RE: Size of CR in CRH
Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net> Thu, 21 May 2020 15:11 UTC
Return-Path: <rbonica@juniper.net>
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 8B1F33A0C7B for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 May 2020 08:11:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, 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: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=juniper.net header.b=XK1UL7Lm; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=juniper.net header.b=IqH25vA2
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 gQYWGVACKhov for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 May 2020 08:11:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0b-00273201.pphosted.com (mx0b-00273201.pphosted.com [67.231.152.164]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E2FC43A0B8E for <6man@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 May 2020 08:11:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0108163.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-00273201.pphosted.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 04LF78GP027835; Thu, 21 May 2020 08:11:15 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=juniper.net; h=from : to : cc : subject : date : message-id : references : in-reply-to : content-type : mime-version; s=PPS1017; bh=nYAFZM6rUtnEwYaVr+FNSBwvsYzABlmXoN9nVxM5Zu0=; b=XK1UL7LmktvaKURY8AY+3fMYvjNGMztGF1/odkuErA91zF2rkOWsCkwzx4LBvJGQNFcv rFW86Y9k2/BwnoBeGxmdBz2ULmY/064aEUGddZN6eNoxcqfIH3nADyAmBLGTIjlOsYKm nvraptqAtsAWUxra6Yxm7QsEE4B8eXRkoVZk+2bpERK8RbtYEy6B4vsy3YVNFx0zdq3h nnZb4ILf+8niI7GrEFclhYSAJ7TSwp2GHVx/CWlYzwLFwXA/l2AfNTqCMgcmnVGktgCk qxm+rsiU02jR4w8pDJXca7KGcy2UHovwEe9Gkh5SfO1VApxZZlEgAlgWtm2ZRUiT3YoY ig==
Received: from nam10-dm6-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-dm6nam10lp2106.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.58.106]) by mx0b-00273201.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 3159j2hyg6-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 21 May 2020 08:11:15 -0700
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=WUPoLDZb1FXtAVv1ND1UuO79VDM6TOyE6+TVN94YBewNCTzyfZoQyi2lKeF9iEcndU7kIxLLMVePPpkrddqCgW8eTw9TtaP4rE34JjLoEmXwVVr0Q7xnSfYmnt6/xby9GA9ehZI9El7djlNk/fnAEqaCYfUrazxe7UDMaKiVXaZFnodeldFnZ5MiW7ZTXBO3E9kB1+3G8sXRrBjrdx4e7383lHDZhyh1jlNd93kvas2lMVdvMc90pF+WfgzQzeLskXJ+IRvxn+J4XWOAPErkdmw2srV79Cj4iHoqjyl5FR+HK2Kmn0weJ/Y2CR9giv/i1I3ez9TJP78gWTzdT10D0Q==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=nYAFZM6rUtnEwYaVr+FNSBwvsYzABlmXoN9nVxM5Zu0=; b=B24rkEnPdPOjSDbExy7sdb190D00Xi4Qt+1sy9BF5EEzoRypjJNi0cOVu7zTf2Vwm/IPIMIcSfSwXA02B0TjGlG140KLA6kWBR9b60JoxkQhdSY7YRSb5woudrPh2vowFpp8TRtrKh8snGJFpxJXed+NCoUnI02QbUUzhxTwOBVUGqyZG86tHR1h6JnWAD69V/4oxwk5X9/spOUQR0eDVXOX0Mrcb7gqtLleEZvcXCQwie0MzvDX88nPxl6psYJhWkNVdKcQ8Mbu8l/tBMg0MDF671UR7K+ho9JbPmShtEvtyoLE6/3PG1mKuxQlzw6dlLdkB25oDMeXQU2KhZZfGw==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=juniper.net; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=juniper.net; dkim=pass header.d=juniper.net; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=juniper.net; s=selector1; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=nYAFZM6rUtnEwYaVr+FNSBwvsYzABlmXoN9nVxM5Zu0=; b=IqH25vA2wl0HshRD3N7Si01eKnIwSx72PHaKvaPyn9hCQZHSqdiKPep2Wm/AjgeflcoOtx980mTCP8uFXxCT3vmuvdEd3oKZEnLOGS6MUxhIWSgUd4xqF/dZnr2TRAiPxKnCKVVPk6JgerePlU3Z95FM/oLVrgFj23cdSy/EPDA=
Received: from DM6PR05MB6348.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:5:122::15) by DM6PR05MB4780.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:5:12::29) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.3021.11; Thu, 21 May 2020 15:11:12 +0000
