IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: CRH and RH0

otroan@employees.org Wed, 13 May 2020 17:42 UTC

Return-Path: <otroan@employees.org>
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 6DDCA3A0061 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 May 2020 10:42:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 rQGZzFR00HXf for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 May 2020 10:42:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from clarinet.employees.org (clarinet.employees.org [198.137.202.74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 636643A005B for <6man@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 May 2020 10:42:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from astfgl.hanazo.no (dhcp217197164175.blix.com [217.197.164.175]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by clarinet.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B4C2E4E11B1A; Wed, 13 May 2020 17:42:37 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by astfgl.hanazo.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 961F033EA7E2; Wed, 13 May 2020 19:42:34 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.80.23.2.2\))
Subject: Re: CRH and RH0
From: otroan@employees.org
In-Reply-To: <DM6PR05MB634873369A4D7A93529282A1AEBF0@DM6PR05MB6348.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Wed, 13 May 2020 19:42:34 +0200
Cc: Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>, 6man <6man@ietf.org>, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <09D77BBA-B65F-4492-AB19-A9BA0C9FC7A7@employees.org>
References: <DM6PR05MB6348E9AD1E088792C2F10BB4AEBF0@DM6PR05MB6348.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <8CC3F837-B4D6-4570-AF2F-37041839F391@employees.org> <DM6PR05MB634873369A4D7A93529282A1AEBF0@DM6PR05MB6348.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
To: Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.80.23.2.2)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/xwjYImxj2MFStdztyJxrhTYnCe4>
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: Wed, 13 May 2020 17:42:41 -0000

Hi Ron,

> First, can we at least agree that CRH is not SPRING, because it doesn't rely on SPRING's control plane.
> 
> Once we establish that, I can address the other points.

I don't quite know what you mean by "CRH is not SPRING".
I am trying to prod at some of the claims in draft/presentation and on the list to see if I (and hopefully others) gain a better understanding of what CRH is and what problems it's meant to solve.

E.g the spring charter says:
"The SPRING WG defines procedures that allow a node to steer a packet
through an SR Policy instantiated as an ordered list of instructions
called segments and without the need for per-path state information to
be held at transit nodes."


Which I guess CRH also has with it's forwarding methods?
(that said you could probably do SR policy with RH0 too within a controlled domain, so perhaps the layout of the particular RH type isn't the distinguishing factor either. ;-))

Cheers,
Ole

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email