RE: New Version Notification for draft-bonica-6man-comp-rtg-hdr-11.txt

[Bilal Shahid <[e-mail]>]

+1

Efficient/protoryped and deployed.

6man should adopt this draft.



-------- Original message --------
From: Srihari Sangli <ssangli=[e-mail]>
Date: 2/17/20 7:46 AM (GMT-08:00)
To: Gyan Mishra <[e-mail]>, Chris Bowers <[e-mail]>
Cc: Ron Bonica <rbonica=[e-mail]>, Julian Lucek <jlucek=[e-mail]>, 6man WG <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: New Version Notification for draft-bonica-6man-comp-rtg-hdr-11.txt

+1

The draft has been around for over an year, it’s a good solution and ASIC friendly. The WG should adopt this draft.

srihari…


On 17/02/20, 9:02 PM ipv6 on behalf of Gyan Mishra from [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> on behalf of [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> said >

+1 I agree it makes sense for the WG to adopt the draft.

It provides a solid solution to issues with MSD(maximum sid depth) that exist and plagues both SR-MPLS and SRv6.  One of major issues with SR-MPLS is that as long as cSPF constraint based IGP path is used you don’t run into MSD issues.  However, if SR-TE is employed with ERO-explicit route object you run into trouble with MSD and the source routed path results in an PCALC error - and the path cannot be instantiated.  With SRv6 the problem with MSD is exacerbated since SRv6 can natively source route a TE ERO path using SRH routing header type 4. So all paths instantiated can result in SID depth issues.  For both existing SR options you almost have to use a centralized PCE controller based architecture - as with distributed and hybrid scenarios can be problematic with static ERO instantiation.  Static ERO is the main goal of Sping Segment Routing and not a dynamic cSPF ERO.

This draft also provides an alternative source routing option to use case for RH0 which has security vulnerabilities.

Verizon as Tier 1 SP is very interested in testing CRH as it addresses major pitfalls with Segment Routing.

Gyan

On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 9:14 AM Chris Bowers <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
+1 I think it makes sense for the WG to adopt this draft.

Chris

On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 5:58 AM Julian Lucek <jlucek=[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
+1

6man should adopt this draft because:

(i) It has been around for a year
(ii) It has been implemented on experimental code versions: LINUX Server (software-based forwarding) and MX series router (ASIC-based forwarding)
(iii) It has had some experimental deployments, as well as Liquid, in some other, as yet unnamed, networks

Julian

From: ipv6 <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> on behalf of Andrew Alston <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Monday, 17 February 2020 at 11:45
To: Ron Bonica <rbonica=[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, 6man WG <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: RE: New Version Notification for draft-bonica-6man-comp-rtg-hdr-11.txt

As a co-author of this document, I fully support this change.  We have stated many times that we have a need for this technology – and in fact have done significant work internally to use this technology – inclusive of tests to steer traffic between asn’s and other things.

Thanks Ron for the work on this.

Andrew


From: ipv6 <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> On Behalf Of Ron Bonica
Sent: Monday, 17 February 2020 03:56
To: 6man WG <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: FW: New Version Notification for draft-bonica-6man-comp-rtg-hdr-11.txt

Folks,

Over the last several weeks, customers who have no interest in Segment Routing have expressed interest in the CRH. So, we have updated the CRH draft, removing all references to Segment Routing and letting it stand alone as an IPv6 Routing header.

While Segment Routing may one day be a user of the CRH, it will not be the only user.

Please review this document as a stand-alone piece of work.

Ron



Juniper Business Use Only

-----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Sent: Sunday, February 16, 2020 7:46 PM
To: Ron Bonica <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Ning So <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Andrew Alston <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Ning So <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Tomonobu Niwa <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Andrew Alston <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Yuji Kamite <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: New Version Notification for draft-bonica-6man-comp-rtg-hdr-11.txt


A new version of I-D, draft-bonica-6man-comp-rtg-hdr-11.txt
has been successfully submitted by Ron Bonica and posted to the IETF repository.

Name: draft-bonica-6man-comp-rtg-hdr
Revision: 11
Title: The IPv6 Compressed Routing Header (CRH)
Document date: 2020-02-16
Group: Individual Submission
Pages: 16
URL https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bonica-6man-comp-rtg-hdr-11<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bonica-6man-comp-rtg-hdr-11__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!XkLwpNbt_lW0zdMC3zBSxB88VXWxHgJ8TnckKpe9_FSeDWas7BKUD1BH05HFYzWY$>
Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bonica-6man-comp-rtg-hdr/<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bonica-6man-comp-rtg-hdr/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!XkLwpNbt_lW0zdMC3zBSxB88VXWxHgJ8TnckKpe9_FSeDWas7BKUD1BH0w3nJEqm$>
Htmlized: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bonica-6man-comp-rtg-hdr-11<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bonica-6man-comp-rtg-hdr-11__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!XkLwpNbt_lW0zdMC3zBSxB88VXWxHgJ8TnckKpe9_FSeDWas7BKUD1BH05HFYzWY$>
Htmlized: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-bonica-6man-comp-rtg-hdr<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-bonica-6man-comp-rtg-hdr__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!XkLwpNbt_lW0zdMC3zBSxB88VXWxHgJ8TnckKpe9_FSeDWas7BKUD1BH0_p5lJrd$>
Diff:
Abstract:
This document defines two new Routing header types. Collectively,
they are called the Compressed Routing Headers (CRH). Individually,
they are called CRH-16 and CRH-32.




Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/tools.ietf.org__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!WV5WnFFMHYAXMxdz9gSikkZtS2KeAI2HFEgr92SuApHHXR6xrLRt9sWVA0IGPmg$>.

The IETF Secretariat
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!XkLwpNbt_lW0zdMC3zBSxB88VXWxHgJ8TnckKpe9_FSeDWas7BKUD1BH01zTmF8y$>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!WV5WnFFMHYAXMxdz9gSikkZtS2KeAI2HFEgr92SuApHHXR6xrLRt9sWVx3l9seo$>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!WV5WnFFMHYAXMxdz9gSikkZtS2KeAI2HFEgr92SuApHHXR6xrLRt9sWVx3l9seo$>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Gyan  Mishra
Network Engineering & Technology
Verizon
Silver Spring, MD 20904
Phone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>