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

Miya Kohno <> Thu, 28 May 2020 08:53 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A52EE3A0C6B for <>; Thu, 28 May 2020 01:53:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vJCQba8nObEu for <>; Thu, 28 May 2020 01:53:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::22a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BD88F3A0C6A for <>; Thu, 28 May 2020 01:53:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id e4so9921342ljn.4 for <>; Thu, 28 May 2020 01:53:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=B8S5m5rhWaQH+BgflZd1NBcwf2Xt/Fvws322BWB3IUk=; b=vOe2WjdEyFEQii5Xh+Qp7+ESnMIb2hLM0BxXY3TfRk4+oxYVBPktI4HE8/V0SevPN+ 6n1ralJqVpkIKLYtxMfGYT+f8ROz5t8/PxVYDo6iVgyIfTfaZsEIERM+4MPgHqlhOv8b uKyBteS4O1rVsnS/iInbsIWWeYz/19vB7TDRNNJTBfJbVw7jUgcms6BTJCgwQtOpqCaQ jgH4Q+RHRgwQOmnwlWvvKNeLCMHGbnDbTeaQMmw5XqmeS097oeGq7eOIunceWUk6yyEL vtC2TJKbw5evyC/IbgFjvsE0aXAESsZQ8/BarcB1q9l2HcqATTQKlyjx2TPf3eOjYAJa cKMg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=B8S5m5rhWaQH+BgflZd1NBcwf2Xt/Fvws322BWB3IUk=; b=OohZRsmkHgM+OtnF1fAZqZu9p/d6qPaj7TlAuv0DB0QLIFR/8T8xinBkDyOKnr49IK aex+HaPdeAymySEuBnj+p3tt/JTSpS5zXxTb/UPW/9KVumw+V8OyXnou5z+1BYl3FIPP exdyIswnhV1W8zzh33cS5bOn7ync+MKDSnT962ghY6Aksdg50CEYv21piy1/lUgsKQTm 3AjS1cgyILFyKbnhWTYmEdea/HDD3E9nZz8LZ8DBDesI8AoWg902KaRIWgbZ2Z1uYB2Q 0Ew7Nfhr2Q1uOBm5FvAzuXUol9tDfWZfNaW40I1R3NI6m+dX4ctp+3vwU6HfSGxnAHoH PyVA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5330ABasVZuatd7ZZrKcc1EyfE6XeUOdFIlH1EMkrbpXM1aiFc7B IuSxf2AUaJO+1sx1mp+zhwpIjI4kPsdt8g1OVsg=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw/6xjN+SXX67yi13JK1woX6lzhQHfOqXdrhGOpXux1uri2qFRkv6e6BEK29nVhXYX6jPy6iWDh5zOEfHfF6qo=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:81c5:: with SMTP id s5mr873165ljg.372.1590656006758; Thu, 28 May 2020 01:53:26 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Miya Kohno <>
Date: Thu, 28 May 2020 17:53:13 +0900
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing Header (CRH)"
To: Bob Hinden <>
Cc: IPv6 List <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000003e3ac805a6b1760c"
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 May 2020 08:53:31 -0000


I do not support this proposal.

At first glance it may look good because it adheres to the conventional
IPv6 standards, but in reality it is not.

- Many additional control planes [*] need to be developed,  in order to
make CRH work.

- And more importantly, it interferes the evolution of IPv6.
  -- There is a simpler, more scalable way to do it, but CRH can delay it,
sticking to the existing convention.
  -- This can take away the potential of IPv6 itself.
  -- IPv6 should evolve. Otherwise, we have no choice but to give way to
the new Non-IP or IPvx proposals.



On Sat, May 16, 2020 at 7:14 AM Bob Hinden <> wrote:

> 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
> 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
> Administrative Requests:
> --------------------------------------------------------------------