Received: from DM6PR05MB6348.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::c020:3bf5:7230:75e3]) by DM6PR05MB6348.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::c020:3bf5:7230:75e3%4]) with mapi id 15.20.3021.019; Thu, 21 May 2020 15:11:12 +0000
From: Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>
To: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
CC: 6man <6man@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: Size of CR in CRH
Thread-Topic: Size of CR in CRH
Thread-Index: AQHWLvTGateRry/dWEq++B8v3KKITqixxH1QgABy4ICAAGTYgIAABSHA
Date: Thu, 21 May 2020 15:11:12 +0000
Message-ID: <DM6PR05MB63484502B4CFCB745DFCED3EAEB70@DM6PR05MB6348.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CAOj+MMFsy=dDciY=TMwSf75CZCr_i1Mfv6oUiPs5U6hT2Bq94w@mail.gmail.com> <DM6PR05MB6348D0DB381145F1A4C53450AEB70@DM6PR05MB6348.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <CAOj+MMHT=TWqf=A71PhvCcrFggCQ=okRrP=sGaO4hrcbmsCvGw@mail.gmail.com> <CAOj+MMGYbw83c-T9GWCs_cLDWWbGi1dZ_Xfc8tS6TV6EfvWsDw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAOj+MMGYbw83c-T9GWCs_cLDWWbGi1dZ_Xfc8tS6TV6EfvWsDw@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
msip_labels: MSIP_Label_0633b888-ae0d-4341-a75f-06e04137d755_Enabled=true; MSIP_Label_0633b888-ae0d-4341-a75f-06e04137d755_SetDate=2020-05-21T15:11:11Z; MSIP_Label_0633b888-ae0d-4341-a75f-06e04137d755_Method=Standard; MSIP_Label_0633b888-ae0d-4341-a75f-06e04137d755_Name=0633b888-ae0d-4341-a75f-06e04137d755; MSIP_Label_0633b888-ae0d-4341-a75f-06e04137d755_SiteId=bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4; MSIP_Label_0633b888-ae0d-4341-a75f-06e04137d755_ActionId=948d640e-3958-4764-a692-8b2683dcc3b6; MSIP_Label_0633b888-ae0d-4341-a75f-06e04137d755_ContentBits=2
dlp-product: dlpe-windows
dlp-version: 11.4.0.45
dlp-reaction: no-action
authentication-results: raszuk.net; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;raszuk.net; dmarc=none action=none header.from=juniper.net;
x-originating-ip: [108.28.233.91]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-ht: Tenant
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 4e56d004-a622-4544-f20c-08d7fd993351
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: DM6PR05MB4780:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <DM6PR05MB47806B81CA873D93029C44D1AEB70@DM6PR05MB4780.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:9508;
x-forefront-prvs: 041032FF37
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: n9PqImqJ/wRGAnBjW6eGZGvrhH9oqKWXTPnCz8zt6gAwkXcopJuL9NoGkBAEbSnHVKk71yibFE1iLDQfTsMlSjTW2Wgx0nDMGnV8ApRYsl413UXWsA+wmixSm5uwTkVfZv49N+23rpb8qoYeuQK/cSZr9VXSEXoGO9OdDzgUMpJ1JMuNnY9EH7s3NWbab29eAtlMHRRI6hcriXg1vWupfvDfxtjY4qLQzaWUoHQexppsoDmQ6digk1XPjY4AYc8M3/BjUCLfOnaBTP2cUTyyUhW8QvSkv+T5lqwBjhjVIa5RrJzCWN1kJicTituaeV5I
x-forefront-antispam-report: CIP:255.255.255.255; CTRY:; LANG:en; SCL:1; SRV:; IPV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; H:DM6PR05MB6348.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; PTR:; CAT:NONE; SFTY:; SFS:(4636009)(366004)(136003)(376002)(346002)(396003)(39860400002)(6506007)(8676002)(5660300002)(76116006)(4326008)(86362001)(55016002)(66946007)(316002)(2906002)(7696005)(71200400001)(478600001)(53546011)(186003)(64756008)(66574014)(8936002)(52536014)(66446008)(9686003)(6916009)(33656002)(66476007)(66556008)(26005); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102;
x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata: 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
