Shorter SIDs in SR over IPv6 (Re: Adoption call criteria for CRH? [was: Re: CRH and RH0])

[Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>]

Hi Zafar,
thank you for referring to the proposal that I'm one of the co-authors
(Unified SID). And I cannot agree more that it is time for SPRING to take
on the discussion of shorter SID in Segment Routing over IPv6. I think that
the first step that all interested in the subject can easily do is to share
their comments on the draft that explains the use cases for shorter SIDs in
SR over IPv6
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-cheng-shorter-srv6-sid-requirement/>.
(And we don't need an interim meeting to have such discussion, simply read
and share comments on the mailing list.) Then adopting the document that
will incorporate suggestions and address comments, in my opinion, will be a
clear indication of SPRING WG interest to work on a technical solution of
shorter SIDs in SR over IPv6 data plane.

Regards,
Greg

On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 9:43 AM Zafar Ali (zali) <zali=
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Andrew,
>
>
>
> Now that you mentioned you are “SHOCKED that more people cannot see the
> smoke and mirrors” …
>
> let me remind everyone.
>
>
>
> CRH work is to propose an alternative encapsulation in SPRING against SRH.
>
> There are several SRH/SRv6 net pgm compliant compression techniques that
> are far better than CRH proposal (in efficiency) and that requires no SRH
> change and no SRv6 CP change [list-of-competing-solutions].
>
>
>
> It appears, not able to defend against that argument, the authors took a
> strange path:
>
>    - Launched a political attack against the SPRING chairs and AD via
>    calls for resignation and subsequent appeals resulting in derailing work in
>    SPRING, including all work on compression (of which SRm6 was one option).
>    - Removed all reference to SRm6 from this CRH document.
>    - Attempted to get 6man to adopt CRH ahead of SPRING resuming its work
>    on compression.
>
>
>
> Yes, people can see the smoke and mirrors.
>
>
>
> *Ref: List of competing solutions in SPRING*
>
> [1]
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-cl-spring-generalized-srv6-np/?include_text=1
>
> [2]
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-li-spring-compressed-srv6-np/?include_text=1
>
> [3]
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mirsky-6man-unified-id-sr/?include_text=1
>
> [4] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-decraene-spring-srv6-vlsid/
>
> [5]
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-filsfils-spring-net-pgm-extension-srv6-usid/?include_text=1
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> Regards … Zafar
>
>
>
> *From: *Andrew Alston <[e-mail]>
> *Date: *Friday, May 15, 2020 at 9:15 AM
> *To: *"Zafar Ali (zali)" <[e-mail]>, John Scudder <[e-mail]>,
> "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
> *Cc: *"[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
> *Subject: *RE: Adoption call criteria for CRH? [was: Re: CRH and RH0]
>
>
>
> Zafar,
>
>
>
> Let me give another perspective on this.
>
>
>
> In Montreal – people screamed – no use case – a use case was provided –
> and for months after – people kept screaming – no use case – until they
> couldn’t scream it anymore because the mails showed clearly that use cases
> had been supplied
>
> Then – we moved onto the “We need an architecture” – and you yourself
> misquoted a participant in 6man claiming they demanded an architecture –
> when they clearly didn’t – see the interim meeting minutes – and when it
> was claimed that this is a building block –
>
> It became – omg its an rh0 replacement – and pick on that aspect of it.
>
>
>
> (Those last 2 might be in different orders)
>
>
>
> Then – there was this bizarre claim that a vendor “wanted” something
> despite the fact that they hadn’t said it.
>
>
>
> What I can say is – rather that come with technical arguments against it –
> what I am seeing is smoke and mirrors – pulling things out of thing air –
> twisting words – trying to mis-portray things – and the only reason for
> that is – because there are no solid technical arguments against it.  I am
> SHOCKED that more people cannot see the smoke and mirrors and twisting of
> words going on here.
>
>
>
> Because from my perspective – when someone runs out of ideas – they start
> making things up out of thin air – one after another – please – see my
> earlier email about obstruction and how its not helping any of us.
>
>
>
> Lets debate the document on technical merits – what are your direct
> technical arguments against this – or are we continue to continue with
> misdirection?
>
>
>
> Andrew
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* ipv6 <[e-mail]> *On Behalf Of *Zafar Ali (zali)
> *Sent:* Friday, 15 May 2020 15:54
> *To:* John Scudder <jgs=[e-mail]>;
> [e-mail]
> *Cc:* [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> *Subject:* Re: Adoption call criteria for CRH? [was: Re: CRH and RH0]
>
>
>
> Hi John,
>
>
>
> You’ll recall what the 6man chairs said in Montreal and Singapore
