allocated from the SRBB to build the dynamic path or binding >> sid to create a SR-TE per VRF tunnel color mapping. >> >> The only thing in common between CRH and SRv6 is they both utilize the >> IPv6 data plane and they both can be used for traffic steering. How CRH >> achieves the traffic steering is completely different then SRv6. SRv6 >> performs steering natively using SRH and prefix SID end instantiation and >> adjacency SID end.x instantiation and for per VRF custom traffic coloring >> and use of flex algo utilizes SR-TE binding SID at the source node to >> instantiate the steered path. >> >> CRH does not use labels or index for the segments in the SRH header as >> does SR-MPLS which uses MPLS labels as SID for hop by hop steering or uses >> an IPV6 128 bit address or a compressed or index based compressed IPv6 >> address as the SID instruction for steering. >> >> CRH uses a new CRH-16 or CRH-32 RH which has a list of routing segments. >> The routing segment is an index which identifies a CRH-FIB entry contains >> an IPv6 address of the next hop to steer the packet. The CRH-FIB can be >> populated via CLI locally or PCE controller centralized model or >> distributed model via IGP extension. >> >> The CRH draft is a component of SRM6 Spring draft which is why it states >> that the CRH-FIB can be populated via IGP. However the CRH draft can act >> independently and a lean low overhead steering method and in that scenario >> only CLI or PCE methods are available to populate the CRH-FIB. >> >> In the context of Spring, SRM6 draft has the same capabilities as SRV6 >> or SR-MPLS and uses the same binding sid with SR-TE for per VRF coloring >> with flex algo for steering Inter or intra domain in a service provider >> network. >> >> CRH is a very lean draft that does not have those same capabilities of >> steering with SR-TE but it does support flex algo as that is IGP extension >> independent of SR. All the steering by CRH is done natively using the new >> routing headers. >> >> Kind Regards >> >> Gyan >> >> On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 10:25 PM Mach Chen <mach.chen@huawei.com> wrote: >> >>> If the draft intents to provide a mapping based Segment Routing >>> solution, there are SR-MPLS, SR-MPLS over IP exist, and there are >>> implementations that work very well; seems no need to define a new one; >>> >>> If the draft intents to provide a header compression solution to SRv6, >>> there are several candidate solutions under discussion; seems it's >>> premature to consider just adopting one and ignoring others; >>> >>> If the draft intents to be one of the building blocks of a new competing >>> IPv6 based Segment Routing solution, given the community has been working >>> on SRv6 for so many years, it needs to prove that the new solution has much >>> better merits than SRv6; >>> >>> So, based on the above, I do not support the adoption at this moment. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> Mach >>> >>> > -----Original Message----- >>> > From: ipv6 [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Bob Hinden >>> > Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2020 6:14 AM >>> > To: IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org> >>> > Cc: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com> >>> > 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 >>> ipv6@ietf.org >>> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >> -- >> >> <http://www.verizon.com/> >> >> *Gyan Mishra* >> >> *Network Solutions A**rchitect * >> >> >> >> *M 301 502-134713101 Columbia Pike *Silver Spring, MD >> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list >> ipv6@ietf.org >> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > ipv6@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- >
- RE: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Brian E Carpenter
- RE: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
- RE: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Xing Li
- Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing Heade… Bob Hinden
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Mark Smith
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Andrew Alston
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Joel M. Halpern
- RE: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Ron Bonica
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Xing Li
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Tom Herbert
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Brian E Carpenter
- RE: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Xiejingrong (Jingrong)
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Mark Smith
- RE: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Ron Bonica
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Krzysztof Szarkowicz
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Melchior Aelmans
- RE: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Xiejingrong (Jingrong)
- RE: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Xiejingrong (Jingrong)
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Nick Hilliard
- RE: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Darren Dukes (ddukes)
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Andrew Alston
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Tony Przygienda
- RE: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Vishal Singh
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… John Scudder
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Greg Mirsky
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Greg Mirsky
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Gyan Mishra
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Mark Smith
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Michael Richardson
- RE: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Ron Bonica
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Greg Mirsky
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Darren Dukes (ddukes)
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Andrew Alston
- RE: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Wen Lin
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Darren Dukes (ddukes)
- RE: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
- FW: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Zafar Ali (zali)
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Naveen Kottapalli
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… John Scudder
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Brian E Carpenter
- RE: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril)
- RE: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Andrew Alston
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Eric Vyncke (evyncke)
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… John Scudder
- RE: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Parag Kaneriya
- RE: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
- Reply: Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Ro… Chengli (Cheng Li)
