Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH

Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com> Fri, 29 May 2020 10:24 UTC

Return-Path: <ppsenak@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E25253A0D9F; Fri, 29 May 2020 03:24:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zygQkP_7OeVP; Fri, 29 May 2020 03:24:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-3.cisco.com (aer-iport-3.cisco.com [173.38.203.53]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B0D143A0D9E; Fri, 29 May 2020 03:24:51 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=17057; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1590747892; x=1591957492; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=EHq94BnW19hDsJr1jMrVLTn6IoTJy2Xk4lYVHwJs/n8=; b=cEJhinpJCXzCt2uRs7JJRRB8cVn/Eo5K+5fmDmMs0LffP5Sis7vLejAl QvG2U7S6As4q4yJPadybO0VFUF5xAkbn+BIgDDiPb7ewyWro35Tvjl5zd z4QZXQYr1qki9R8s7KCyXwmfXycnqe2kLQz+kVgQj/NwJF0zIZSqD7OAk s=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.73,448,1583193600"; d="scan'208";a="24293192"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-2.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 29 May 2020 10:24:49 +0000
Received: from [10.60.140.51] (ams-ppsenak-nitro2.cisco.com [10.60.140.51]) by aer-core-2.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 04TAOm4v021310; Fri, 29 May 2020 10:24:49 GMT
Subject: Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH
To: Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
Cc: 6man <6man@ietf.org>, "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>, "Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)" <ketant@cisco.com>, Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>, "Wang, Weibin (NSB - CN/Shanghai)" <weibin.wang@nokia-sbell.com>, "rtg-ads@ietf.org" <rtg-ads@ietf.org>, "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>
References: <9CF68CCE-B584-4648-84DA-F2DBEA94622D@cisco.com> <MW3PR11MB4570485EEDBADEF3B193BB82C1B40@MW3PR11MB4570.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <ec63e90e-19fa-cd6c-eacb-4dee44815c99@joelhalpern.com> <MW3PR11MB4570FB2397D4B28A42626802C1B40@MW3PR11MB4570.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <3bbb28c8-0106-ad63-abf9-c9dc4e428e0c@joelhalpern.com> <MW3PR11MB4570FD37ED32519C677F5E59C1B20@MW3PR11MB4570.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <DM6PR05MB63486B842CD9DF5BE57FC1A5AEB30@DM6PR05MB6348.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <MW3PR11MB45706D51FBE6CD63B58CDF15C1B30@MW3PR11MB4570.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <DM6PR05MB634848BE997686F212FF9E49AEB30@DM6PR05MB6348.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <MW3PR11MB457006B3ECAF2E812CD2E721C18E0@MW3PR11MB4570.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <df0b518a11734e8f91dc2c0902f46df5@nokia-sbell.com> <DM6PR05MB6348EBA8F4E6C889393B5269AE8E0@DM6PR05MB6348.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <a2876051-182b-f955-6e52-17740a612c74@cisco.com> <CABNhwV0o3B505A4+C3Euf9DNMdF8+3he0M_cE5JA2T5dmdB-ig@mail.gmail.com>
From: Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <6fe6a561-bfba-515c-8832-1343f901d45b@cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 29 May 2020 12:24:48 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CABNhwV0o3B505A4+C3Euf9DNMdF8+3he0M_cE5JA2T5dmdB-ig@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.60.140.51, ams-ppsenak-nitro2.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: aer-core-2.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/j288yhli7qHOWcHIfQYob1zmjQ4>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 May 2020 10:24:55 -0000

On 29/05/2020 12:12, Gyan Mishra wrote:
> 
> 
> On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 5:11 AM Peter Psenak 
> <ppsenak=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org <mailto:40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>> 
> wrote:
> 
>     Hi Ron,
> 
>     On 28/05/2020 18:55, Ron Bonica wrote:
>      > Weibin,
>      >
>      > Inline…..
