IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH

"Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)" <wim.henderickx@nokia.com> Fri, 29 May 2020 10:28 UTC

Return-Path: <wim.henderickx@nokia.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 1EA923A0DA6; Fri, 29 May 2020 03:28:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nokia.onmicrosoft.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 eXbwciL0nixt; Fri, 29 May 2020 03:28:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from EUR05-VI1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-vi1eur05on2116.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.107.21.116]) (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 50F3B3A0DA4; Fri, 29 May 2020 03:28:26 -0700 (PDT)
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=KxDx3TxQUHIJd+IfUfMlneoyHvp5S71Pt5aX6Je8ncfLzxzDgYtJ0MRgdLH+J/+yaTCvK5edlg5z1DUa+tZ676M5mEYY0R8mnre+XFPA55WOMuzO7lnLJvCco6iYXBC3IE9AH7TUPb+TR9tcDBz5dYRBOC0IW+gB7e+TdTE7AtHLiv9XOSI4HNFe+vwAyI1C07Y9VBXE0DMlBlH3qOl+MxHAQEg9ZiChyT7ZogHbvI4RQvQKyTrDtig6XY+SqNGVYrpIbgACWVlGb/8YpyuM8HKwqrE5P7h6Xm4AAEwQFtDGKiM986H/ZyvswsdkICTtTlq9xq8rIHfOFOVQWTFV4g==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=T1K9T746GTZkE1OqbBLB46xasUQCrAf00F6RSktNT7c=; b=C1ppDR9HNABbEQBQrJtv2ooPvAQbTteCJ4jzbp3YnngXY900wcspCvw6PyBWbc3FEqfFTZb0uPaB9EB9y5LeXZUJplwDc+K5H5PCiRpaHkt0JwLG0l+Eu8ViP6PalSJE7g77W9xoMpkgihPA7ddIw0K7hAFUVxmq3ABihauyl3qNh6gGGyCMrtrn927ITny/lWsoJPVly4WR1gIr/Fm33ExNkoMp9fZXmn4u7U/eo2eVqSJCaY595yYXN4swxz2U4kHec0zp9Gd9Q1/1Z19S200gQAxaITo7CunbsZFETUcxViS1Pp5FNYtdgmz75Y7INKhO7GKAAd2PYcfqMXeNow==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=nokia.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=nokia.com; dkim=pass header.d=nokia.com; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nokia.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-nokia-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=T1K9T746GTZkE1OqbBLB46xasUQCrAf00F6RSktNT7c=; b=Fiewo+nw4/knZKl5bdFrNTKtHY7INckJkX+wZ/HmGUffIKTdfxcVJFgud/itkkuveHhlSPy26s0WxiGLNJj6+RZxbQUMtcZMzyJ5/VWL5uDCxwSpG0naisi8myLS1p3tNlqhqsDMn0a+FD80s41M2DhqG93w8Y2gswpMGYKICPU=
Received: from AM0PR07MB4497.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (2603:10a6:208:7a::20) by AM0PR07MB5346.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (2603:10a6:208:f8::15) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.3066.7; Fri, 29 May 2020 10:28:24 +0000
Received: from AM0PR07MB4497.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::75d9:62a8:8868:5119]) by AM0PR07MB4497.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::75d9:62a8:8868:5119%7]) with mapi id 15.20.3066.007; Fri, 29 May 2020 10:28:24 +0000
From: "Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)" <wim.henderickx@nokia.com>
To: Peter Psenak <ppsenak=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
CC: "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>, 6man <6man@ietf.org>, "rtg-ads@ietf.org" <rtg-ads@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH
Thread-Topic: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH
Thread-Index: AQHWL+bwbg/p8ZkViky9JJqnepLUoKizc7SAgAAFfICAAArkgIAADaEAgACbDACAAo+aAIABbhYAgABhQ4CAAGr+gIAEdL4AgAAu/oCAACdugIABEHkAgAAREwCAAAOMAIAAIokA
Date: Fri, 29 May 2020 10:28:24 +0000
Message-ID: <B90E0F3E-7F17-4508-8296-159AE297ADC4@nokia.com>
References: <9CF68CCE-B584-4648-84DA-F2DBEA94622D@cisco.com> <MW3PR11MB4570485EEDBADEF3B193BB82C1B40@MW3PR11MB4570.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <ec63e90e-19fa-cd6c-eacb-4dee44815c99@joelhalpern.com> <MW3PR11MB4570FB2397D4B28A42626802C1B40@MW3PR11MB4570.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <3bbb28c8-0106-ad63-abf9-c9dc4e428e0c@joelhalpern.com> <MW3PR11MB4570FD37ED32519C677F5E59C1B20@MW3PR11MB4570.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <DM6PR05MB63486B842CD9DF5BE57FC1A5AEB30@DM6PR05MB6348.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <MW3PR11MB45706D51FBE6CD63B58CDF15C1B30@MW3PR11MB4570.