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

[Andrew Alston <[e-mail]>]

I also  support the adoption of this draft – and echo  Mark’s sentiments below.

It also point out that the argument that because additional protocols may be needed this is out of scope of 6man is specious at best, when we consider it was 6man that developed the SRH, which the same individuals are arguing makes CRH unnecessary, while at the same time developing a raft of additional control plane mechanisms to support the SRH in a series of other working groups.

As Mark points out, CRH is a building block – upon which people may build – be in that in the context of standardized protocols or even if they choose to do so, internal applications.  The ability of CRH to be used for a raft of different purposes is one the major attractions to me, since it allows innovation to be built on top of it, both in the context of the IETF and outside of the IETF.

Hence, I fully support this draft and am proud to have my name on it.

Thanks

Andrew


From: ipv6 <[e-mail]> on behalf of Mark Smith <[e-mail]>
Date: Saturday, 16 May 2020 at 02:53
To: Bob Hinden <[e-mail]>
Cc: IPv6 List <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing Header (CRH)"

I support adoption.

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.

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.

I to support the adoption of this draft – and echo

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, <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> 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

 https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bonica-6man-comp-rtg-hdr<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bonica-6man-comp-rtg-hdr>

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
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Administrative Requests: https://www..ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>
--------------------------------------------------------------------