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

["Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)" <[e-mail]>]

if you look into the details RFC8663 from a data-plane operation is very similar to CRH. It uses a tag and derives a destination ipv6 address from it.
On top it if you look at the requirements which are discussed on the mailing list, the following is possible with RFC8663
 
It can steer the packet through a specific path. Implementations exists which do well beyond 8
No new VPN encapsulation is required
No new service chaining needed and various options possible.
Compliant to SPRING
Uses MPLS but it is used here as a lookup tag, not any different than the CRH proposal. In essence if you look at the details you can implement this with a complete v6 infrastructure and use the tag as a steering function. And uses 32 bit.
 
As such I don’t see why we need another encap to achieve something we already can do and is available in various implementations and is as efficient on the wire (looking at 32 bit, which is what people agree upon).

So I would vote against adoption.

On 16/05/2020, 00:14, "ipv6 on behalf of Bob Hinden" <[e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]> 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

     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