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

[Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>]

Hi Tom,
I agree that "and ignored on receipt" in the definition of the Flags field
makes the future use of the field more restrictive. But I believe that can
be mitigated, as I've mentioned earlier, via control and/or management
plane extensions. Not that we have not faced a similar situation before and
dealt with the challenge in a reasonable way.

Regards,
Greg

On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 1:14 PM Tom Herbert <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 12:54 PM Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Tom,
> > you've noted that "The format of SRH is very specific that SIDs are 128
> bits". True, that is the view, the current view based on the definition of
> SRv6 and SRH in  RFCs 8402 and 8754. But both may be updated at some point.
> Thus we can avoid the introduction of RH per SID length. Would you agree
> that it is a viable option?
>
> Greg,
>
> Unfortunately it's not an option. There is no field in SRH that could
> robustly be used as a code point to indicate an alternate header
> format or different length of SIDs. Neither is there any way to
> retroactively add that this since RFC8754 is already out the door and
> in deployment. This is analogous to someone wanting to create a
> compressed version of the IPv6 header to use 64-bits instead of 128
> bit addresses-- there is no way to do that without getting a new IP
> version number. The difference in the analogy, is that the IP version
> number space is only4 bits, but the routing type space is 8 bits. So
> allocating new routing types for compressed SIDs really isn't much
> issue since there are plenty of values available (247 routing type
> values are unassigned whereas only 5 IP version numbers are
> unassigned).
>
> Tom
>
> >
> > Regards,
> > Greg
> >
> > On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 11:33 AM Tom Herbert <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, May 28, 2020, 11:22 AM Joel M. Halpern <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Several people, including at least one I-D, have asserted that there is
> >>> some abstract requirement for compatibility with SRvc6's SRH.  There is
> >>> no such requirement.  That is not a criterion the 6man group needs to
> >>> consider.  In my personal opinion, it is not even a constraint on what
> >>> SPRING chooses to do.
> >>
> >>
> >> Joel,
> >>
> >> It's not even clear what compatibility with SRH means. The format of
> SRH is very specific that SIDs are 128 bits, and the protocol has no
> sufficient extensibility mechanism that allows that to change without
> breaking backwards compatibility. As far as I can tell, changing or
> compressing SIDs requires a new routing type regardless of the compression
> method or who specifies it.
> >>
> >> Tom
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Yours,
> >>> Joel
> >>>
> >>> On 5/28/2020 3:38 AM, Ran Pang(联通集团联通网络技术研究院本部) wrote:
> >>> > Hi WG,
> >>> >
> >>> > It seems like CRH is not compatible with SRv6 and SRH. We need to
> >>> > discuss how CRH cooperates with uSID, G-SRv6 or other SRv6 header
> >>> > compression solutions before adoption, or whether CRH will cause
> >>> > difficulties in the deployment of G-SRv6 and other solutions. At
> >>> > present, we tend to choose solutions compatible with SRH.
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > Thanks,
> >>> >
> >>> > Ran
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >     *From:* Bob Hinden <mailto:[e-mail]>
> >>> >     *Date:* 2020-05-16 06:13
> >>> >     *To:* IPv6 List <mailto:[e-mail]>
> >>> >     *CC:* Bob Hinden <mailto:[e-mail]>
> >>> >     *Subject:* Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing Header
> (CRH)"
> >>> >     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
> >>> >     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
> >>> >
> >>> > 如果您错误接收了该邮件，请通过电子邮件立即通知我们。请回复邮件到 hqs-
> >>> > [e-mail]，即可以退订此邮件。我们将立即将您的信息从我们的发送
> >>> > 目录中删除。 If you have received this email in error please notify us
> >>> > immediately by e-mail. Please reply to [e-mail] ,you
> can
> >>> > unsubscribe from this mail. We will immediately remove your
> information
> >>> > from send catalogue of our.
> >>> >
> >>> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> >>> > [e-mail]
> >>> > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> >>> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> >>> [e-mail]
> >>> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> >> [e-mail]
> >> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>