G-SRv6 (was Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing Header (CRH)")

Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com> Mon, 25 May 2020 14:35 UTC

Return-Path: <tom@herbertland.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 669583A0CCF for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 May 2020 07:35:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=herbertland-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id O6mQdc8OJT0v for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 May 2020 07:35:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ed1-x531.google.com (mail-ed1-x531.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::531]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4F6AE3A0CCE for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 May 2020 07:35:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ed1-x531.google.com with SMTP id bs4so15187639edb.6 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 May 2020 07:35:06 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=herbertland-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=lOgTymQ+ocHjwmub8m4f8a7iVDzPrL4IKmnJYqtMKAs=; b=XyPCi2zw8anusXJhhdhXpAWXT1rqGnstnp/zLTh89LjI4D6wYBaDEPoy0ynB1G4VVV T6PDkb0GrCIBV/ggk/5l+hJ2xHKgknkTz5jXa0ifEofGQf1yclhfJBilKS8j9wo5IzhW 5A4uKtj8WdXpS8m7g+8A7eCPxrETwH242WKQ70yhFSgHxyETZRqv5Fb+/VMuNnSVrOEd Yri+ZIRAwewDaP/yQAWkvkljB3p//KIOQXQtipGLSXxdYAjYQKJR0DyxFuSIlS9ZsETj 8NkoHNStHVjXRQZ6coc2rKEuMA5PO04aKdVIh733pWPCrSdXPAzrgyvF/K8OFvwkr/n3 peGA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=lOgTymQ+ocHjwmub8m4f8a7iVDzPrL4IKmnJYqtMKAs=; b=bqU2ogeslZr/8SMsWFjnDVF4x7NsC+j4zDGmP1r17pDrQeMizI8bUVTPcsgnF/SkpA ZkxI7wim1T6232GgzqjybETnAIj0FNg7pSYfD5+yl4Kn5g7zFGwoAervyRJzf/mNXcn3 mMhYoXS3ulHbZg2FVlMjyYNgxUDHJOsMO02MyQjQvGE+IM0y0AlQn+GNQ4VwPK7mJU/9 8besBlz8s+ENf+yj6kcx93iNH2Aq0HXCKx0prPPJPNARmvOg4j1mQ6Z1FjlBR1GGK45P 2Hwo3MNAS7JnHBsXYXHAKgwLedhiIq+VL1Hv2gHLcDsF8QhmgJczJOHjE2VwylrhZElh jEDw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530Hk/MzZOOBgriiuRq1rc1NcDAClMLPskSS5Q5rbmhYsgCZnx1Q rvZnAAITHgGzG2j/S/IEwCrQaa1xtxNf9csH6ueBEQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxbJr3PtjYm6tPOY2xfIpgyBtZBvncVMOJ7KFK8Gta28Nvv0QX2FhLAqQ6et6q2th+vFPFR2IRIrCAGJxgp4ns=
X-Received: by 2002:a50:8b44:: with SMTP id l62mr3341049edl.79.1590417303571; Mon, 25 May 2020 07:35:03 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <19D30186-B180-4F65-BF00-7AD07CEF3925@gmail.com> <06CF729DA0D6854E8C1E5121AC3330DFAF64CF6F@dggemm509-mbx.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <06CF729DA0D6854E8C1E5121AC3330DFAF64CF6F@dggemm509-mbx.china.huawei.com>
From: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>
Date: Mon, 25 May 2020 07:34:53 -0700
Message-ID: <CALx6S36KMg3shUktDnBR0uD1XCEwqMRensDQ2x-0DC6=U22a4A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: G-SRv6 (was Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing Header (CRH)")
To: Huzhibo <huzhibo@huawei.com>
Cc: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>, IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/W0bQqfXV8U5J5NdR5Rt4UiRZDtc>
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: Mon, 25 May 2020 14:35:09 -0000

On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 7:09 AM Huzhibo <huzhibo@huawei.com> wrote:
> Hi 6man,
> I do not support the adoption.
> I don't know what is the requirement of the CRH. If CRH is used for steering SR-MPLS traffic over IP network, then RFC8663 has provided a really good solution. If CRH is aiming to address the overhead problem of SRv6, then it is recommended to define a mechanism under SRv6 framework, instead of inventing a huge set of control plane and data plane solutions. Also, we think G-SRv6 for compression has solved the overhead problem of SRv6.[1]
> Best regards,
> Zhibo Hu
> [1]https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-cl-spring-generalized-srv6-for-cmpr-01
Hi Zhibo,

With respect to that draft I have a few questions:

1. Doesn't G-SRv6 require a different routing type? I don't see how
G-SRv6 compatible could be compatible with RFC8754 which clearly
defines SIDs to be 128 bits.
2. Where would the work for G-SRv6 be done? Since work for SRH was
done in 6man, I tend to think G-SRv6 should also be in 6man.
3. Given that Flags, Tag, and TLVs are not critical and unused in the
common case, and with no TLVs Last Entry is unnecessary, can't these
fields simply be omitted in the compressed format to reduce overhead?


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