RE: CRH and RH0

[Ron Bonica <[e-mail]>]

Robert,

It sounds like you are saying that the 6man WG cannot standardize some class of Routing headers without permission from the SPRING WG. Can you draw a clear boundary around that class of Routing headers?

                                                                  Ron



Juniper Business Use Only
From: Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2020 11:55 AM
To: Ron Bonica <[e-mail]>
Cc: Bob Hinden <[e-mail]>; 6man <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: CRH and RH0

[External Email. Be cautious of content]

Ron,

Oh - haven't we established just yesterday that you will not be referencing RH0 any longer with CRH proposal  ?

It's like you are trying to build a vehicle  .. it has wheels, steering and even seats (no engine and no belts for now). But you keep insisting - it is not a car.

See if you put normative reference to segment routing up to version -10 then suddenly drop it with no major change to the body of the draft the intentions are just obvious:

13<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bonica-6man-comp-rtg-hdr-10*section-13__;Iw!!NEt6yMaO-gk!SOeabesZ6XuhCEeNa9hXekEBH6ofETz6Yw06-TRbVHaMbjj1LXax5iTjyB3RRAb-$>.  References





13.1<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bonica-6man-comp-rtg-hdr-10*section-13.1__;Iw!!NEt6yMaO-gk!SOeabesZ6XuhCEeNa9hXekEBH6ofETz6Yw06-TRbVHaMbjj1LXax5iTjyMrjdK6g$>.  Normative References





   [I-D.bonica-spring-srv6-plus]

              Bonica, R., Hegde, S., Kamite, Y., Alston, A., Henriques,

              D., Jalil, L., Halpern, J., Linkova, J., and G. Chen,

              "Segment Routing Mapped To IPv6 (SRm6)", draft-bonica-<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bonica-spring-srv6-plus-06__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!SOeabesZ6XuhCEeNa9hXekEBH6ofETz6Yw06-TRbVHaMbjj1LXax5iTjyJ5ZtD0U$>
spring-srv6-plus-06<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bonica-spring-srv6-plus-06__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!SOeabesZ6XuhCEeNa9hXekEBH6ofETz6Yw06-TRbVHaMbjj1LXax5iTjyJ5ZtD0U$> (work in progress), October 2019.

REF: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bonica-6man-comp-rtg-hdr-10<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bonica-6man-comp-rtg-hdr-10__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!SOeabesZ6XuhCEeNa9hXekEBH6ofETz6Yw06-TRbVHaMbjj1LXax5iTjyPvF0qCu$>

On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 5:41 PM Ron Bonica <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Robert,

Oh, btw. RH0 had a "Segments Left" field. Because it talked about segments, would you like to claim that it was also SR?

                                                                           Ron



Juniper Business Use Only
From: Ron Bonica
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2020 11:40 AM
To: Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: Bob Hinden <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; 6man <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: RE: CRH and RH0

Robert,

So, you are really sure that these people don't exist. Would you like to make a more explicit statement?

                                                                  Ron



Juniper Business Use Only
From: Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2020 11:22 AM
To: Ron Bonica <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: Bob Hinden <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; 6man <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: Re: CRH and RH0

[External Email. Be cautious of content]

Hi Ron,

>  Are you questioning whether that statement is true?

Yes. Especially this point: " Are not interested in SR"

Your draft only talks about SIDs and segments so no matter how you call it the core purpose is segment routing.

Take care,
R.

On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 5:13 PM Ron Bonica <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Robert,

At the interim meeting, I said that there are IPv6 operators who:


*         Want CRH

*         Are not interested in SR

*         Are averse to SRv6

Are you questioning whether that statement is true?

                                                          Ron




Juniper Business Use Only
From: Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2020 3:22 AM
To: Ron Bonica <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: Bob Hinden <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; 6man <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: Re: CRH and RH0

[External Email. Be cautious of content]

Hi Ron,

Given that it is only fifteen pages long, I suspect that progressing it would be less work than arguing about whether to progress it.

Sometimes committing a bit more work yields much better results in the long run ...

So it is clear that you are not just trying to fix suboptimalities of IPv6 encoding out of the woods. The goal is clear to get this in and use it as a hook to show in SPRING and other routing WGs in IETF that since you have CRH accepted as a WG docs in 6man other groups should follow along and work on SRm6 encodings.

The mapping plane between SIDs and labels is already in place in SR-MPLS. Just changing few bit here and there does not make new proposal to stand on its own.

I think it has been clearly stated by 6man chairs and AD that any work on SRm6 can be taken on only after SPRING WG accepts the main concept and adopts the main doc as a WG item.

So I recommend we go via this proper path with the full picture in mind and the ultimate objective for CRH.

Best regards,
R.