IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Miya Kohno <miya.kohno@gmail.com> Thu, 28 May 2020 15:56 UTC

Return-Path: <miya.kohno@gmail.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 2A4B43A0F94 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 May 2020 08:56:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, 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=gmail.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 SfJeeqnyEdPU for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 May 2020 08:56:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-x231.google.com (mail-lj1-x231.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::231]) (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 A878C3A0E32 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 May 2020 08:56:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x231.google.com with SMTP id l15so33674670lje.9 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 May 2020 08:56:44 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=TA61SPUVyVJQzM+ey80ecL13G+eJtLYtMdJU/ELWcI8=; b=Zcj1FPL3qEXjOVTkm385Z5F7pZUoeJr698vgmWOehAYNJYCXUZrcNRb6mNVfwmXVMm qU2bAsMwx+BP+dE3q6gxS0LA2rvt0r0T5FgmQmh0z3O/dkv7Z0vPkjrIthD0s57IrPe4 /ddaBixRvbQwdXPoKxIjsXUraJdIzCCJSyjpo5YQYIcGLoAH4y6c99vXHqu70MUfcUir /7p56ZeqyPrYomlVzMsqh+AW0LzvaEzbH55DcBZ1ryNaSDwoFTKrd5c/KiNPsu1mzHPA k77l2DsRMFbZWJeo4cDJwQZ9U39G1lkbnCbQ5rmMQrAb5R1VgaCNxF5eSv5GTTYDl/dH sp7w==
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=TA61SPUVyVJQzM+ey80ecL13G+eJtLYtMdJU/ELWcI8=; b=pBZIwWVKMjEEbAMJ7wL/J51MnTEmhIC3AeQKKkDNvCWDYpp8wlNU08+4Pvf35GbcfF kdz8Lyz4xrqObRAN0GAc6WXCK1KEwOAGvnFvPood+cGuoXDG0mRsVpi/NUxm969hPhfK PFho2pazxE/ivfPqlL1t7Cv+1cB9ah+Jmu/mCUBUfMB8EzJcJxVeZJAWazxWZgJacFyU q6oJfZjpEEZiAPa6N/yy7nTKIGEvYHuv205fsLZKLsF92M3WaWmaBh3W2P8qdnKBQKsH 08tfGbRukdPgb4D+dVWwwkkz/ePCPEy0CXJq7K7UUv6aqdLNuX9P9b3RTjWMrmYaRHCp RzNg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532vyLHMgFdCnmoYoUfvHkyA8Q6vNPp/jRfMul/DxAl0WVuf0hr9 bOf2qS9lSZwVnFZgFOKFDfw7HUiMyQYiRBltayc=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzB/0IIor9BGpEDb//0JOpXaT1XoELSO7b53gDKIeZmu7qCBEkDDClFCPetGgCEQdXOqmBOVa2xatgAlYTZbrk=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:9bd1:: with SMTP id w17mr1734104ljj.343.1590681401897; Thu, 28 May 2020 08:56:41 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <19D30186-B180-4F65-BF00-7AD07CEF3925@gmail.com> <CAG99tekKD1iJpEJMZoOyByRHVrregQo4Ncd0K4co+ns+=GaiPA@mail.gmail.com> <63c0cc0a-f5e4-61d8-ff3f-56979bdc9091@gont.com.ar>
In-Reply-To: <63c0cc0a-f5e4-61d8-ff3f-56979bdc9091@gont.com.ar>
From: Miya Kohno <miya.kohno@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 29 May 2020 00:56:29 +0900
Message-ID: <CAG99temMdCXAZ+V=a+47GZwmqXrPJpWsUDP6c+F7ye4UkSQ3UQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing Header (CRH)"
To: Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar>
Cc: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>, IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000e9394905a6b75f44"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/KRtjlrRIGte43Q0Fu5PbfgYmFIQ>
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, 28 May 2020 15:56:52 -0000

Hi Fernando,

Thanks. There was a bit of leap.

In support, for example, the argument that CRH is better because there is
no address semantic violation. These discussions are scattered and hard to
reference, but it's summarized here.

p.24-
https://pc.nanog.org/static/published/meetings/NANOG77/2080/20191029_Bonica_Srv6__v1.pdf

Miya
On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 7:28 PM Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar> wrote:

> On 28/5/20 05:53, Miya Kohno wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I do not support this proposal.
> >
> > At first glance it may look good because it adheres to the conventional
> > IPv6 standards, but in reality it is not.
> >
> > - Many additional control planes [*] need to be developed,  in order to
> > make CRH work.
> >
> > - And more importantly, it interferes the evolution of IPv6.
> >    -- There is a simpler, more scalable way to do it, but CRH can delay
> > it, sticking to the existing convention.
> >    -- This can take away the potential of IPv6 itself.
> >    -- IPv6 should evolve. Otherwise, we have no choice but to give way
> > to the new Non-IP or IPvx proposals.
>
> Huh?
>
> If anything, this is simply one Routing Header. The reason for which we
> have a routing header *type* field is so that multiple routing headers
> can be specified.
>
> What potential would this take away???
>
> Give way to new non-ip and IPvx proposals????
>
> Could you please back your statements? -- Because they seem anything but
> technical.
>
> Thanks,
> --
> Fernando Gont
> e-mail: fernando@gont.com.ar || fgont@si6networks.com
> PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1
>
>
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email