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

刘毅松 <> Tue, 26 May 2020 04:51 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 241023A0997 for <>; Mon, 25 May 2020 21:51:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sCRdDoPrlTUN for <>; Mon, 25 May 2020 21:51:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF7533A09A9 for <>; Mon, 25 May 2020 21:51:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (unknown[]) by rmmx-syy-dmz-app08-12008 (RichMail) with SMTP id 2ee85ecca044d1c-db69a; Tue, 26 May 2020 12:51:16 +0800 (CST)
X-RM-TRANSID: 2ee85ecca044d1c-db69a
X-RM-TagInfo: emlType=0
X-RM-SPAM-FLAG: 00000000
Received: from LAPTOP5GS3BPC8 (unknown[]) by rmsmtp-syy-appsvr03-12003 (RichMail) with SMTP id 2ee35ecca043603-8480b; Tue, 26 May 2020 12:51:16 +0800 (CST)
X-RM-TRANSID: 2ee35ecca043603-8480b
From: =?gb2312?B?wfXS48vJ?= <>
To: "'Bob Hinden'" <>, "'IPv6 List'" <>
Subject: Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing Header (CRH)"
Date: Tue, 26 May 2020 12:51:20 +0800
Message-ID: <056a01d63319$4d5a70a0$e80f51e0$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AdYy/FgiHdb/TA9TRAOBVZ5xERCxZw==
Content-Language: zh-cn
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 May 2020 04:51:47 -0000

Hi 6man WG,

I do not support the adoption.

For CRH based solution, the VPN context is encoded in a Destination Option
header located after the CRH. At the egress PE, the packet arrives with both
CRH and Destination Option headers. The egress PE will need to process TLVs
in DOH, which is not hardware efficient. The same applies to Ingress PE that
need to encapsulate topological instructions in CRH and service instructions
in DOH.

I think there is no need for defining a new data-plane (CRH) apparently more

I hope the WG could consider this point in the adoption call.


发件人: ipv6 <> 代表 Bob Hinden
发送时间: 2020年5月16日 06:14
收件人: IPv6 List <>
抄送: Bob Hinden <>
主题: 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

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.

Bob and Ole