Re: [arch-d] [Int-area] Is IPv6 End-to-End? R.I.P. Architecture? (Fwd: Errata #5933 for RFC8200)

Joseph Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> Fri, 28 February 2020 04:27 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@strayalpha.com>
X-Original-To: architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A86B23A0F0D; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 20:27:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.318
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.318 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=strayalpha.com
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 O4URZ-oiYPxB; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 20:27:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from server217-3.web-hosting.com (server217-3.web-hosting.com [198.54.115.226]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5C0883A0F05; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 20:27:50 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=strayalpha.com; s=default; h=To:References:Message-Id:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To: From:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=uON4vVKPTmcUjPnffLBu6Q2ku/JHncwob414F81reZY=; b=nh51bqhcv1g+OjGQq/wdQMY/O nADKyOpgBvsPgubNf3i3eLWGNjeSYBS2CkidBieo5oF3147KOg6Pc82KjIXwB3oSqTImzcId0woqD EhlgANF/UEw5ekTvVCSKTb7FNSG+tL2vZmYPTDEGdGVKN+FKHB7BDCrZhgYKWwMjOdCsBg8iYGiZe MJKjNI9Uyh6GMnSGOtqW2HlPgTE5B+9PpPZk6/b/hRGfaPnOx3LTlU1WsawDQGHFaQU8vuOcIQ6zV 9uoDtiKaaheufHpQN5ezsf2hZ8CZljp5uny1f6HmGjV/w+Bq7ZiI+JBPuU4lGSEGe+5dL3bnkIi2i S9txcQvMw==;
Received: from cpe-172-250-225-198.socal.res.rr.com ([172.250.225.198]:58079 helo=[192.168.1.10]) by server217.web-hosting.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <touch@strayalpha.com>) id 1j7XFZ-002cDf-Ct; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 23:27:49 -0500
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_44D2FFE2-CADD-4064-B57D-3C5C8A131047"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
From: Joseph Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
In-Reply-To: <7A8582D7-1647-41EC-808D-46C380565014@isc.org>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2020 20:27:44 -0800
Cc: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>, Internet Architecture Board <iab@iab.org>, architecture-discuss@iab.org, Internet Area <int-area@ietf.org>, IETF-Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
Message-Id: <EF7D2121-1BA5-4FF6-9FA4-BD9EF3B307D1@strayalpha.com>
References: <876c9105-3da4-e614-2db0-bea025b54663@si6networks.com> <7749f91f-03f1-cc14-bae8-5fe68c88879f@si6networks.com> <CALx6S36wN7VEi_rxLC1ETcTvkGaPhs20KhQrGWAGGTrCL5OT+g@mail.gmail.com> <d41a94f5ede994b9e14605871f9f7140@strayalpha.com> <CALx6S34n58pD4o5wyb7CDDLTH63OxksMDxKZr6uJN+NO0kVboQ@mail.gmail.com> <7A8582D7-1647-41EC-808D-46C380565014@isc.org>
To: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - server217.web-hosting.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - iab.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - strayalpha.com
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: server217.web-hosting.com: authenticated_id: touch@strayalpha.com
X-Authenticated-Sender: server217.web-hosting.com: touch@strayalpha.com
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
X-From-Rewrite: unmodified, already matched
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/architecture-discuss/HOS92QCOt6FCeUaDs3Fk9zkboS4>
Subject: Re: [arch-d] [Int-area] Is IPv6 End-to-End? R.I.P. Architecture? (Fwd: Errata #5933 for RFC8200)
X-BeenThere: architecture-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: open discussion forum for long/wide-range architectural issues <architecture-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/architecture-discuss>, <mailto:architecture-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/architecture-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:architecture-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:architecture-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss>, <mailto:architecture-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2020 04:27:52 -0000


> On Feb 27, 2020, at 3:54 PM, Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> wrote:
> ...
> Encapsulation doesn’t make the packet larger.

Not strictly; it does make the unit of transfer larger. It’s the tunnel ingress’s job to adapt to that, e.g., using source fragmentation at the ingress.

> It is no different to
> talking a packet from a ethernet and pushing it out a PPP link.  The
> Enclosing headers differ in sizes but the IPv6 packet remains the
> same size.

We’re talking about the unit of transfer - which does get larger….

> 
> The difference with encapsulation, from the non encapsulation cases, is
> that PTBs are sent to the encapsulating node which has to synthesis a
> PTB to the original (as far as the encapsulating node is concerned)

No, it really doesn’t. I don’t expect to chop packets into 48 byte units just to go over an ATM “hop” in an IP path. The only party who needs to know about the PTB of a tunnel transit is the tunnel ingress. Again, see draft-intarea-tunnels.

Joe