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_DM6PR05MB63484502B4CFCB745DFCED3EAEB70DM6PR05MB6348namp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 4e56d004-a622-4544-f20c-08d7fd993351
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 21 May 2020 15:11:12.7827 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: 0FgsMTtSTclADeXwKqnjjt+i7976uNSsJ8jGmWQkl1SzjLVI1YO5DcgL/zP5FMaO/a18xpkEEMotpymMXzjwWQ==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DM6PR05MB4780
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.216, 18.0.676 definitions=2020-05-21_08:2020-05-21, 2020-05-21 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_spam_notspam policy=outbound_spam score=0 malwarescore=0 priorityscore=1501 lowpriorityscore=0 phishscore=0 clxscore=1015 impostorscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 mlxscore=0 suspectscore=0 cotscore=-2147483648 mlxlogscore=999 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2004280000 definitions=main-2005210112
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/C5Nj2hKxj1PT1XXPFI1dIKfYDxU>
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: Thu, 21 May 2020 15:11:21 -0000
Robert, Let's address your question with an example. Assume that Node A is sending a packet to Node D. The delivery path includes the following strictly routed hops: * Node A to Node B over link A->B * Node B to Node C over link B->C * Node C to Node D over link C->D Now we populate the CRH-FIB on Nodes B and C as follows: * On Node B: Identifier = 15, IPv6 Address = Node C, Method = strict, Link = B->C * On Node C: Identifier = 15, IPv6 Address = Node D, Method = strict, Link = C->D Now, Node A formats a packet as follows: * IPv6 Destination Address = Node B * CRH Segments Left = 2 * Identifier list = [15,15] Node A sends this packet to Node B over link A->B. Node B decrements Segments Left and looks for entry 15 in *its* CRH-FIB. If finds: * On Node B: Identifier = 15, IPv6 Address = Node C, Method = strict, Link = B->C So, Node B updates the IPv6 address and sends the packet to Node C over link B->C. Node C decrements Segments Left and looks for entry 15 in *its* CRH-FIB. If finds: * On Node C: Identifier = 15, IPv6 Address = Node D, Method = strict, Link = C->D So, Node C updates the IPv6 address and sends the packet to Node D over link C->D. Ron Juniper Business Use Only From: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2020 10:35 AM To: Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net> Cc: 6man <6man@ietf.org> Subject: Re: Size of CR in CRH [External Email. Be cautious of content] Ron, While we are at the local vs global significance of SIDs can you please elaborate how do you resolve the conflict where given SID value is advertised by more then one node ? In fact imagine that all nodes in a domain choose to advertise the same SID value "15" to forward the traffic to their respective peers. So packet arrives at segment endpoint node A with CRH consisting of SID list 15, 15, 15, 15 ... where each value 15 means different behaviour on different node. How do you even know which way to forward the packet ? See in this case your mapping plane will contain different functions on different nodes signalled with the same SID. I understand that you are trying to silently borrow set of procedures from SR-MPLS here as documented in RFC8660. But if you just open this RFC you will see section 2.5 or 2.6 without which you just can not simply propose to treat SID as locally significant in any form of segment routing. Of course