Re: CRH and RH0

[Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>]

Hi Ron,

It is not about existence of people.

It is about what the draft proposes vs what segment routing is in general.

You stating that people are not interested in SR but yet want segment
endpoint encoding as described in the draft is very confusing at best,

Many thx,
R,

On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 5:39 PM Ron Bonica <[e-mail]> wrote:

> 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]>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 13, 2020 11:22 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]*
>
>
>
> 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]> 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]>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 13, 2020 3:22 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]*
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>