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <DM6PR05MB634848BE997686F212FF9E49AEB30@DM6PR05MB6348.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <MW3PR11MB457006B3ECAF2E812CD2E721C18E0@MW3PR11MB4570.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <df0b518a11734e8f91dc2c0902f46df5@nokia-sbell.com> <DM6PR05MB6348EBA8F4E6C889393B5269AE8E0@DM6PR05MB6348.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <a2876051-182b-f955-6e52-17740a612c74@cisco.com> <CABNhwV0o3B505A4+C3Euf9DNMdF8+3he0M_cE5JA2T5dmdB-ig@mail.gmail.com> <6fe6a561-bfba-515c-8832-1343f901d45b@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <6fe6a561-bfba-515c-8832-1343f901d45b@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: nl-BE, en-US
Content-Language: en-GB
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/16.37.20051002
authentication-results: dmarc.ietf.org; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;dmarc.ietf.org; dmarc=none action=none header.from=nokia.com;
x-originating-ip: [2a02:1810:350a:9600:d989:6581:572e:2205]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-ht: Tenant
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 2d8cdac0-9edd-42be-9209-08d803bb04c9
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: AM0PR07MB5346:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <AM0PR07MB5346165CC19B9A7022921831838F0@AM0PR07MB5346.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:10000;
x-forefront-prvs: 04180B6720
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: ZTc3I0kFnzmDnMjPah+5splVVUROyn5GPB128Ife83z3oeebPKOMW36SmNJJJbvhoeu0lvjeS0VkNlG8rxnjJ4VyQWj26UJkeRDtPYFd9Lb/q46mpMOzaGoH81swETsVHL8ir2ymF7XTS7fslUkP5B/LArvB5mh75ulM8Blph/JL7oGRDaE1Hc8t5mm8wHXRdB0HaWZ3oAr0PCsLw9/Zazem1Ae+M6RMMl2D4E1mgD2SCb59sr/mHFMUD0N6vhRI5qlb9Bk0PWYEJXge9j4AwyWFK/fGPOI4xe3CdcvVPFQ/Th6mYyEoNGw9WWdNHa0bC4VleDUZKnEO+g64sPW7YbMbdPkbQH+EN5HhyExxWD5FU/bFzOruxzvjWVEdEAEvKPhbjeL8fXvqyV50Wzr+Uw==
x-forefront-antispam-report: CIP:255.255.255.255; CTRY:; LANG:en; SCL:1; SRV:; IPV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; H:AM0PR07MB4497.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com; PTR:; CAT:NONE; SFTY:; SFS:(4636009)(346002)(39860400002)(376002)(366004)(396003)(136003)(186003)(36756003)(966005)(53546011)(6506007)(2906002)(86362001)(6486002)(478600001)(8936002)(5660300002)(6512007)(33656002)(83380400001)(30864003)(8676002)(2616005)(71200400001)(76116006)(66476007)(66556008)(66446008)(66946007)(316002)(64756008)(54906003)(4326008)(110136005); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102;
x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata: 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
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <103A76589C34E3469B319AD9F859E10A@eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: nokia.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 2d8cdac0-9edd-42be-9209-08d803bb04c9
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 29 May 2020 10:28:24.5312 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5d471751-9675-428d-917b-70f44f9630b0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: uyLP7AOZ2U4zgcdvr/IuYKRWeJRZu7WwnHvBmo37icz0Z2Z5vsX8gX08L8O6dH2TpQehcGcVtzMBLVSq59CIzNHncwTNyPd52xebCmxIxo8=
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: AM0PR07MB5346
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/U9xQaYjqtXXFSj2rDn0r81amsmU>
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: Fri, 29 May 2020 10:28:30 -0000


On 29/05/2020, 12:25, "ipv6 on behalf of Peter Psenak" <ipv6-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of ppsenak=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:

    On 29/05/2020 12:12, Gyan Mishra wrote:
    > 
    > 
    > On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 5:11 AM Peter Psenak 
    > <ppsenak=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org <mailto:40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>> 
    > wrote:
    > 
    >     Hi Ron,
    > 
    >     On 28/05/2020 18:55, Ron Bonica wrote:
    >      > Weibin,
    >      >
    >      > Inline…..
