Limited domains ...

[Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>]

/*adjusting subject */

> The scope of CRH is “limited domain” and not the “Internet”.

Well that is only what the document under adoption call says.

However we have all seen described use cases over Internet  ... so much of
limited domain. Explanation given is that "limited domain" does not to be
continuous ... very clever indeed !

I am observing this point as my use case is also over Internet.

So if I apply any RH on my application host_1 carry it over Internet to my
server host_2 clearly those two hosts create a "limited domain".

Maybe we should just drop right here this "limited domain"
restriction/scope for any solution being discussed here ?

Thx,
R.


On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 12:32 AM Zafar Ali (zali) <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
>
>
> The authors of CRH has already have multiple drafts and more CP/ DP
> changes will be required. E.g., it will require
>
>    - ISIS changes (draft-bonica-lsr-crh-isis-extensions)
>    - To carry VPN information (draft-bonica-6man-vpn-dest-opt)
>    - For SFC (draft-bonica-6man-seg-end-opt)
>    - BGP changes (draft-alston-spring-crh-bgp-signalling,
>    draft-ssangli-idr-bgp-vpn-srv6-plus)
>    - PCEP extension (TBA)
>    - OAM for debugging the mapping table
>    - Yang interface
>    - More to come
>
>
>
> The scope of CRH is “limited domain” and not the “Internet”.
>
>
>
> Given this, where the IETF community discuss how these so-called “building
> blocks” fits together?
>
>
>
> If author’s claim is that the home for the architecture work is not
> Spring, then the authors should create a BoF in routing area to first
> defined architecture, use-case and requirements.
>
> This is the hard worked everyone else did before the CRH authors.
>
> Why they are looking for a short cut?
>
>
>
> CRH is a “major” change and outside the scope of 6man charter.
>
> It should follow the proper IETF review process.
>
>
>
> Why CRH authors are trying to “skip the queue” and “skip the routing
> area”?
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> Regards … Zafar
>