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… John Scudder
- RE: Reply: Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compac… Ron Bonica
- 答复: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Weiqiang Cheng
- RE: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Huzhibo
- G-SRv6 (was Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compa… Tom Herbert
- RE: G-SRv6 (was Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 C… Huzhibo
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… 刘毅松
- 回复: Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routi… duzongpeng@foxmail.com
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Srihari Sangli
- 回复: 回复: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routi… Peng Liu
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… stefano previdi
- Re: G-SRv6 (was Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 C… Tom Herbert
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)
- RE: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Ron Bonica
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Ahmed Abdelsalam
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… stefano previdi
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Greg Mirsky
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Gyan Mishra
- RE: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Mach Chen
- RE: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Ron Bonica
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Gyan Mishra
- RE: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Mach Chen
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Gyan Mishra
- RE: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Mach Chen
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… xiechf@chinatelecom.cn
- RE: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Dongjie (Jimmy)
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Reji Thomas
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Robert Raszuk
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Antonio Cianfrani
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Robert Raszuk
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)
- RE: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Van De Velde, Gunter (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)
- RE: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Xiejingrong (Jingrong)
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Srihari Sangli
- RE: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Ron Bonica
- RE: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Templin (US), Fred L
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Greg Mirsky
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Greg Mirsky
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Tom Herbert
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Greg Mirsky
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Tom Herbert
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Darren Dukes (ddukes)
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Martin Horneffer
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Greg Mirsky
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Tetsuya Murakami
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Kalyani Rajaraman
- RE: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Michael McBride
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Tom Herbert
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Ran Pang(联通集团联通网络技术研究 院本部)
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Miya Kohno
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Kentaro Ebisawa
- RE: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… licong@chinatelecom.cn
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Fernando Gont
- 答复: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… qinfengwei
- RE: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Satoru Matsushima
- RE: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Voyer, Daniel
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Miya Kohno
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Tom Herbert
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Greg Mirsky
- RE: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Templin (US), Fred L
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Tom Herbert
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Greg Mirsky
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Tom Herbert
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Kamran Raza (skraza)
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Fernando Gont
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Jakob Heitz (jheitz)
- RE: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Wang, Weibin (NSB - CN/Shanghai)
- Re: Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routi… 이기훈/책임
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Swadesh Agrawal (swaagraw)
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Gyan Mishra
- RE: Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routi… Chengli (Cheng Li)
- RE: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Chengli (Cheng Li)
- Re: Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routi… Rakesh Gandhi
- Re: [spring] FW: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Comp… Dirk Steinberg
- comments on draft-bonica-6man-comp-rtg-hdr (Re: A… 神明達哉
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Francois Clad (fclad)
- Compatibility with SRH requirement (was Re: Adopt… Tom Herbert
- Conclusion of the Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Com… Bob Hinden
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Zafar Ali (zali)
- RE: Compatibility with SRH requirement (was Re: A… James Guichard
- Re: Compatibility with SRH requirement (was Re: A… Greg Mirsky
- Re: Compatibility with SRH requirement (was Re: A… Tom Herbert
- RE: Compatibility with SRH requirement (was Re: A… James Guichard
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Richard Vallee (rvallee)
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Kris Michielsen
- Re: Compatibility with SRH requirement (was Re: A… Tom Herbert
- Re: Compatibility with SRH requirement (was Re: A… Robert Raszuk
- RE: Compatibility with SRH requirement (was Re: A… James Guichard
- Re: Compatibility with SRH requirement (was Re: A… Tom Herbert
- RE: Compatibility with SRH requirement (was Re: A… James Guichard
- Re: Compatibility with SRH requirement (was Re: A… John Scudder
- Re: Compatibility with SRH requirement (was Re: A… Nick Hilliard
- RE: Compatibility with SRH requirement (was Re: A… James Guichard
- RE: Compatibility with SRH requirement (was Re: A… Adrian Farrel
- RE: Compatibility with SRH requirement (was Re: A… James Guichard
- Re: Compatibility with SRH requirement (was Re: A… Tom Herbert
- Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing H… Jen Linkova
- Re: Conclusion of the Adoption Call for "The IPv6… Erik Kline
- Followup Conclusion of the Adoption Call for "The… Bob Hinden