    >      >
    >      >                       Ron
    >      >
    >      > Juniper Business Use Only
    >      >
    >      > *From:* Wang, Weibin (NSB - CN/Shanghai)
    >     <weibin.wang@nokia-sbell.com <mailto:weibin.wang@nokia-sbell.com>>
    >      > *Sent:* Thursday, May 28, 2020 10:35 AM
    >      > *To:* Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) <ketant@cisco.com
    >     <mailto:ketant@cisco.com>>; Ron Bonica
    >      > <rbonica@juniper.net <mailto:rbonica@juniper.net>>; Joel M.
    >     Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com>>
    >      > *Cc:* rtg-ads@ietf.org <mailto:rtg-ads@ietf.org>; spring@ietf.org
    >     <mailto:spring@ietf.org>; 6man <6man@ietf.org <mailto:6man@ietf.org>>
    >      > *Subject:* RE: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re:
    >     Size of
    >      > CR in CRH
    >      >
    >      > *[External Email. Be cautious of content]*
    >      >
    >      > Hi Ron,
    >      >
    >      > After reading through many mails related to CRH in list, I found all
    >      > CRH-SIDs (allocated to prefix-sid <loosely forwarding>and
    >     Adj-sid<strict
    >      > forwarding>) are of local significance in fact, its operation
    >     actually
    >      > is not same as MPLS Label nor SR-MPLS label (such as domain-wide
    >     prefix
    >      > SID/label), all CRH-SIDs are locally allocated by node itself
    >     based on
    >      > local FIB6, independent of other CRH-SID allocated by other nodes
    >     in CRH
    >      > domain; so every node (Maybe except  ingress PE of CRH domain)
    >       has no
    >      > useful to learn other SIDs allocated by other nodes by IGP-extension
    >      > advertising. Its deployment must have controller (considering
    >     dynamic
    >      > mechanism), the controller learn all CRH-SIDs from each node to
    >     program
    >      > the source path under path calculation requirement from ingress PE.
    >      >
    >      > [RB] Absolutely correct !!
    > 
    >     if CRH-SIDs are of local significance how is the loose source routing
    >     going to be supported?
    > 
    >     Or is CRH only supposed to be used for strict hop-by-hop source
    >     routing?
    >     If so, the use case would be quite limited.
    > 
    >     Honestly, strictly technically, I do not see much difference between
    >     CRH
    >     and RFC8663 & RFC4023 combo. Former uses an extra extension header, the
    >     latter uses the next-header. Rest looks same.
    > 
    > 
    >      Gyan> Peter - You mentioned a key point which is is a major 
    > difference.
    > 
    > I thank you for pointing out this critical point for everyone in both 
    >   Spring WG & 6MAN WG -now one big happy family🙏😀
    > 
    > With RFC 8663 SR-MPLS over
    > IPV6 using RFC 4023 w/o GRE with IPv6 encap here is what the end result 
    > of the packet looks like:
    > 
    >   SR-MPLS over IPv6 =  Next header encapsulation
    > 
    >     IPv6 |  SR-MPLS |. Customer payload
    > 
    > Operators wanting CRH don’t want the MPLS Layer 2 1/2 MPLS data plane 
    > insertion into the packet mucking up the packet and want to stay clear 
    > of MPLS since they want a clean and pure IPV6 packet that follows RFC 
    > 8200 IPV6 specification.

    you don't want MPLS, so you wrap the same data to a new extension header 
    and give it a new name. And you suddenly like it. Hmm, does not sound 
    like a solid technical argument to me.

Wh> well said. On top we end up with reinventing the wheel and redoing what is already done.

    thanks,
    Peter


    > 
    > So the use case for RFC 8663 is very different as it is widely deployed 
    > for interworking SR-MPLS with SRV6 - Outlined in Mirsky draft below:
    > 
    > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-mirsky-6man-unified-id-sr-06
    > 
    > CRH is no different then using any other routing header proposal such as 
    > 6lo for RPL.
    > 
    > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8138
    > 
    > CRH Packet format:
    > 
    > IPV6  CRH | Customer payload
    > 
    > The additional encapsulation makes a big difference and it’s really 
    > apples versus oranges and not the same at all.
