Re: CRH and RH0

[Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>]

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 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bonica-6man-comp-rtg-hdr-10#section-13>.
References
13.1 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bonica-6man-comp-rtg-hdr-10#section-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-
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bonica-spring-srv6-plus-06>

spring-srv6-plus-06
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bonica-spring-srv6-plus-06> (work in
progress), October 2019.

REF: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bonica-6man-comp-rtg-hdr-10

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.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>