Re: CRH and RH0

[Gyan Mishra <[e-mail]>]

Spring folks,

I am working on a Spring draft that compares SRv6, SR-MPLS and CRH.

This draft will clearly answer all of the questions that are being asked
related to CRH.

This draft is from an unbiased view of the MPLS replacement flavors
mentioned and a decision tree from an operators perspective how to pick and
which to pick based on business requirements and use cases presented.  They
all have their merits and they all have their caveats pros and cons all of
which will be documented in the draft to help operators.

This draft is focused on MPLS replacement so will only touch on use cases
outside of MPLS replacement.  CRH can be used more ubiquitously for any use
case independent or MPLS which is what makes it shine along with its
simplicity over the others

Kind regards

Gyan

On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 4:30 PM Ron Bonica <rbonica=
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Mark,
>
>
>
> That works for me. And it allows me to retain the acronym.
>
>
>
> Does Compact Routing Header work for everyone else?
>
>
>
>                                               Ron
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Juniper Business Use Only
>
> *From:* Mark Smith <[e-mail]>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 13, 2020 4:09 PM
> *To:* Ron Bonica <[e-mail]>
> *Cc:* Erik Kline <[e-mail]>; 6man <[e-mail]>; Bob Hinden <
> [e-mail]>
> *Subject:* Re: CRH and RH0
>
>
>
> *[External Email. Be cautious of content]*
>
>
>
> Compact Routing Header.
>
> On Thu, 14 May 2020, 05:58 Ron Bonica, <rbonica=
> [e-mail]..org <[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
> <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
> <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
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!VHmP3PcVAJw1finsVBIZbaA0e4G5zZU4In-iGsakGYvgMBLd5xSFypEs7dSATjx4$>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [e-mail]
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
-- 

Gyan  Mishra

Network Engineering & Technology

Verizon

Silver Spring, MD 20904

Phone: [phone]

Email: [e-mail]