    > 
    > 
    >    Why would any operator use SR-MPLS over IP to for steering traffic if 
    > they have an existing IPV6 data plane they want to utilize.
    > 
    > They would use SRv6 or CRH and would pick CRH to avoid MSD (maximum sid 
    > depth) issues for long strict paths and not have to deal with extra 
    > complexity of all the compression variants.
    > 
    > 
    > Decision tree:
    > If an operator wanted an MPLS data plane variant they would go with 
    > SR-MPLS but if they want IPV6 data plane variant they obviously would 
    > pick an option that uses IPv6 data plane and that would be the SRV6 or CRH.
    > 
    > In order to even remotely justify from my point of view that SR-MPLS 
    > over IPv6 would used for anything other than the obvious “interworking” 
    > between SR-MPLS and SRV6, you would really have to prove that an 
    > operator is willing to add MPLS into the mix when they want IPV6.  Not 
    > possible.
    > 
    > I can guarantee no operator would do that.
    > 
    > 
    > 
    >     thanks,
    >     Peter
    > 
    > 
    > 
    >      >
    >      > I suggested you should describe more detail about how to create
    >     CRH-SID
    >      > entry (in CRH-FIB) in this CRH draft, is it based on local FIB6,
    >     if it
    >      > is, how to do synchronization between CRH-FIB and FIB6?
    >      >
    >      > [RB] In some deployment scenarios, the IPv6 FIB and the CRH-FIB are
    >      > populated by an IGP. Please review and comment on the IS-IS CRH
    >     document
    >      >
    >     <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bonica-lsr-crh-isis-extensions/>.
    >     I
    >      > am excited to collaborate with you on that .
    >      >
    >      > [RB] In other deployment scenarios, the IPv6 FIB and / or the
    >     CRH-FIB
    >      > are populated by a controller. If you are interested in that
    >     scenario,
    >      > again, we would be excited to collaborate with you.
    >      >
    >      >                                                     Ron
    >      >
    >      > Above is my understanding, if not right,pls correct me.
    >      >
    >      > Wang Weibin
    >      >
    >      > *From:*ipv6 <ipv6-bounces@ietf.org <mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org>
    >     <mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org <mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org>>> *On
    >      > Behalf Of *Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
    >      > *Sent:* 2020年5月28日19:46
    >      > *To:* Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org
    >     <mailto:40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>
    >      > <mailto:rbonica <mailto:rbonica>=40juniper..net@dmarc.ietf.org
    >     <mailto:40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>>>; Joel M. Halpern
    >      > <jmh@joelhalpern.com <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com>
    >     <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com>>>
    >      > *Cc:* rtg-ads@ietf.org <mailto:rtg-ads@ietf.org>
    >     <mailto:rtg-ads@ietf.org <mailto:rtg-ads@ietf.org>>; spring@ietf.org
    >     <mailto:spring@ietf.org>
    >      > <mailto:spring@ietf.org <mailto:spring@ietf.org>>; 6man
    >     <6man@ietf.org <mailto:6man@ietf.org> <mailto:6man@ietf.org
    >     <mailto:6man@ietf.org>>>
    >      > *Subject:* RE: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re:
    >     Size of
    >      > CR in CRH
    >      >
    >      > Hi Ron,
    >      >
    >      > Some of the operators may not care about the SR name, but it is
    >     clear to
    >      > me that the proposal in the CRH draft is a subset of Segment Routing
    >      > (i.e. a reduced portion of Spring Architecture) that only supports
    >      > prefix and adjacency SIDs as indicated by the two "forwarding
    >     methods".
    >      >
    >      >
    >     https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bonica-6man-comp-rtg-hdr-22#section-4
    >      >
    >     <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bonica-6man-comp-rtg-hdr-22*section-4__;Iw!!NEt6yMaO-gk!VMgRZ_fS_8pBN886aeeU1sFZpteVAkwQNu6xqWRsR27VhEn_wpAuXmcCngHDrhN8$>
    >      >
    >      >     o  Forward the packet to the next-hop along the least-cost
    >     path to
    >      > *>>> Prefix SID*
    >      >
    >      >        the next segment endpoint.
    >      >
    >      >     o  Forward the packet through a specified interface to the
    >     next *>>>
    >      > Adjacency SID*
    >      >
    >      >        segment endpoint.