> regarding CRH:
>
>
>
> During Spring session [1]:
>
> “[Bob Hinden]  As 6man co-chair, would like to understand whether SPRING
> is interested in this work.”
>
>
>
> Bob reiterated the same message during Singapore IETF [
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/aWkqPfpvDRyjrW8snR8TCohxcBg/]
>
> “Regarding the Spring related drafts … <snip> We did not see very much
> value in also discussing them in 6man.   Once items have been adopted in
> Spring, we think it is appropriate to adopt the IPv6 relevant parts, but
> that’s not yet the case now.”
>
>
>
> Nothing has changed w.r.t. the competing solution review in Spring since
> Singapore.
>
>
>
> Instead of following the chair’s direction, in Feb 2020 the authors of CRH
> just simply removed normative reference to the SRm6 to get 6man adopt CRH
> ahead of SPRING compression discussion..
>
>
>
> To achieve the said goal, the authors of CRH draft first positioned it as
> a replacement of RH0.
>
> Now RH0 has been removed from CRH draft.
>
> There is no longer any architecture and use-case to justify adoption call
> for CRH.
>
>
>
> It is clear to all that the current draft and adoption request is an
> attempt to circumvent the standard practice.
>
>
>
> Ref:
>
> [1]
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/105/materials/minutes-105-spring-00
>
> Video: Under: Ron’s session on IPv6 Support for Segment Routing:
> SRv6+       (10:44)
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> Regards … Zafar
>
>
>
> *From: *ipv6 <[e-mail]> on behalf of John Scudder <
> jgs=[e-mail]>
> *Date: *Wednesday, May 13, 2020 at 4:02 PM
> *To: *"[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
> *Cc: *"[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
> *Subject: *Adoption call criteria for CRH? [was: Re: CRH and RH0]
>
>
>
> I’m a little confused about this conversation and I’d like to ask the
> chairs for clarification. My actual questions are at the end of this
> long(ish) message, and can be summarized as (1) does 6man require consent
> from SPRING before defining routing headers, and (2) what criteria are the
> chairs using to decide when an adoption call is OK?
>
>
>
> It seems to me there are at least two, only vaguely related, conversations
> going on. One of them is a debate about the assertion that 6man can’t even
> consider taking up CRH unless SPRING approves it. The other is a more
> free-wheeling line of questioning about “what is CRH for anyway”?
>
>
>
> I presume both of these relate to Ron’s request for an adoption call.
> Here’s what the minutes from the interim have:
>
>
>
> Bob: Thank you Ron. I think it's too early for adoption call.
>
>
>
> Ron: What is needed to get to adoption call.
>
>
>
> Bob: I can't answer right now.
>
>
>
> Ron: Can I ask on list?
>
>
>
> Bob: OK.
>
>
>
> Ole: Related to what's going on in spring.
>
>
>
> Too bad we have no audio recording, but that’s not too far from my
> recollection. Anyway, I don’t think I’ve seen this answered on list yet, so
> I’m asking again.
>
>
>
> Regarding the SPRING-related process stuff:
>
>
>
> I have quite a bit of history with how SPRING was chartered; I was one of
> the original co-chairs and helped write the charter, god help me. I can
> tell you for certain there was no intent that SPRING should have exclusive
> ownership of source routing in the IETF, the name isn’t a power-grab, it’s
> a clever backronym, as we do in the IETF. If one entity in the IETF were to
> take charge of all source routing, that sounds more like a new area than a
> WG. But don’t take my word for it, go read the various iterations of the
> charter. As anyone who’s looked at the Segment Routing document set can
> tell, Segment Routing is one, very specific, way of doing source routing.
> As Ketan and others have pointed out, it’s a pile of architecture plus the
> bits and pieces to instantiate that architecture. That is fine, but the
> idea that merely because a technology might be used to instantiate part of
> that architecture, it’s owned by SPRING, is overreach. Just because a
> sandwich is a filling between two pieces of starch, doesn’t mean every
> filling between two pieces of starch is a sandwich. [1]
>
>
>
> But at any rate, the question for the chairs is: do you think 6man needs
> SPRING’s permission in order to consider adopting CRH? Does 6man need
> permission from SPRING for all routing headers, or just some, and if it’s
> just some, what characterizes them?
>
>
>
> Regarding the more general “what is CRH for anyway” stuff:
>
>
>
> This seems to me to be exactly the kind of discussion one would normally
> have in the context of an adoption call. Why is it not being had in that
> context? To rewind back to the interim, if it’s still “too early for
> adoption call”, what has to happen for it not to be too early?
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> —John
>
>
>
> [1] https://cuberule.com
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>
> [e-mail]
>
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [e-mail]
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>