unless you would consume two SIDs per node. Thx, Robert. On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 10:34 AM Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net<mailto:robert@raszuk.net>> wrote: Ron, > Now recall that identifiers have node local significance. I was talking about case described in yr draft section 7: "Applications can: o Allocate SIDs so that they have domain-wide significance." While not a must - it is an option. So I believe my observation stays valid till draft either removes that option or describes scaling properties differences between both domain wide and local significance of the SIDs. Thx, R. On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 4:01 AM Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net<mailto:rbonica@juniper.net>> wrote: Robert, Consider the following network: * Contains 65,000 routers * Each router has 500 directly connected neighbors or fewer * Uses 16-bit CRH In this network, each node might have 65,499 CRH-FIB entries: * 64,999 CRH-FIB entries cause packets to follow the least-cost path to another node in the domain * 500 CRH-FIB entries cause packets to traverse a specific link to a specific neighbor. As a mnemonic device, an operator might assign identifiers as follows: * 0-65,000 identify CRH-FIB entries that cause packets to follow the least-cost path to another node in the domain * 65,001 - 65,565 identify CRH-FIB entries that that cause packets to traverse a specific link to a specific neighbor. Now recall that identifiers have node local significance. So, Node A and Node B might both have a CRH-FIB entry that is identified by the value 65,001. However: * The CRH-FIB entry on Node A causes packets to traverse a particular link towards Node X * The CRH-FIB entry on Node B causes packets to traverse a different link towards Node Y. I think that this example refutes the premise of your argument, so there is not further need to address the conclusion. Ron Juniper Business Use Only From: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net<mailto:robert@raszuk.net>> Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 6:20 PM To: Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net<mailto:rbonica@juniper.net>> Cc: 6man <6man@ietf.org<mailto:6man@ietf.org>> Subject: RE: Size of CR in CRH [External Email. Be cautious of content] HI, So just to make sure I understand this analogy of 16 bit -- 2^16 = 65536 nodes. I think this is only on paper. Imagine I have 1000 routers so if I divide the 16 bit space by 1000 I get at most 65 local node behaviours if anyone would like to embed such into the SID. That means that if my router have more then 65 interfaces I am not able to steer packets by src route out of my router ... I must always depend on the lookup of next SID how to forward the packets. That also means that if I want to apply any form of NP in segment endpoint I am quite limited to the number of local functions I could use. To conclude - Let me restate to what I and others already said - flat SID space domain wide in mapping plane is a mistake. Yes this is like MPLS, but this does not make it great again due to that legacy. Many thx, R.
- Re: Size of CR in CRH Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Size of CR in CRH Erik Kline
- Re: Size of CR in CRH Joel M. Halpern
- Re: Size of CR in CRH Brian E Carpenter
- CRH and RH0 Darren Dukes (ddukes)
- RE: CRH and RH0 Ron Bonica
- Re: CRH and RH0 Darren Dukes (ddukes)
- Re: CRH and RH0 Bob Hinden
- RE: CRH and RH0 Ron Bonica
- Re: CRH and RH0 otroan
- RE: CRH and RH0 Ron Bonica
- Re: CRH and RH0 otroan
