RE: Questions about CRH
Huzhibo <huzhibo@huawei.com> Tue, 16 March 2021 03:36 UTC
Return-Path: <huzhibo@huawei.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 1DAA33A16F2 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Mar 2021 20:36:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 QOz7yI5nzdp0 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Mar 2021 20:36:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 00CBB3A16E7 for <6man@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Mar 2021 20:36:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fraeml708-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.147.206]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4DzzLG6GYSz67yjn for <6man@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Mar 2021 11:29:42 +0800 (CST)
Received: from dggema717-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.20.81) by fraeml708-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.36) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256) id 15.1.2106.2; Tue, 16 Mar 2021 04:35:53 +0100
Received: from dggema769-chm.china.huawei.com (10.1.198.211) by dggema717-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.20.81) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.2106.2; Tue, 16 Mar 2021 11:35:50 +0800
Received: from dggema769-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.9.128.71]) by dggema769-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.9.128.71]) with mapi id 15.01.2106.013; Tue, 16 Mar 2021 11:35:50 +0800
From: Huzhibo <huzhibo@huawei.com>
To: Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>, "EXT-Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com" <Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com>
CC: "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: Questions about CRH
Thread-Topic: Questions about CRH
Thread-Index: AdcWmPgx4bnTUrt5Q7eq5xJA71YsygDFluBwABlw0qA=
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2021 03:35:50 +0000
Message-ID: <85967a6f092549b6821c5efe427f785e@huawei.com>
References: <ec728090a5144d6f9de1a02481359ed7@huawei.com> <BL0PR05MB531659373A82BC2154CD9B2CAE6C9@BL0PR05MB5316.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <BL0PR05MB531659373A82BC2154CD9B2CAE6C9@BL0PR05MB5316.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.112.232.179]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/_vmsvz8bqd_kYJioc6hJfKwPCpM>
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, 16 Mar 2021 03:36:02 -0000
Hi Ron, If I don't remember wrong, since last time you requested for WG Adaption, several new things have been added to CRH, * A topological function. * Arguments for the topological function (optional). * A service function (optional). * Flags. * Arguments for the service function (optional). * CRH SID mapping to SRv6 SID https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-bonica-6man-comp-rtg-hdr-23&url2=draft-bonica-6man-comp-rtg-hdr-24 You also added a PSP flag to indicate the penultimate segment endpoint pop to the draft that you disagreed at the past. In addition, an OAM flag indicating OAM processing. IMHO, a set of new features are added to CRH. Though the format is unchanged, but the processing has been modified significantly. Regards, Zhibo -----Original Message----- From: Ron Bonica [mailto:rbonica@juniper.net] Sent: Monday, March 15, 2021 11:32 PM To: Huzhibo <huzhibo@huawei.com>; EXT-Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com <Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com> Cc: 6man@ietf.org Subject: RE: Questions about CRH Zhibo, I don't think that it is fair to say that there have been major changes to the CRH draft. The Routing header format has been unchanged since version 07 (August 2019). A few optional fields have been added to the CRH-FIB in the last year, but otherwise, the draft has been stable for some time. Ron Juniper Business Use Only -----Original Message----- From: ipv6 <ipv6-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Huzhibo Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2021 12:07 PM To: EXT-Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com <Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com> Cc: 6man@ietf.org Subject: Questions about CRH [External Email. Be cautious of content] Hi Andrew: Regarding the discussion in the 6man session, I have two questions, hope to have your reply. 1. The SRv6 compression design team has provided a template for comparing different compression solutions, and it will be finished at late MAY. As a network operator, will you try to compare different compression solutions based on the template before making the decision or using CRH no matter what results come out? 2. If I don't remember wrong, two years ago, you said you had implemented the POC of CRH, that is great. But I saw there have been many major changes to CRH. I would like to know whether you have considered the impact of these changes to CRH and whether it is stable so far? Many thanks and looking forward to your reply. Best regards, Zhibo -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!T2Kko9epzr71mVHTrGsQRMvM0sJfD6UGiJOVT3hqBalVdFE4Gw-EDc1MF6wwQLS5$ --------------------------------------------------------------------
- Questions about CRH Huzhibo
- RE: Questions about CRH Ron Bonica
- RE: Questions about CRH Huzhibo
- RE: Questions about CRH Ron Bonica