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

Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar> Thu, 28 May 2020 10:28 UTC

Return-Path: <fernando@gont.com.ar>
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 130623A0D2A for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 May 2020 03:28:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 CF0Be0VDRw07 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 May 2020 03:28:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tools.si6networks.com (v6toolkit.go6lab.si [IPv6:2001:67c:27e4::57]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6F6493A0D29 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 May 2020 03:28:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2800:810:464:8801:f802:117c:8c81:54c7] (unknown [IPv6:2800:810:464:8801:f802:117c:8c81:54c7]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by tools.si6networks.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EBE2A3FFE9; Thu, 28 May 2020 12:28:41 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing Header (CRH)"
To: Miya Kohno <miya.kohno@gmail.com>, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
Cc: IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>
References: <19D30186-B180-4F65-BF00-7AD07CEF3925@gmail.com> <CAG99tekKD1iJpEJMZoOyByRHVrregQo4Ncd0K4co+ns+=GaiPA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar>
Message-ID: <63c0cc0a-f5e4-61d8-ff3f-56979bdc9091@gont.com.ar>
Date: Thu, 28 May 2020 07:02:24 -0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAG99tekKD1iJpEJMZoOyByRHVrregQo4Ncd0K4co+ns+=GaiPA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/OfaUQZsRTytswZs5CebzoNMjGz4>
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 10:28:50 -0000

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