- RE: CRH and RH0 Ron Bonica
- Re: CRH and RH0 otroan
- RE: CRH and RH0 Ron Bonica
- Re: CRH and RH0 Bob Hinden
- RE: CRH and RH0 Ron Bonica
- RE: CRH and RH0 Pengshuping (Peng Shuping)
- Re: CRH and RH0 Tom Herbert
- Re: CRH and RH0 Robert Raszuk
- RE: CRH and RH0 Ron Bonica
- Re: CRH and RH0 Robert Raszuk
- RE: CRH and RH0 Ron Bonica
- RE: CRH and RH0 Ron Bonica
- RE: CRH and RH0 Ron Bonica
- Re: CRH and RH0 Robert Raszuk
- RE: CRH and RH0 Ron Bonica
- Re: CRH and RH0 Robert Raszuk
- RE: CRH and RH0 Ron Bonica
- Re: CRH and RH0 Stewart Bryant
- Re: CRH and RH0 Bob Hinden
- RE: CRH and RH0 Ron Bonica
- Re: CRH and RH0 Tom Herbert
- Re: CRH and RH0 Ole Troan
- Re: CRH and RH0 Darren Dukes (ddukes)
- RE: CRH and RH0 Ron Bonica
- Re: CRH and RH0 Bob Hinden
- RE: CRH and RH0 Ron Bonica
- RE: CRH and RH0 Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
- RE: CRH and RH0 Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
- Re: CRH and RH0 otroan
- RE: CRH and RH0 Ron Bonica
- Re: CRH and RH0 Darren Dukes (ddukes)
- Re: CRH and RH0 Tom Herbert
- Re: CRH and RH0 Erik Kline
- RE: CRH and RH0 Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
- RE: CRH and RH0 Ron Bonica
- RE: CRH and RH0 Ron Bonica
- Re: CRH and RH0 Darren Dukes (ddukes)
- RE: CRH and RH0 Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
- RE: CRH and RH0 Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
- RE: CRH and RH0 Ron Bonica
- Adoption call criteria for CRH? [was: Re: CRH and… John Scudder
- Re: CRH and RH0 Mark Smith
- Re: Adoption call criteria for CRH? [was: Re: CRH… Robert Raszuk
- Re: CRH and RH0 Robert Raszuk
- RE: CRH and RH0 Ron Bonica
- RE: CRH and RH0 Ron Bonica
- Re: CRH and RH0 Gyan Mishra
- Re: Adoption call criteria for CRH? [was: Re: CRH… S Moonesamy
- Re: Adoption call criteria for CRH? [was: Re: CRH… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Adoption call criteria for CRH? [was: Re: CRH… Darren Dukes (ddukes)
- Re: Adoption call criteria for CRH? [was: Re: CRH… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: CRH and RH0 Darren Dukes (ddukes)
- Re: Adoption call criteria for CRH? [was: Re: CRH… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Adoption call criteria for CRH? [was: Re: CRH… John Scudder
- Re: Adoption call criteria for CRH? [was: Re: CRH… Bob Hinden
- Re: Adoption call criteria for CRH? [was: Re: CRH… Bob Hinden
- Re: Adoption call criteria for CRH? [was: Re: CRH… S Moonesamy
- Re: CRH and RH0 Tom Herbert
- RE: CRH and RH0 Ron Bonica
- RE: Adoption call criteria for CRH? [was: Re: CRH… Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
- RE: Adoption call criteria for CRH? [was: Re: CRH… Pengshuping (Peng Shuping)
- Re: Adoption call criteria for CRH? [was: Re: CRH… Darren Dukes (ddukes)
- RE: CRH and RH0 Chengli (Cheng Li)
- RE: Adoption call criteria for CRH? [was: Re: CRH… Chengli (Cheng Li)
- Re: CRH and RH0 Robert Raszuk
- Re: CRH and RH0 Stewart Bryant
- Re: CRH and RH0 Robert Raszuk
- Re: CRH and RH0 Stewart Bryant
- Re: Adoption call criteria for CRH? [was: Re: CRH… Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: Adoption call criteria for CRH? [was: Re: CRH… Voyer, Daniel
- Re: Adoption call criteria for CRH? [was: Re: CRH… 刘毅松
- 答复: Adoption call criteria for CRH? [was: Re: CRH… qinfengwei
- Re: Adoption call criteria for CRH? [was: Re: CRH… Zafar Ali (zali)
- RE: Adoption call criteria for CRH? [was: Re: CRH… Andrew Alston
- Re: Adoption call criteria for CRH? [was: Re: CRH… Tom Herbert
- RE: Adoption call criteria for CRH? [was: Re: CRH… Ron Bonica
- Re: Adoption call criteria for CRH? [was: Re: CRH… Nick Hilliard