>      >
>      >                       Ron
>      >
>      > Juniper Business Use Only
>      >
>      > *From:* Wang, Weibin (NSB - CN/Shanghai)
>     <weibin.wang@nokia-sbell.com <mailto:weibin.wang@nokia-sbell.com>>
>      > *Sent:* Thursday, May 28, 2020 10:35 AM
>      > *To:* Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) <ketant@cisco.com
>     <mailto:ketant@cisco.com>>; Ron Bonica
>      > <rbonica@juniper.net <mailto:rbonica@juniper.net>>; Joel M.
>     Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com>>
>      > *Cc:* rtg-ads@ietf.org <mailto:rtg-ads@ietf.org>; spring@ietf.org
>     <mailto:spring@ietf.org>; 6man <6man@ietf.org <mailto:6man@ietf.org>>
>      > *Subject:* RE: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re:
>     Size of
>      > CR in CRH
>      >
>      > *[External Email. Be cautious of content]*
>      >
>      > Hi Ron,
>      >
>      > After reading through many mails related to CRH in list, I found all
>      > CRH-SIDs (allocated to prefix-sid <loosely forwarding>and
>     Adj-sid<strict
>      > forwarding>) are of local significance in fact, its operation
>     actually
>      > is not same as MPLS Label nor SR-MPLS label (such as domain-wide
>     prefix
>      > SID/label), all CRH-SIDs are locally allocated by node itself
>     based on
>      > local FIB6, independent of other CRH-SID allocated by other nodes
>     in CRH
>      > domain; so every node (Maybe except  ingress PE of CRH domain)
>       has no
>      > useful to learn other SIDs allocated by other nodes by IGP-extension
>      > advertising. Its deployment must have controller (considering
>     dynamic
>      > mechanism), the controller learn all CRH-SIDs from each node to
>     program
>      > the source path under path calculation requirement from ingress PE.
>      >
>      > [RB] Absolutely correct !!
> 
>     if CRH-SIDs are of local significance how is the loose source routing
>     going to be supported?
> 
>     Or is CRH only supposed to be used for strict hop-by-hop source
>     routing?
>     If so, the use case would be quite limited.
> 
>     Honestly, strictly technically, I do not see much difference between
>     CRH
>     and RFC8663 & RFC4023 combo. Former uses an extra extension header, the
>     latter uses the next-header. Rest looks same.
> 
> 
>      Gyan> Peter - You mentioned a key point which is is a major 
> difference.
> 
> I thank you for pointing out this critical point for everyone in both 
>   Spring WG & 6MAN WG -now one big happy family🙏😀
> 
> With RFC 8663 SR-MPLS over
> IPV6 using RFC 4023 w/o GRE with IPv6 encap here is what the end result 
> of the packet looks like:
> 
>   SR-MPLS over IPv6 =  Next header encapsulation
> 
>     IPv6 |  SR-MPLS |. Customer payload
> 
> Operators wanting CRH don’t want the MPLS Layer 2 1/2 MPLS data plane 
> insertion into the packet mucking up the packet and want to stay clear 
> of MPLS since they want a clean and pure IPV6 packet that follows RFC 
> 8200 IPV6 specification.

you don't want MPLS, so you wrap the same data to a new extension header 
and give it a new name. And you suddenly like it. Hmm, does not sound 
like a solid technical argument to me.

thanks,
Peter


> 
> So the use case for RFC 8663 is very different as it is widely deployed 
> for interworking SR-MPLS with SRV6 - Outlined in Mirsky draft below:
> 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-mirsky-6man-unified-id-sr-06
> 
> CRH is no different then using any other routing header proposal such as 
> 6lo for RPL.
> 
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8138
> 
> CRH Packet format:
> 
> IPV6  CRH | Customer payload
> 
> The additional encapsulation makes a big difference and it’s really 
> apples versus oranges and not the same at all.
> 
> 
>    Why would any operator use SR-MPLS over IP to for steering traffic if 
> they have an existing IPV6 data plane they want to utilize.