    >      >
    >      > Given the use of mapping IDs and mapping FIB, the proposal is
    >     comparable
    >      > more to SR-MPLS than SRv6. It is better to do a holistic analysis
    >     of any
    >      > proposal such as CRH that is introducing an MPLS label like mapping
    >      > construct into IPv6 architecture - doing so should be considered
    >     as a
    >      > significant change to IPv6.
    >      >
    >      > Thanks,
    >      >
    >      > Ketan
    >      >
    >      > -----Original Message-----
    >      >
    >      > From: Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org
    >     <mailto:40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>
    >      > <mailto:rbonica <mailto:rbonica>=40juniper..net@dmarc.ietf.org
    >     <mailto:40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>>>
    >      >
    >      > Sent: 25 May 2020 21:14
    >      >
    >      > To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) <ketant@cisco.com
    >     <mailto:ketant@cisco.com>
    >      > <mailto:ketant@cisco.com <mailto:ketant@cisco.com>>>; Joel M.
    >     Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com>
    >      > <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com>>>
    >      >
    >      > Cc: rtg-ads@ietf..org <mailto:rtg-ads@ietf.org>
    >     <mailto:rtg-ads@ietf.org <mailto:rtg-ads@ietf.org>>; spring@ietf.org
    >     <mailto:spring@ietf.org>
    >      > <mailto:spring@ietf.org <mailto:spring@ietf.org>>; 6man
    >     <6man@ietf.org <mailto:6man@ietf.org> <mailto:6man@ietf.org
    >     <mailto:6man@ietf.org>>>
    >      >
    >      > Subject: RE: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re:
    >     Size of
    >      > CR in CRH
    >      >
    >      > Ketan,
    >      >
    >      > It would not be fair to say that these operators  "wish to deploy a
    >      > Traffic Engineering solution using a subset of Segment Routing".
    >      >
    >      > It would be fair to say that these operators  "wish to deploy IPv6
    >      > Traffic Engineering".  Some of these operators don't care about
    >     SR. Some
    >      > are actively averse to SRv6. All they want is a Routing header.
    >      >
    >      >                                                                   Ron
    >      >
    >      > Juniper Business Use Only
    >      >
    >      > -----Original Message-----
    >      >
    >      > From: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
    >     <ketant=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org <mailto:40cisco..com@dmarc.ietf.org>
    >      > <mailto:ketant <mailto:ketant>=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org
    >     <mailto:40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>>>
    >      >
    >      > Sent: Monday, May 25, 2020 5:21 AM
    >      >
    >      > To: Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net <mailto:rbonica@juniper.net>
    >     <mailto:rbonica@juniper.net <mailto:rbonica@juniper.net>>>; Joel
    >      > M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com>
    >     <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com>>>
    >      >
    >      > Cc: rtg-ads@ietf..org <mailto:rtg-ads@ietf.org>
    >     <mailto:rtg-ads@ietf.org <mailto:rtg-ads@ietf.org>>; spring@ietf.org
    >     <mailto:spring@ietf.org>
    >      > <mailto:spring@ietf.org <mailto:spring@ietf.org>>; 6man
    >     <6man@ietf.org <mailto:6man@ietf.org> <mailto:6man@ietf.org
    >     <mailto:6man@ietf.org>>>
    >      >
    >      > Subject: RE: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re:
    >     Size of
    >      > CR in CRH
    >      >
    >      > [External Email. Be cautious of content]
    >      >
    >      > Hi Ron,
    >      >
    >      > Thanks for that clarification.
    >      >
    >      > I note that you are not anymore saying "Are not interested in SR"
    >     like
    >      > you had mentioned before the WG adoption call :
    >      >
    >     https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/LheyFD_uwuHp7tiG8Y1CwKngDYI/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!X2qW2zTZEbZRfBSE6c_KM-k7aIvZTIT9bycp3jyFJ3sTbf8MtGo4E_uGX7zYZ7lk$
    > 
    >      >
    >     <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/LheyFD_uwuHp7tiG8Y1CwKngDYI/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!X2qW2zTZEbZRfBSE6c_KM-k7aIvZTIT9bycp3jyFJ3sTbf8MtGo4E_uGX7zYZ7lk$>
    >      >
    >      > So, would it be fair to say that the operator that you are
    >     referring to
    >      > below, wishes to deploy a Traffic Engineering solution using a
    >     subset of
    >      > Segment Routing (i.e. a reduced portion of Spring Architecture) that
    >      > only supports prefix and adjacency SIDs as indicated by the two
    >      > "forwarding methods" that are referred to in
    >     draft-bonica-6man-comp-rtg-hdr?
    >      >
    >      > Thanks,
    >      >
    >      > Ketan
    >      >
    >      > -----Original Message-----
    >      >
    >      > From: Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org
    >     <mailto:40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>
    >      > <mailto:rbonica <mailto:rbonica>=40juniper..net@dmarc.ietf.org
    >     <mailto:40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>>>
    >      >
    >      > Sent: 25 May 2020 09:03
    >      >
    >      > To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) <ketant@cisco.com
    >     <mailto:ketant@cisco.com>
    >      > <mailto:ketant@cisco.com <mailto:ketant@cisco.com>>>; Joel M.
    >     Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com>
    >      > <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com>>>
    >      >
    >      > Cc: rtg-ads@ietf..org <mailto:rtg-ads@ietf.org>
    >     <mailto:rtg-ads@ietf.org <mailto:rtg-ads@ietf.org>>; spring@ietf.org
    >     <mailto:spring@ietf.org>
    >      > <mailto:spring@ietf.org <mailto:spring@ietf.org>>; 6man
    >     <6man@ietf.org <mailto:6man@ietf.org> <mailto:6man@ietf.org
    >     <mailto:6man@ietf.org>>>
    >      >
    >      > Subject: RE: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re:
    >     Size of
    >      > CR in CRH
    >      >
    >      > Ketan,
    >      >
    >      > Please consider an operator who:
    >      >
    >      > - Wants a way to steer IPv6 packets through a specified path that
    >      > includes many nodes (>8)
    >      >
    >      > - Does not want any of the following:
    >      >
    >      >          - A new VPN encapsulation technique
    >      >
    >      >          - A new service function chaining technique
    >      >
    >      >          - Network programming
    >      >
    >      >          - MPLS and uSID
    >      >
    >      >          - To encoding instructions in IPv6 addresses.
    >      >
    >      > These operators want a compact routing header, nothing more.
    >      >
    >      > 
    >                                                                                 Ron
    >      >
    >      > Juniper Business Use Only
    >      >
    >      > -----Original Message-----
    >      >
    >      > From: ipv6 <ipv6-bounces@ietf.org <mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org>
    >     <mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org <mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org>>> On
    >      > Behalf Of Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
    >      >
    >      > Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2020 1:42 AM
    >      >
    >      > To: Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com
    >     <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com> <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com
    >     <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com>>>
    >      >
    >      > Cc: rtg-ads@ietf..org <mailto:rtg-ads@ietf.org>
    >     <mailto:rtg-ads@ietf.org <mailto:rtg-ads@ietf.org>>; spring@ietf.org
    >     <mailto:spring@ietf.org>
    >      > <mailto:spring@ietf.org <mailto:spring@ietf.org>>; 6man
    >     <6man@ietf.org <mailto:6man@ietf.org> <mailto:6man@ietf.org
    >     <mailto:6man@ietf.org>>>
    >      >
    >      > Subject: RE: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re:
    >     Size of
    >      > CR in CRH
    >      >
    >      > [SNIP]
    >      >
    >      > I am looking for explanation of the "other ways" that CRH can be
    >     used
    >      > (i.e. those outside the Spring architecture). I am trying to
    >     understand
    >      > from the authors what would be the applicability of that
    >     solution, it's
    >      > use-cases and it's requirements. That is what, I believe, will
    >     help us
    >      > evaluate the CRH proposal in the context of this working call.
    >     That will
    >      > help us answer these questions like the scope of the SID, 32-bit or
    >      > 16-bit or something else and what the CRH-FIB is going to turn
    >     out like.
    >      >
    >      > [SNIP]
    >      >
    >      > ------------------------------------------------------
    >      >
    > 
    >     --------------------------------------------------------------------
    >     IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
    >     ipv6@ietf.org <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
    >     Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
    >     --------------------------------------------------------------------
    > 
    > -- 
    > 
    > <http://www.verizon.com/>
    > 
    > *Gyan Mishra*
    > 
    > /Network Solutions A//rchitect /
    > 
    > /M 301 502-1347
    > 13101 Columbia Pike
    > /Silver Spring, MD
    > 
    > 

    --------------------------------------------------------------------
    IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
    ipv6@ietf.org
    Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
    --------------------------------------------------------------------

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email