- Re: Adoption call criteria for CRH? [was: Re: CRH… Zafar Ali (zali)
- Re: [spring] Adoption call criteria for CRH? [was… Robert Raszuk
- Re: Adoption call criteria for CRH? [was: Re: CRH… John Scudder
- Re: Adoption call criteria for CRH? [was: Re: CRH… Fernando Gont
- Shorter SIDs in SR over IPv6 (Re: Adoption call c… Greg Mirsky
- Re: Adoption call criteria for CRH? [was: Re: CRH… Zafar Ali (zali)
- Re: Adoption call criteria for CRH? [was: Re: CRH… John Scudder
- Re: Adoption call criteria for CRH? [was: Re: CRH… Tom Herbert
- Re: Adoption call criteria for CRH? [was: Re: CRH… Robert Raszuk
- Re: Adoption call criteria for CRH? [was: Re: CRH… Mark Smith
- Re: Adoption call criteria for CRH? [was: Re: CRH… Tom Herbert
- Re: Adoption call criteria for CRH? [was: Re: CRH… Robert Raszuk
- Size of CR in CRH Bob Hinden
- RE: Size of CR in CRH Templin (US), Fred L
- Re: Size of CR in CRH Bob Hinden
- RE: Size of CR in CRH Templin (US), Fred L
- Re: Size of CR in CRH Tom Herbert
- Re: Size of CR in CRH Nick Hilliard
- RE: Size of CR in CRH Ron Bonica
- RE: Size of CR in CRH Templin (US), Fred L
- Re: Size of CR in CRH Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Size of CR in CRH Nick Hilliard
- Re: Size of CR in CRH Joel M. Halpern
- Re: Size of CR in CRH Bob Hinden
- RE: Size of CR in CRH Wang, Weibin (NSB - CN/Shanghai)
- RE: Size of CR in CRH Andrew Alston
- Re: Size of CR in CRH otroan
- RE: Size of CR in CRH Ron Bonica
- Re: Size of CR in CRH Bob Hinden
- Re: Size of CR in CRH Uma Chunduri
- RE: Size of CR in CRH Ron Bonica
- Re: Size of CR in CRH Tom Herbert
- RE: Size of CR in CRH Ron Bonica
- Re: Size of CR in CRH Tom Herbert
- RE: Size of CR in CRH Ron Bonica
- Re: Size of CR in CRH Ole Troan
- Re: Size of CR in CRH Mark Smith
- Re: Size of CR in CRH Fred Baker
- RE: Size of CR in CRH Ron Bonica
- Re: Size of CR in CRH Tom Herbert
- RE: Size of CR in CRH Robert Raszuk
- Re: Size of CR in CRH Bob Hinden
- On adddress sizing (was: Re: Size of CR in CRH) Toerless Eckert
- Re: Size of CR in CRH Toerless Eckert
- RE: Size of CR in CRH Ron Bonica
- RE: Size of CR in CRH Chengli (Cheng Li)
- RE: Size of CR in CRH Ron Bonica
- Re: Size of CR in CRH Robert Raszuk
- Re: Size of CR in CRH Nick Hilliard
- RE: Size of CR in CRH Ron Bonica
- RE: Size of CR in CRH Ron Bonica
- Re: Size of CR in CRH Zafar Ali (zali)
- Re: Size of CR in CRH Robert Raszuk
- Re: Size of CR in CRH Tom Herbert
- RE: Size of CR in CRH Ron Bonica
- RE: Size of CR in CRH Ron Bonica
- Re: Size of CR in CRH Robert Raszuk
- RE: Size of CR in CRH Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
- RE: Size of CR in CRH Ron Bonica
- Re: Size of CR in CRH Robert Raszuk
- RE: Size of CR in CRH Ron Bonica
- Re: Size of CR in CRH Tom Herbert
- Re: Size of CR in CRH Robert Raszuk
- Re: Size of CR in CRH Zafar Ali (zali)
- RE: Size of CR in CRH Ron Bonica
- Re: Size of CR in CRH Joel M. Halpern
- Re: Size of CR in CRH Zafar Ali (zali)
- Re: Size of CR in CRH Bob Hinden
- RE: Size of CR in CRH Ron Bonica
- RE: Size of CR in CRH Ron Bonica
- Re: Size of CR in CRH Robert Raszuk
- Re: Size of CR in CRH Robert Raszuk
- Re: Size of CR in CRH Joel M. Halpern
- RE: Size of CR in CRH Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril)
- Re: Size of CR in CRH Joel M. Halpern
- Re: Size of CR in CRH Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Size of CR in CRH Gyan Mishra
- Re: Size of CR in CRH Gyan Mishra
- RE: Size of CR in CRH Wang, Weibin (NSB - CN/Shanghai)
- RE: Size of CR in CRH Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)