Do we really need to add state into each packet ...

[Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>]

Dear 6man WG,

In the light of the discussion on effectively steering packets via non
routing computed paths there seems to be some sort of the umbrella
assumption that we must add that information into each packet.

For example in CRH proposal we read:

   The CRH allows IPv6 source nodes to specify the path that a packet
   takes to its destination.

So let's me just bring up a reference to the document I wrote last year which
illustrates that without putting any extra extension headers into each packet
it can be easily steered within a controlled domain.

It also does not need to define any new data plane extensions and for control
plane it can use controller driven or existing protocol extensions
(BGP) to distribute
local mapping information.

Note also that those mappings are not per flow but large aggregated mappings.

If folks are analyzing should we adopt CRH as "IPv6 friendly" I would say that
nothing is more friendly then absolutely no change to the data plane.

Ref:

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-raszuk-teas-ip-te-np-00
Thx a lot,

Robert.