Re: CRH and RH0

[Mark Smith <[e-mail]>]

Compact Routing Header.

On Thu, 14 May 2020, 05:58 Ron Bonica, <rbonica=[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Erik,
>
> I could rename the CRH to something else. Maybe the Programmed Routing
> Header (PRH)? But would that make a difference to the folks who are voicing
> objections?
>
>                                                  Ron
>
>
>
> Juniper Business Use Only
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Erik Kline <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2020 1:56 PM
> To: Ron Bonica <[e-mail]>
> Cc: Bob Hinden <[e-mail]>; 6man <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: CRH and RH0
>
> [External Email. Be cautious of content]
>
>
> I too find myself agreeing with Bob.
>
> Two random comments:
>
>   [1] there might be a better term than "compressed" with less baggage
> (naming is hard)
>
>   [2] for many, the architecture for distributing CP information is "my
> SDN", so I'm not convinced all the CP distribution needs to be worked out
> in advance
>
> On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 9:27 AM Ron Bonica <rbonica=
> [e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > Bob,
> >
> > I think that your analysis is absolutely correct. Anything that relies
> on SPRING routing protocols is SPRING.
> >
> > I would add the corollary statement, anything that does not rely on
> SPRING routing protocols is not SPRING.
> >
> > Therefore, if CRH can be deployed in the absence of any routing protocol
> at all  (i.e., with static routes and a statically configured CRH-FIB), it
> is not SPRING.
> >
> >
>
> > Ron
> >
> >
> >
> > Juniper Business Use Only
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Bob Hinden <[e-mail]>
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2020 12:16 PM
> > To: 6man <[e-mail]>
> > Cc: Bob Hinden <[e-mail]>; Ron Bonica
> > <[e-mail]>; Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>
> > Subject: Re: CRH and RH0
> >
> > Gentlepeople,
> >
> > IPv6 routing headers starting with RFC1883 published in 1995 used the
> term “segments” to identify elements in the list of addresses.   In that
> sense, all IPv6 routing headers do some form of segment routing.  It’s a
> generic term that has been around for 25 years.
> >
> > I think the underlying question with CRH is does it conflict with what
> is being done in the Spring w.g.
> >
> > To my thinking, what is being done in Spring is an architecture for
> distributing information that can be used to create source routes for SRH
> (RFC8754).   Anything that relies on that set of Spring routing protocols
> is part of the working being done in Spring.
> >
> > Likewise, to my thinking I don’t think that means that all new IPv6
> routing headers conflict with the work being done in the Spring w.g.
> >
> > Bob
> >
> >
> > > On May 13, 2020, at 8:55 AM, Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Ron,
> > >
> > > Oh - haven't we established just yesterday that you will not be
> referencing RH0 any longer with CRH proposal  ?
> > >
> > > It's like you are trying to build a vehicle  .. it has wheels,
> steering and even seats (no engine and no belts for now). But you keep
> insisting - it is not a car.
> > >
> > > See if you put normative reference to segment routing up to version
> -10 then suddenly drop it with no major change to the body of the draft the
> intentions are just obvious:
> > >
> > > 13.  References
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 13.1.  Normative References
> > >
> > >
> > >    [
> > > I-D.bonica-spring-srv6-plus
> > > ]
> > >               Bonica, R., Hegde, S., Kamite, Y., Alston, A., Henriques,
> > >               D., Jalil, L., Halpern, J., Linkova, J., and G. Chen,
> > >               "Segment Routing Mapped To IPv6 (SRm6)",
> > > draft-bonica-
> > > spring-srv6-plus-06 (work in progress), October 2019.
> > >
> > > REF:
> > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bonica
> > > -6man-comp-rtg-hdr-10__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!QcAL7_ALlBjQGtAnsGVN1JsDVd305D
> > > lUw8Cr1FGDjAbPI5e93Il4WpTsbTWL9bL9$
> > >
> > > On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 5:41 PM Ron Bonica <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> > > Robert,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Oh, btw. RH0 had a “Segments Left” field. Because it talked about
> segments, would you like to claim that it was also SR?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
> > > Ron
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Juniper Business Use Only
> > > From: Ron Bonica
> > > Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2020 11:40 AM
> > > To: Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>
> > > Cc: Bob Hinden <[e-mail]>; 6man <[e-mail]>
> > > Subject: RE: CRH and RH0
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Robert,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > So, you are really sure that these people don’t exist. Would you like
> to make a more explicit statement?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Ron
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Juniper Business Use Only
> > > From: Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2020 11:22 AM
> > > To: Ron Bonica <[e-mail]>
> > > Cc: Bob Hinden <[e-mail]>; 6man <[e-mail]>
> > > Subject: Re: CRH and RH0
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > [External Email. Be cautious of content]
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi Ron,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >  Are you questioning whether that statement is true?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Yes. Especially this point: " Are not interested in SR"
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Your draft only talks about SIDs and segments so no matter how you
> call it the core purpose is segment routing.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Take care,
> > > R.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 5:13 PM Ron Bonica <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Robert,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > At the interim meeting, I said that there are IPv6 operators who:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ·         Want CRH
> > >
> > > ·         Are not interested in SR
> > >
> > > ·         Are averse to SRv6
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Are you questioning whether that statement is true?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >                                                           Ron
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Juniper Business Use Only
> > > From: Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2020 3:22 AM
> > > To: Ron Bonica <[e-mail]>
> > > Cc: Bob Hinden <[e-mail]>; 6man <[e-mail]>
> > > Subject: Re: CRH and RH0
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > [External Email. Be cautious of content]
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi Ron,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Given that it is only fifteen pages long, I suspect that progressing
> it would be less work than arguing about whether to progress it.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Sometimes committing a bit more work yields much better results in the
> long run ...
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > So it is clear that you are not just trying to fix suboptimalities of
> IPv6 encoding out of the woods. The goal is clear to get this in and use it
> as a hook to show in SPRING and other routing WGs in IETF that since you
> have CRH accepted as a WG docs in 6man other groups should follow along and
> work on SRm6 encodings.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The mapping plane between SIDs and labels is already in place in
> SR-MPLS. Just changing few bit here and there does not make new proposal to
> stand on its own.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I think it has been clearly stated by 6man chairs and AD that any work
> on SRm6 can be taken on only after SPRING WG accepts the main concept and
> adopts the main doc as a WG item.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > So I recommend we go via this proper path with the full picture in
> mind and the ultimate objective for CRH.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > >
> > > R.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > Administrative Requests:
> > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> > __;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!QcAL7_ALlBjQGtAnsGVN1JsDVd305DlUw8Cr1FGDjAbPI5e93Il4W
> > pTsbVcgbtWl$
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [e-mail]
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>