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

Ahmed Abdelsalam <> Tue, 26 May 2020 17:30 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1E733A0A65 for <>; Tue, 26 May 2020 10:30:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lKeQnc6S31J1 for <>; Tue, 26 May 2020 10:30:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::433]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 612F73A0999 for <>; Tue, 26 May 2020 10:30:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id j16so8797936wrb.7 for <>; Tue, 26 May 2020 10:30:23 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=google; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=KWfLa/CCeZesF3+EBRBOmrK5950N5pJmh6I6/H2Z/Ag=; b=Fn5qyZsHYXNJWCXznUJOwQxsKMFBQd/+ReEdDo/qm7Q3EG6B9dVdAPlLxDDmJ0Lbwy O7PcLhayJ0t0WxwJXHgJxSdiKOu1Qw0qx8haVM2I234xRoGDcLsKYJ3zI+qtosxPsUhA eITKPOzVAmIk+xj0HMQgPtiFxWZSTO3di+16oLfHI7m0P0f8l2sBGkQjkkzkIMaH5PyC c/1jpFUUSNpGocrq8gg3lHAc2FlxO3i210xBJYuhHPbkMFi+WmHdwXvopVZOlGxgyCi7 EaI2ckC8zRH6bwqbXCh4il064e8BSu8w8ARCD7gL0rd+lI0Yadqpr7H7hlawA7yq/rJQ FbKw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=KWfLa/CCeZesF3+EBRBOmrK5950N5pJmh6I6/H2Z/Ag=; b=llA4LpBd26v3ZVgcUAgf9oHhFosVAV9E7UQ8TNb4oreKmATkOo4XxougNBE8vkgeCA +j1xFWHnzTV0d+0+JCVfR5whtpFbPdYozj90QX5rZyNfutv+yvt8nwaYq4h+GIIhLKXF e4rKOYFerm7stm9A5ttJG3Zux+xUKLXTVahj0mMRqPW64nWgNh45ZvUb32r5BQt5rwVI 58RQVNeUfP93KaKHAteT1S6Pw8PlFOUXSQi3/cor1/3HNLsaSugANToeJb9gVyt+Vb1M kwlg1eAabTv4cyPZ+10AbrC7xA57TYhbxD2NuRFLdoVGcviRAqLUcpCRV8PikEeHXN+I d7Fw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530bSsNU9pFl3SlMc5KRY/Bb110mVETBz75P3SWZTPzrIPU+IFQL ED8CipdIY70DIbhPOLgPnJC8gQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyiMpEiBR35S7995jpNXcIkDNPPBsMppaS3i3fcGkvd9nx9wo4atzRtA6ZFsA2uKyrF3r15og==
X-Received: by 2002:a5d:604b:: with SMTP id j11mr20886317wrt.193.1590514221034; Tue, 26 May 2020 10:30:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTPSA id i15sm130850wml.47.2020. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 26 May 2020 10:30:20 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ahmed Abdelsalam <>
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_D74FB917-9B3D-428A-8988-AA29F069861C"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.14\))
Subject: Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing Header (CRH)"
Date: Tue, 26 May 2020 19:30:18 +0200
In-Reply-To: <>
Cc: IPv6 List <>
To: Bob Hinden <>
References: <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.14)
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: Tue, 26 May 2020 17:30:26 -0000

Dear Bob and Ole, 

I don't support the adoption of “draft-bonica-6man-comp-rtg-hdr”. Please see below: 

The CRH has no native way to support SFC. Either you rely NSH or Destination options header. The former requires an SFC forwarder that needs to keep state for each service chain and the latter requires TLV processing. So both don’t scale 
An analysis/comparison between the different compression proposals (e.g., [1] [2] [3] [4]) is required before the adoption. 


[1] <>
[2] <>
[3] <>
[4] <>

> On 16 May 2020, at 00:13, 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
> <Message signed with OpenPGP.asc>--------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> Administrative Requests:
> --------------------------------------------------------------------