> 
> They would use SRv6 or CRH and would pick CRH to avoid MSD (maximum sid 
> depth) issues for long strict paths and not have to deal with extra 
> complexity of all the compression variants.
> 
> 
> Decision tree:
> If an operator wanted an MPLS data plane variant they would go with 
> SR-MPLS but if they want IPV6 data plane variant they obviously would 
> pick an option that uses IPv6 data plane and that would be the SRV6 or CRH.
> 
> In order to even remotely justify from my point of view that SR-MPLS 
> over IPv6 would used for anything other than the obvious “interworking” 
> between SR-MPLS and SRV6, you would really have to prove that an 
> operator is willing to add MPLS into the mix when they want IPV6.  Not 
> possible.
> 
> I can guarantee no operator would do that.
> 
> 
> 
>     thanks,
>     Peter
> 
> 
> 
>      >
>      > I suggested you should describe more detail about how to create
>     CRH-SID
>      > entry (in CRH-FIB) in this CRH draft, is it based on local FIB6,
>     if it
>      > is, how to do synchronization between CRH-FIB and FIB6?
>      >
>      > [RB] In some deployment scenarios, the IPv6 FIB and the CRH-FIB are
>      > populated by an IGP. Please review and comment on the IS-IS CRH
>     document
>      >
>     <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bonica-lsr-crh-isis-extensions/>.
>     I
>      > am excited to collaborate with you on that .
>      >
>      > [RB] In other deployment scenarios, the IPv6 FIB and / or the
>     CRH-FIB
>      > are populated by a controller. If you are interested in that
>     scenario,
>      > again, we would be excited to collaborate with you.
>      >
>      >                                                     Ron
>      >
>      > Above is my understanding, if not right,pls correct me.
>      >
>      > Wang Weibin
>      >
>      > *From:*ipv6 <ipv6-bounces@ietf.org <mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org>
>     <mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org <mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org>>> *On
>      > Behalf Of *Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
>      > *Sent:* 2020年5月28日19:46
>      > *To:* Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org
>     <mailto:40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>
>      > <mailto:rbonica <mailto:rbonica>=40juniper..net@dmarc.ietf.org
>     <mailto:40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>>>; Joel M. Halpern
>      > <jmh@joelhalpern.com <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com>
>     <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com>>>
>      > *Cc:* rtg-ads@ietf.org <mailto:rtg-ads@ietf.org>
>     <mailto:rtg-ads@ietf.org <mailto:rtg-ads@ietf.org>>; spring@ietf.org
>     <mailto:spring@ietf.org>
>      > <mailto:spring@ietf.org <mailto:spring@ietf.org>>; 6man
>     <6man@ietf.org <mailto:6man@ietf.org> <mailto:6man@ietf.org
>     <mailto:6man@ietf.org>>>
>      > *Subject:* RE: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re:
>     Size of
>      > CR in CRH
>      >
>      > Hi Ron,
>      >
>      > Some of the operators may not care about the SR name, but it is
>     clear to
>      > me that the proposal in the CRH draft is a subset of Segment Routing
>      > (i.e. a reduced portion of Spring Architecture) that only supports
>      > prefix and adjacency SIDs as indicated by the two "forwarding
>     methods".
>      >
>      >
>     https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bonica-6man-comp-rtg-hdr-22#section-4
>      >
>     <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bonica-6man-comp-rtg-hdr-22*section-4__;Iw!!NEt6yMaO-gk!VMgRZ_fS_8pBN886aeeU1sFZpteVAkwQNu6xqWRsR27VhEn_wpAuXmcCngHDrhN8$>
>      >
>      >     o  Forward the packet to the next-hop along the least-cost
>     path to
>      > *>>> Prefix SID*
>      >
>      >        the next segment endpoint.
>      >
>      >     o  Forward the packet through a specified interface to the
>     next *>>>
>      > Adjacency SID*
>      >
>      >        segment endpoint.
