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

"" <> Wed, 27 May 2020 06:03 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4F133A0811 for <>; Tue, 26 May 2020 23:03:10 -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, HTML_MESSAGE=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 ymIj_PeibS6a for <>; Tue, 26 May 2020 23:03:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65B2A3A080E for <>; Tue, 26 May 2020 23:03:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from clientip- (unknown []) by (HERMES) with SMTP id 30EC72800CA; Wed, 27 May 2020 14:02:41 +0800 (CST)
Received: from ([]) by App0024 with ESMTP id 0671f2fb7e8f46e8b6b76d9c5d20a813 for; Wed May 27 14:02:52 2020
X-Transaction-ID: 0671f2fb7e8f46e8b6b76d9c5d20a813
X-filter-score: filter<0>
X-MEDUSA-Status: 0
Date: Wed, 27 May 2020 14:02:40 +0800
From: "" <>
To: bob.hinden <>, "6man WG" <>
Subject: Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing Header (CRH)"
References: <>, <009601d63282$16625a50$43270ef0$@com>
X-Priority: 3
X-Has-Attach: no
X-Mailer: Foxmail[cn]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_001_NextPart866366168063_=----"
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: Wed, 27 May 2020 06:03:11 -0000

After reviewing the CRH documents, I don't think it is the right time to adopt CRH.
Our company has implementated SRv6 field trial in several provinces, so we are very concerned about the compatiblity of any new compressed header approach. We don't expect multiple compressed header standards in the future. Up to now, I haven't found any compatiblity of CRH with SRv6, so I don't support to adopt it now. Accordingly, we prefer to choose new approach which has consider the compatiblity with SRv6, such as G-SRv6, although it needs further improvement. 
Therefore, we think this is not a good time to adopt a specific solution right now, we should discuss the requirements and solutions before adoption any one solution.

Best regards
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
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
Administrative Requests: