IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [spring] CRH is not needed - Re: How CRH support SFC/Segment Endpoint option?

Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl> Tue, 26 May 2020 19:48 UTC

Return-Path: <sander@steffann.nl>
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 3048A3A0F94; Tue, 26 May 2020 12:48:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=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=steffann.nl
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 GmIlLxvQJZh8; Tue, 26 May 2020 12:48:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.sintact.nl (mail.sintact.nl [IPv6:2001:9e0:803::6]) (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 E1AA93A0F90; Tue, 26 May 2020 12:48:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.sintact.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7911A49; Tue, 26 May 2020 21:48:22 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=steffann.nl; h= x-mailer:in-reply-to:references:message-id:date:date:subject :subject:mime-version:from:from:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:content-type:received:received; s=mail; t= 1590522500; bh=HJJ1TeiqkrBmEVLdEHDRH3RhMYMPt5wAgtF9ZWf41kI=; b=m uwWh6pNFXySF6XEtrrLOPA5W5HQGbPgGbGKTO12S7Yv6E0glBB0rBZZUoMLwagqH oY3KWIg6FjPnz57oh2JvnfhfKo4TH+r89xrvHwlfq1FGrO+IOVqX9qm1WoZKNx1E 60oFZnsi8q/SdYB7w1MuKpwhv6TGdHwmEIozIeVuFI=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mail.sintact.nl
Received: from mail.sintact.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.sintact.nl [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id qnNobLpFKGIq; Tue, 26 May 2020 21:48:20 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [IPv6:2a02:a213:a300:ce80:4047:9a1c:3280:98fe] (unknown [IPv6:2a02:a213:a300:ce80:4047:9a1c:3280:98fe]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mail.sintact.nl (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 378A93C; Tue, 26 May 2020 21:48:20 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
From: Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Subject: Re: [spring] CRH is not needed - Re: How CRH support SFC/Segment Endpoint option?
Date: Tue, 26 May 2020 21:48:19 +0200
Message-Id: <D4C7D4E5-3A2A-4A6E-83FA-254BC5FC2312@steffann.nl>
References: <74728B6A-BEAB-4FBA-A92A-DA4A575C35F9@nokia.com>
Cc: Mach Chen <mach.chen@huawei.com>, "Zafar Ali (zali)" <zali=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>, "Chengli (Cheng Li)" <c.l@huawei.com>, 6man <6man@ietf.org>, "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <74728B6A-BEAB-4FBA-A92A-DA4A575C35F9@nokia.com>
To: "Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)" <wim.henderickx@nokia.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (17E262)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/VkUf2Fj-aPa4Nfi9u-9a_gmu7XM>
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: Tue, 26 May 2020 19:48:26 -0000

Hi,

> WH> what you are saying I only want a CRH solution and you are not open to anything else, because the SIDs are not in the right place.

No, that is not what I said. Please stop twisting my words. I want to steer a packet without needing to encapsulate it. Why is that so hard to understand?

SRH does that using IPv6 addresses, CRH does that using shorter identifiers. Both have their use cases. I'm not just talking about SRv6 and SRm6. I'm talking about CRH as a building block that can be used by many future protocols.

> So there is no point in further discussions. My position remains that RFC8663 is a valid alternative and is available; I am against WG adoption of CRH.

Your arguments don't make any sense...
Sander

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email