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

Brian E Carpenter <> Sat, 16 May 2020 01:48 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 658493A083B for <>; Fri, 15 May 2020 18:48:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.098
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.098 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, FREEMAIL_REPLY=1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HE_4Cnq6Ozol for <>; Fri, 15 May 2020 18:47:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::634]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 15C2C3A0839 for <>; Fri, 15 May 2020 18:47:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id b12so1624311plz.13 for <>; Fri, 15 May 2020 18:47:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=zWuzPQ+6C8+PEYZpM4hYDsLEAZmh2f2LFL+VSNmLMNc=; b=EjDPGcnkn1PEFbwE1TIYTdw60nZrtecv24gc5//u/FICv+i5R75wjIpvXgmkFTO2Dy /DbH6vrw1ryI9MINnLbPEdUAySg1u9TogFpf3wHlsIUtoAV/mksqmc7tAxobZWGgv12H yjrRZ58edUj5ZCX50gFO7WCsDFCIuFZnVSLJ25noptFPsnQV/JGel6ViJKyjeMgPNYKn MMvnzP4nS803WIClGYuXi3J8arEtycKRQyx9RDmyBrLSYZihahB36Ko+pPFUUsYdC8Hw fi+gpRXKKOr3ickYCtghnYW3mFtizCnhz5sOXPeZUH+0MmdECDGBo+mcfVmA35nYO8St cRVQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=zWuzPQ+6C8+PEYZpM4hYDsLEAZmh2f2LFL+VSNmLMNc=; b=a20Sz+kcn7s1/gt22Orb1ODMaURveXXeOTVaDgQz+j6VJLtm5M52esFpoIPhSNpj5z 8Hb1VG3XwPcLjk+dUDWW1HAjgUqYCE868+FAQTkIKJ8U+IRa5q22i2sreSmXEXWeZuxn oqaaKyqnkOr0PpcuyOQLMrKPrEDYD372V92//NChbMVXV9vblDFjTC+U91ysjQsbf7ij BB+1umETdwBUpGmMHJYH2s70Cwf1fymh5ZHureoBwFdN9Kgm1LkMI6kWikYGtYqKMCYm pDPZYG5Jq/gdbUAgdaF+ZOokPjvnc1E+rWx2oXFQ66/LeT/r0LIyW0IVcZKCuqPJ9JYV mxyw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532dUgLBwHMF4OBMQu+rD1oMEx2430rtr8qpPrGyAylkqAFbKuNu 8bHpbEU1GhPEJtCjE6RnJX+A/xhJ
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxkuTA+El1EyeLaQXwZlELkEv8W0tppSd1gKNHW0/0qCGP1M9z1avZj8uBY2YvtFdlTs9jbMA==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:90b:4383:: with SMTP id in3mr6463243pjb.177.1589593678290; Fri, 15 May 2020 18:47:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ([]) by with ESMTPSA id t7sm2468256pjf.30.2020. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 15 May 2020 18:47:57 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing Header (CRH)"
To: Mark Smith <>, Bob Hinden <>
Cc: IPv6 List <>
References: <> <>
From: Brian E Carpenter <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sat, 16 May 2020 13:47:52 +1200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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: Sat, 16 May 2020 01:48:02 -0000

Mark, and everybody,
On 16-May-20 11:52, Mark Smith wrote:
> The argument that this working group can't adopt CRH without a whole suite of supporting control plane protocols doesn't apply in my opinion.

I agree with that; it isn't our job. On the other hand, progressing this draft without advice from the Routing Area that it is needed would be a bit foolish IMHO.
So can we ask the chairs or AD to ask the Routing ADs for their input?

This draft, like SRV6, creates a significant ops and management challenge. It's easy to say "just use NETCONF" and a lot harder to do it. At some point, we probably need to hear from the Ops ADs too.


> This working group didn't define OSPFv3, IS-IS extensions for IPv6 or Multi-protocol BGP support for IPv6 itself either - they were developed in other working groups.
> This working group defines the IPv6 protocol building blocks upon which others can use to build upon.
> I am willing to commit time to working on CRH, as it solves a problem that has existed since RFC 1883 - the overhead of a source route with a set of 128 bit addresses.
> It is not a new problem. What is relatively new (3-4 years or so) is the recognition of the significance of the overhead of using 128 bit addresses in a source route, due to SPRING's work.
> 6man need to solve this problem in a way that is consistent with both the architecture and design of IPv6, in a way that is compatible with the existing, very "brownfield" deployment of billions of IPv6 capable nodes.
> Regards,
> Mark.
> On Sat, 16 May 2020, 08:14 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: <>
>     --------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> Administrative Requests:
> --------------------------------------------------------------------