>      >
>      > Given the use of mapping IDs and mapping FIB, the proposal is
>     comparable
>      > more to SR-MPLS than SRv6. It is better to do a holistic analysis
>     of any
>      > proposal such as CRH that is introducing an MPLS label like mapping
>      > construct into IPv6 architecture - doing so should be considered
>     as a
>      > significant change to IPv6.
>      >
>      > Thanks,
>      >
>      > Ketan
>      >
>      > -----Original Message-----
>      >
>      > From: Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org
>     <mailto:40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>
>      > <mailto:rbonica <mailto:rbonica>=40juniper..net@dmarc.ietf.org
>     <mailto:40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>>>
>      >
>      > Sent: 25 May 2020 21:14
>      >
>      > To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) <ketant@cisco.com
>     <mailto:ketant@cisco.com>
>      > <mailto:ketant@cisco.com <mailto:ketant@cisco.com>>>; Joel M.
>     Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com>
>      > <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com>>>
>      >
>      > Cc: rtg-ads@ietf..org <mailto:rtg-ads@ietf.org>
>     <mailto:rtg-ads@ietf.org <mailto:rtg-ads@ietf.org>>; spring@ietf.org
>     <mailto:spring@ietf.org>
>      > <mailto:spring@ietf.org <mailto:spring@ietf.org>>; 6man
>     <6man@ietf.org <mailto:6man@ietf.org> <mailto:6man@ietf.org
>     <mailto:6man@ietf.org>>>
>      >
>      > Subject: RE: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re:
>     Size of
>      > CR in CRH
>      >
>      > Ketan,
>      >
>      > It would not be fair to say that these operators  "wish to deploy a
>      > Traffic Engineering solution using a subset of Segment Routing".
>      >
>      > It would be fair to say that these operators  "wish to deploy IPv6
>      > Traffic Engineering".  Some of these operators don't care about
>     SR. Some
>      > are actively averse to SRv6. All they want is a Routing header.
>      >
>      >                                                                   Ron
>      >
>      > Juniper Business Use Only
>      >
>      > -----Original Message-----
>      >
>      > From: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
>     <ketant=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org <mailto:40cisco..com@dmarc.ietf.org>
>      > <mailto:ketant <mailto:ketant>=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org
>     <mailto:40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>>>
>      >
>      > Sent: Monday, May 25, 2020 5:21 AM
>      >
>      > To: Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net <mailto:rbonica@juniper.net>
>     <mailto:rbonica@juniper.net <mailto:rbonica@juniper.net>>>; Joel
>      > M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com>
>     <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com>>>
>      >
>      > Cc: rtg-ads@ietf..org <mailto:rtg-ads@ietf.org>
>     <mailto:rtg-ads@ietf.org <mailto:rtg-ads@ietf.org>>; spring@ietf.org
>     <mailto:spring@ietf.org>
>      > <mailto:spring@ietf.org <mailto:spring@ietf.org>>; 6man
>     <6man@ietf.org <mailto:6man@ietf.org> <mailto:6man@ietf.org
>     <mailto:6man@ietf.org>>>
>      >
>      > Subject: RE: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re:
>     Size of
>      > CR in CRH
>      >
>      > [External Email. Be cautious of content]
>      >
>      > Hi Ron,
>      >
>      > Thanks for that clarification.
>      >
>      > I note that you are not anymore saying "Are not interested in SR"
>     like
>      > you had mentioned before the WG adoption call :
>      >
>     https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/LheyFD_uwuHp7tiG8Y1CwKngDYI/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!X2qW2zTZEbZRfBSE6c_KM-k7aIvZTIT9bycp3jyFJ3sTbf8MtGo4E_uGX7zYZ7lk$
> 
>      >
>     <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/LheyFD_uwuHp7tiG8Y1CwKngDYI/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!X2qW2zTZEbZRfBSE6c_KM-k7aIvZTIT9bycp3jyFJ3sTbf8MtGo4E_uGX7zYZ7lk$>
>      >
>      > So, would it be fair to say that the operator that you are
>     referring to
>      > below, wishes to deploy a Traffic Engineering solution using a
>     subset of
>      > Segment Routing (i.e. a reduced portion of Spring Architecture) that
>      > only supports prefix and adjacency SIDs as indicated by the two
>      > "forwarding methods" that are referred to in
>     draft-bonica-6man-comp-rtg-hdr?
