Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH

John, Draft under the adoption call as well as its author sent 10s if not more messages stating that CRH-SIDs are **locally significant*. * Now after few discussions about scaling aspects of such design choice you are suddenly stating: *" one exemplary solution to your objection is to make use o

Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH

8 May 2020 20:41 To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) ; Joel M. Halpern Cc: rtg-...@ietf.org; spring@ietf.org; 6man <6...@ietf.org> Subject: RE: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH Ketan, Neither of these forwarding methods are unique to SR.. In Section 3.1 of RFC 79

Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH

before the horse in this case. Thanks, Ketan From: Gyan Mishra Sent: 28 May 2020 20:27 To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) Cc: 6man <6...@ietf.org>; Joel M. Halpern ; Ron Bonica ; rtg-...@ietf.org; spring@ietf.org Subject: Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH

Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH

From:* Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) > *Sent:* Thursday, May 28, 2020 7:46 AM > *To:* Ron Bonica ; Joel M. Halpern < > j...@joelhalpern.com> > *Cc:* rtg-...@ietf.org; spring@ietf.org; 6man <6...@ietf.org> > *Subject:* RE: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re

Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH

John, On 29/05/2020 16:56, John Scudder wrote: Peter, On May 29, 2020, at 10:36 AM, Peter Psenak > wrote: well, advertising the local CRH identifier for every node and adjacency in the network from every other node is clearly a no-go from the IGP perspective. (Of c

Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH

Peter, On May 29, 2020, at 10:36 AM, Peter Psenak mailto:ppse...@cisco.com>> wrote: well, advertising the local CRH identifier for every node and adjacency in the network from every other node is clearly a no-go from the IGP perspective. (Of course this objection only applies to the final (“dis

Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH

John, On 29/05/2020 16:33, John Scudder wrote: On May 29, 2020, at 10:28 AM, Peter Psenak > wrote: how do nodes in the network learn about the local CRH identifier a node X allocated for a prefix residing on node Y? This is also answered in section 4, AFAICT: Th

Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH

On May 29, 2020, at 10:28 AM, Peter Psenak mailto:ppse...@cisco.com>> wrote: how do nodes in the network learn about the local CRH identifier a node X allocated for a prefix residing on node Y? This is also answered in section 4, AFAICT: The CRH-FIB can be populated: o By an operator,

Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH

John, On 29/05/2020 16:12, John Scudder wrote: [long list of individual email addresses trimmed from cc, mailing lists left] Peter, On May 29, 2020, at 5:11 AM, Peter Psenak > wrote: if CRH-SIDs are of local significance how is the loose source ro

Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH

[long list of individual email addresses trimmed from cc, mailing lists left] Peter, On May 29, 2020, at 5:11 AM, Peter Psenak mailto:ppsenak=40cisco@dmarc.ietf.org>> wrote: if CRH-SIDs are of local significance how is the loose source routing going to be supported? By having the locally-

Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH

.@juniper.net>>; Joel M. > Halpern mailto:j...@joelhalpern.com>> > > *Cc:* rtg-...@ietf.org <mailto:rtg-...@ietf.org>; spring@ietf.org > <mailto:spring@ietf.org>; 6man <6...@ietf.org <mailto:6...@ietf.org>>

Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH

to:rbon...@juniper.net>>; Joel M. Halpern mailto:j...@joelhalpern.com>> > *Cc:* rtg-...@ietf.org <mailto:rtg-...@ietf.org>; spring@ietf.org <mailto:spring@ietf.org>; 6man <6...@ietf.org <mailto:6...@ietf.org>> > *Subject:* RE: [spring] CRH

Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH

NSB - CN/Shanghai) > > *Sent:* Thursday, May 28, 2020 10:35 AM > > *To:* Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) ; Ron Bonica > > ; Joel M. Halpern > > *Cc:* rtg-...@ietf.org; spring@ietf.org; 6man <6...@ietf.org> > > *Subject:* RE: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use

Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH

; spring@ietf.org; 6man <6...@ietf.org> *Subject:* RE: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH *[External Email. Be cautious of content]* Hi Ron, After reading through many mails related to CRH in list, I found all CRH-SIDs (allocated to prefix-sid and Adj-sidforw

Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH

spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH [External Email. Be cautious of content] Hi Ron, After reading through many mails related to CRH in list, I found all CRH-SIDs (allocated to prefix-sid and Adj-sid) are of local significance in fact, its operation actually is no

Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH

. Ron Juniper Business Use Only From: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2020 7:46 AM To: Ron Bonica ; Joel M. Halpern Cc: rtg-...@ietf.org; spring@ietf.org; 6man <6...@ietf.org> Subject: RE: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH [Ex

Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH

Regards > Ketan > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Ron Bonica > > Sent: 25 May 2020 21:14 > > To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) ; Joel M. Halpern < > j...@joelhalpern.com> > > Cc: rtg-...@ietf.org; spring@ietf.org; 6man <6...@ietf.org> > > Su

Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH

org> Subject: RE: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH Hi Ron, Some of the operators may not care about the SR name, but it is clear to me that the proposal in the CRH draft is a subset of Segment Routing (i.e. a reduced portion of Spring Architecture) tha

Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH

On 28/5/20 08:46, Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) wrote: [...] Some of the operators may not care about the SR name, but it is clear to me that the proposal in the CRH draft is a subset of Segment Routing (i.e. a reduced portion of Spring Architecture) I find it kind of amusing when folks suggest

Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH

n.com>> Cc: rtg-...@ietf.org<mailto:rtg-...@ietf.org>; spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org>; 6man <6...@ietf.org<mailto:6...@ietf.org>> Subject: RE: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH Ketan, It would not be fair to say that th

Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH

18:51 To: "otr...@employees.org" , Sander Steffann Cc: "rtg-...@ietf.org" , "spring@ietf.org" , 6man <6...@ietf.org>, "Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)" , Robert Raszuk Subject: Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH Ole, When comm

Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH

at 18:51 To: "otr...@employees.org" , Sander Steffann Cc: "rtg-...@ietf.org" , "spring@ietf.org" , 6man <6...@ietf.org>, "Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)" , Robert Raszuk Subject: Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in

Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH

org>; rtg-...@ietf.org; Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) Subject: Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH [External Email. Be cautious of content] > On 25 May 2020, at 17:49, Ron Bonica wrote: > > Ole, > > When commenting on list, could you indicate w

Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH

om: otr...@employees.org > Sent: Monday, May 25, 2020 6:31 AM > To: Sander Steffann > Cc: Robert Raszuk ; Ron Bonica ; > spring@ietf.org; 6man <6...@ietf.org>; rtg-...@ietf.org; Ketan Talaulikar > (ketant) > Subject: Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - R

Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH

Hi Ron, > It would be fair to say that these operators "wish to deploy IPv6 Traffic > Engineering". Some of these operators don't care about SR. Some are > actively averse to SRv6. All they want is a Routing header. > How about all of the above minus need for new routing header and zero overhe

Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH

; 6man <6...@ietf.org>; rtg-...@ietf.org; Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) Subject: Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH [External Email. Be cautious of content] Sander, >> Your below list looks like custom made set of RFP requirements to eliminate >>

Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH

Joel M. Halpern Cc: rtg-...@ietf.org; spring@ietf.org; 6man <6...@ietf.org> Subject: RE: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH [External Email. Be cautious of content] Hi Ron, Thanks for that clarification. I note that you are not anymore saying "Ar

Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH

Hi, > That CRH is simple is a bit like claiming that MPLS is simple just because > the header has few fields. > I think you would be hard pressed to substantiate that any solution here is > particularly simpler than any other. But you are welcome to try. As a user I usually find: Fewer fields -

Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH

Sander, >> Your below list looks like custom made set of RFP requirements to eliminate >> any other vendor or any other solution to solve the problem at hand rather >> then rational list of requirements. > > My main customer (an ISP in NL) would fit exactly in the list that Ron sent. > They wa

Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH

Hi Robert, > Your below list looks like custom made set of RFP requirements to eliminate > any other vendor or any other solution to solve the problem at hand rather > then rational list of requirements. My main customer (an ISP in NL) would fit exactly in the list that Ron sent. They want a s

Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH

ca-6man-comp-rtg-hdr? Thanks, Ketan -Original Message- From: Ron Bonica Sent: 25 May 2020 09:03 To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) ; Joel M. Halpern Cc: rtg-...@ietf.org; spring@ietf.org; 6man <6...@ietf.org> Subject: RE: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH

Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH

Hi Ron, Your below list looks like custom made set of RFP requirements to eliminate any other vendor or any other solution to solve the problem at hand rather then rational list of requirements. Btw please observe that most if not all of the below "Does not want" are optional in any solution. If

Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH

Of Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2020 1:42 AM To: Joel M. Halpern Cc: rtg-...@ietf.org; spring@ietf.org; 6man <6...@ietf.org> Subject: RE: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH [SNIP] I am looking for explanation of the "other ways&qu

Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH

likar (ketant) Cc: Joel M. Halpern ; rtg-...@ietf.org; spring@ietf.org; 6man <6...@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 10:21 PM Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) wrote: > > Hi Joel, > > I'll point you to

Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH

essage- From: Joel M. Halpern Sent: 22 May 2020 20:06 To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) Cc: spring@ietf.org; 6man <6...@ietf.org>; rtg-...@ietf.org Subject: Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH None of those documents drive the need for SRv6.Even

Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH

eters required, etc.) before we start > designing tyres for it. > > Thanks, > Ketan > > -Original Message- > From: Joel M. Halpern > Sent: 22 May 2020 10:02 > To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) > Cc: spring@ietf.org; 6man <6...@ietf.org>; rtg-...@ietf.org > Su

Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH

: rtg-...@ietf.org; spring@ietf.org; 6man <6...@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH None of those documents drive the need for SRv6.Even the problem statement doesn't really geet us there. More importantly, SRH does not fully

Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH

To: Bob Hinden Cc: spring@ietf.org; 6man <6...@ietf.org>; Robert Raszuk ; rtg-...@ietf.org Subject: RE: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH Hi Bob, Perhaps I will try to make my case to you (and everyone else here) … one last time. This is how I'

Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH

Why the rush? I close my arguments. Thanks, Ketan -Original Message- From: Bob Hinden Sent: 22 May 2020 09:03 To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) Cc: Bob Hinden ; Brian Carpenter ; Ron Bonica ; Chengli (Cheng Li) ; Zafar Ali (zali) ; Robert Raszuk ; spring@ietf.org; 6man <6...@ietf.org>

Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH

On 22/5/20 02:20, Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) wrote: Hi Joel, I'll point you to RFC7855, RFC8355 and RFC8402 that cover both the data-planes for Spring. Then the RFC8354 which is focussed on SRv6. All this body of work along with a whole lot of discussion and brainstorming happening in the Sprin

Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH

) ; Joel M. Halpern Cc: rtg-...@ietf.org; spring@ietf.org; 6man <6...@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH Actually Ketan, As an operator – I am looking for the tyre – I want the building block – because it allows me to both use wh

Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH

. Thanks Andrew From: ipv6 On Behalf Of Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) Sent: Friday, 22 May 2020 08:24 To: Joel M. Halpern Cc: rtg-...@ietf.org; spring@ietf.org; 6man <6...@ietf.org> Subject: RE: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH I am thinking that the operators

Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH

<6...@ietf.org>; rtg-...@ietf.org Subject: Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH Ketan, I am trying to figure out which documents you think were adopted and approved elsewhere to drive the 6man work on SRH. I did find RFC 8354, which was a use case. It is n

Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH

; Sent: 22 May 2020 09:03 > To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) > Cc: Bob Hinden ; Brian Carpenter > ; Ron Bonica ; > Chengli (Cheng Li) ; Zafar Ali (zali) > ; Robert Raszuk ; spring@ietf.org; > 6man <6...@ietf.org> > Subject: Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case -

Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH

an -Original Message- From: Bob Hinden Sent: 22 May 2020 09:03 To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) Cc: Bob Hinden ; Brian Carpenter ; Ron Bonica ; Chengli (Cheng Li) ; Zafar Ali (zali) ; Robert Raszuk ; spring@ietf.org; 6man <6...@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SP

Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH

Carpenter ; Ron Bonica ; Chengli (Cheng Li) ; Zafar Ali (zali) ; Robert Raszuk ; spring@ietf.org; 6man <6...@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH Ketan, > On May 21, 2020, at 8:12 PM, Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) > mailto:ketant=4

Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH

Ketan, > On May 21, 2020, at 8:12 PM, Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) > wrote: > > Hi Brian, > > Please see my previous response to your comments. > > My argument is not legalistic. I am not as experience in IETF work as you and > Bob are. But what I understand is that the reason why we have these

Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH

Hi Brian, Please see my previous response to your comments. My argument is not legalistic. I am not as experience in IETF work as you and Bob are. But what I understand is that the reason why we have these "legal" process of charters and BoF is to enable a proper technical discussion with the

Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH

On 22-May-20 03:35, Zafar Ali (zali) wrote: > There is a clear need for documenting a genuine use-case & architecture for > CRH beyond SPRING, before adoption. Why? We are only deciding whether to pass editorial control of the draft to the WG. If the WG wants to add text about the use cases

Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH

On 22-May-20 05:26, Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) wrote: ...> It is the 6man charter that precludes it from defining a new Source Routing solution.. > “It is not chartered to develop major changes or additions to the IPv6 > specifications.” If this addition was major, that would be true. But adding

Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH

Hi Ron, It is the 6man charter that precludes it from defining a new Source Routing solution. "It is not chartered to develop major changes or additions to the IPv6 specifications." The RH work done in 6man (not ipng or ipv6) has been based on requirements from other WGs where those solutions

Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH

Cheng, Are you assuming that the SPRING charter precludes 6man from ever defining another Routing header unless it originates in SPRING? After all, every IPv6 Routing header facilitates source routing.

Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH

Well, when I read the latest revision, these terms are modified to other words, but still feel similar. Also, I still see the sentence in Introduction: “ The CRH allows IPv6 source nodes to specify the path that a packet takes to its destination. “ To Ron, is it a Source Packet Routing para