IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Dongjie (Jimmy)" <jie.dong@huawei.com> Wed, 27 May 2020 07:00 UTC

Return-Path: <jie.dong@huawei.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 A42583A09DC for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 May 2020 00:00:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=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 qGsQPWob1jDM for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 May 2020 00:00:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C473A3A09D9 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 May 2020 00:00:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhreml729-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.107]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 9923785731095B8A4120; Wed, 27 May 2020 08:00:12 +0100 (IST)
Received: from dggeme701-chm.china.huawei.com (10.1.199.97) by lhreml729-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.80) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256) id 15.1.1913.5; Wed, 27 May 2020 08:00:12 +0100
Received: from dggeme754-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.100) by dggeme701-chm.china.huawei.com (10.1.199.97) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1913.5; Wed, 27 May 2020 15:00:09 +0800
Received: from dggeme754-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.6.80.77]) by dggeme754-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.6.80.77]) with mapi id 15.01.1913.007; Wed, 27 May 2020 15:00:09 +0800
From: "Dongjie (Jimmy)" <jie.dong@huawei.com>
To: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>, IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing Header (CRH)"
Thread-Topic: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing Header (CRH)"
Thread-Index: AQHWKwY+NMrpZ7sqoE+RzKOwIDvy/Ki7i2DA
Date: Wed, 27 May 2020 07:00:09 +0000
Message-ID: <b7d1b41fbe2d47789cc93c249277af12@huawei.com>
References: <19D30186-B180-4F65-BF00-7AD07CEF3925@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <19D30186-B180-4F65-BF00-7AD07CEF3925@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.108.148.231]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/PBZl-ImDip0p824YtWn8H1gZrlU>
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: Wed, 27 May 2020 07:00:19 -0000

Hi, 

After reading this document, my understanding is that it provides similar functionality as Segment Routing, by introducing new data plane encodings. Considering that we already have SR-MPLS , SR-MPLS over IP and SRv6 for different network requirements, I'm not convinced why we need another data plane for the same function.

And as already mentioned by others, if the purpose is to provide source routing header compression in IPv6 environment, compatibility with SRv6 needs to be considered in the solution design. Also it is noted that there are other candidates for header compression, which means broader discussion and comparison is needed before adopting any specific solution. 

Thus I do not support the adoption of this document at this moment.

Best regards,
Jie

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ipv6 [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Bob Hinden
> Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2020 6:14 AM
> To: IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>
> Cc: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
> Subject: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing Header (CRH)"
> 
> 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
> 
>  https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bonica-6man-comp-rtg-hdr
> 
> 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
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email