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

Ron, Wim:

I agree with Wim here.

Best regards,
Mach

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)
> [mailto:wim.henderickx@nokia.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2020 11:37 AM
> To: Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>; Mach Chen
> <mach.chen@huawei.com>; Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>; IPv6 List
> <ipv6@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing Header (CRH)"
> 
> Ron, as I mentioned in another thread, RFC8663 does this. Same addressing
> mechanisms as you highlight and is equally compressed (comparing 32 bit)
> 
> On 27/05/2020, 05:32, "ipv6 on behalf of Ron Bonica"
> <ipv6-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>
> wrote:
> 
>     Mach,
> 
>     The CRH is unique in the following respect. It does not rely on an
> instruction or a path being encoded in the IPv6 Destination Address. It relies
> only on RFC 4291 IP Address semantics.
> 
>     Can you show me another IPv6 traffic steering solution that:
> 
>     - is equally compressed
>     - does not rely on an instruction being encoded in the IPv6 destination
> address
>     - does not rely on all endpoints being numbered from the same IPv6
> prefix
> 
> 
> Ron
> 
> 
> 
>     Juniper Business Use Only
> 
>     -----Original Message-----
>     From: ipv6 <ipv6-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Mach Chen
>     Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2020 10:25 PM
>     To: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>; IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>
>     Subject: RE: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing Header (CRH)"
> 
>     [External Email. Be cautious of content]
> 
> 
>     If the draft intents to provide a mapping based Segment Routing
> solution, there are SR-MPLS, SR-MPLS over IP exist, and there are
> implementations that work very well; seems no need to define a new one;
> 
>     If the draft intents to provide a header compression solution to SRv6,
> there are several candidate solutions under discussion; seems it's premature
> to consider just adopting one and ignoring others;
> 
>     If the draft intents to be one of the building blocks of a new competing
> IPv6 based Segment Routing solution, given the community has been
> working on SRv6 for so many years, it needs to prove that the new solution
> has much better merits than SRv6;
> 
>     So, based on the above, I do not support the adoption at this moment.
> 
>     Best regards,
>     Mach
> 
>     > -----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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bonica-6
>     >
> man-comp-rtg-hdr__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!RFfjmZf_NdYDfA4BeXQjkrOe5nDx8fFfY
> nrJ8
>     > UyCSeGfcx_3QbeQW7FjgwyIXhFe$
>     >
>     > 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6__
> ;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!RFfjmZf_NdYDfA4BeXQjkrOe5nDx8fFfYnrJ8UyCSeGfcx_3Qbe
> QW7Fjg-IpFdTb$
>     --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
>     --------------------------------------------------------------------
>     IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>     ipv6@ietf.org
>     Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>     --------------------------------------------------------------------