Re: FW: New Version Notification for draft-bonica-6man-comp-rtg-hdr-18.txt

On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 2:59 PM Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com> wrote:
>
> Robert, as you seriously asking "why wasn't the complexity of SRH and
> the TLVs questioned during the WG process?:

Yes, there were many questions and objections raised about why TLVs
were needed, why SRH needs its own authentication when AH would
suffice, why SRH in fact breaks AH. Also, there doesn't seem to be any
current support for SR TLVs in implementation. For instance, in
draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header-26, with the exception of Linux
(which last time I checked didn't have correct support), every
reported implementation of SR states "no TLV processing".  Given the
forty years of misery we've had trying to use TLVs in the network
layer, first with IPv4 options and then IPv6 Destination and
Hop-by-Hop options, I don't think this is simply an aberration-- it's
not likely there will ever be significant support or deployment of SRH
TLVs. IMO, it would be an improvement to the protocol if TLVs were
simply taken out of SRH. Even if a compelling use case were to
materialize, DestOpts and HBH are sufficient and much more general to
work with any protocol or routing header (including CRH for instance).

Tom

> It was questioned repeatedly.  Eventually, the chairs concluded that th
> questioners were in the rough.  Which is their job to judge.  But that
> is NOT the same as saying that the quessiton was not raised.
>
> And given that operators are asking for alternatives, no, I do not think
> it is appropriate to say that we will not consider alternatives for
> several years.
>
> If Folks were asking for the withdrawal of SRH (tempting, but the wrong
> answer), then asking for time for deployment experience would seem a
> reasonable response.  But that is not the ask.  No one is asking to
> withdraw or deprecate SRH.
>
> Yours,
> Joel
>
> On 5/13/2020 5:50 PM, Robert Raszuk wrote:
> > WGs,
> >
> > If someone is to judge a document's maturity level by the number of its
> > version iterations with three new versions within the last 3 hours this
> > draft is getting really stable pretty fast ! ;-)
> >
> > But seriously 6man just published SRH RFC8754.
> >
> > Shouldn't we first get some decent and real operational experience with
> > SRH for a year or two before starting a new proposal with a subset of
> > its capabilities ?
> >
> > If SRH is just too complex, why during the IETF WG process and IETF
> > review that was not questioned and addressed ? In my books use of TLVs
> > is a feature not a bug.
> >
> > New proposal to essentially do the same should not be taken on right now
> > - instead pragmatic approach would be to take out those elements which
> > are not operationally needed or add those which are missing should be
> > worked on after some time and RFC8754-bis could be then issued.
> >
> > Note that if we are just about shorter SIDs like 16 or 32 bits that is
> > possible today with the vSID proposal and current SRH format.
> > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-decraene-spring-srv6-vlsid-03
> >
> > Last - can anyone imagine operational complexity when a network would
> > consist of some routers which can only do CRH and some which can only
> > process SRH ? Leave alone the fact that both headers are completely
> > incompatible with each other.
> >
> > Many thx,
> > Robert.
> >
> >
> >     In this draft version, I rename the Routing header type. It was
> >     called the Compressed Routing Header. Now it is called the Compact
> >     Routing Header.
> >
> > ...
> >
> >     A new version of I-D, draft-bonica-6man-comp-rtg-hdr-18.txt
> >     has been successfully submitted by Ron Bonica and posted to the IETF
> >     repository.
> >
> >     Name:           draft-bonica-6man-comp-rtg-hdr
> >     Revision:       18
> >     Title:          The IPv6 Compact Routing Header (CRH)
> >     Document date:  2020-05-13
> >     Group:          Individual Submission
> >     Pages:          14
> >     URl:
> >     https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-bonica-6man-comp-rtg-hdr-18.txt
> >     Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bonica-6man-comp-rtg-hdr
> >     Htmlized: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bonica-6man-comp-rtg-hdr-18
> >     Htmlized:
> >     https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-bonica-6man-comp-rtg-hdr
> >     Diff:
> >     https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-bonica-6man-comp-rtg-hdr-18
> >
> >     Abstract:
> >         This document defines two new Routing header types.  Collectively,
> >         they are called the Compact Routing Headers (CRH).  Individually,
> >         they are called CRH-16 and CRH-32.
> >
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> > ipv6@ietf.org
> > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------