>      >
>      > Thanks,
>      >
>      > Ketan
>      >
>      > -----Original Message-----
>      >
>      > From: Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org
>     <mailto:40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>
>      > <mailto:rbonica <mailto:rbonica>=40juniper..net@dmarc.ietf.org
>     <mailto:40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>>>
>      >
>      > Sent: 25 May 2020 09:03
>      >
>      > To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) <ketant@cisco.com
>     <mailto:ketant@cisco.com>
>      > <mailto:ketant@cisco.com <mailto:ketant@cisco.com>>>; Joel M.
>     Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com>
>      > <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com>>>
>      >
>      > Cc: rtg-ads@ietf..org <mailto:rtg-ads@ietf.org>
>     <mailto:rtg-ads@ietf.org <mailto:rtg-ads@ietf.org>>; spring@ietf.org
>     <mailto:spring@ietf.org>
>      > <mailto:spring@ietf.org <mailto:spring@ietf.org>>; 6man
>     <6man@ietf.org <mailto:6man@ietf.org> <mailto:6man@ietf.org
>     <mailto:6man@ietf.org>>>
>      >
>      > Subject: RE: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re:
>     Size of
>      > CR in CRH
>      >
>      > Ketan,
>      >
>      > Please consider an operator who:
>      >
>      > - Wants a way to steer IPv6 packets through a specified path that
>      > includes many nodes (>8)
>      >
>      > - Does not want any of the following:
>      >
>      >          - A new VPN encapsulation technique
>      >
>      >          - A new service function chaining technique
>      >
>      >          - Network programming
>      >
>      >          - MPLS and uSID
>      >
>      >          - To encoding instructions in IPv6 addresses.
>      >
>      > These operators want a compact routing header, nothing more.
>      >
>      > 
>                                                                                 Ron
>      >
>      > Juniper Business Use Only
>      >
>      > -----Original Message-----
>      >
>      > From: ipv6 <ipv6-bounces@ietf.org <mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org>
>     <mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org <mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org>>> On
>      > Behalf Of Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
>      >
>      > Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2020 1:42 AM
>      >
>      > To: Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com
>     <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com> <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com
>     <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com>>>
>      >
>      > Cc: rtg-ads@ietf..org <mailto:rtg-ads@ietf.org>
>     <mailto:rtg-ads@ietf.org <mailto:rtg-ads@ietf.org>>; spring@ietf.org
>     <mailto:spring@ietf.org>
>      > <mailto:spring@ietf.org <mailto:spring@ietf.org>>; 6man
>     <6man@ietf.org <mailto:6man@ietf.org> <mailto:6man@ietf.org
>     <mailto:6man@ietf.org>>>
>      >
>      > Subject: RE: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re:
>     Size of
>      > CR in CRH
>      >
>      > [SNIP]
>      >
>      > I am looking for explanation of the "other ways" that CRH can be
>     used
>      > (i.e. those outside the Spring architecture). I am trying to
>     understand
>      > from the authors what would be the applicability of that
>     solution, it's
>      > use-cases and it's requirements. That is what, I believe, will
>     help us
>      > evaluate the CRH proposal in the context of this working call.
>     That will
>      > help us answer these questions like the scope of the SID, 32-bit or
>      > 16-bit or something else and what the CRH-FIB is going to turn
>     out like.
>      >
>      > [SNIP]
>      >
>      > ------------------------------------------------------
>      >
> 
>     --------------------------------------------------------------------
>     IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>     ipv6@ietf.org <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
>     Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>     --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> -- 
> 
> <http://www.verizon.com/>
> 
> *Gyan Mishra*
> 
> /Network Solutions A//rchitect /
> 
> /M 301 502-1347
> 13101 Columbia Pike
> /Silver Spring, MD
> 
>