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

Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com> Fri, 28 February 2020 04:08 UTC

Return-Path: <tom@herbertland.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 623533A0EDF for <architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 20:08:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=herbertland-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 5Disc7MHP0d6 for <architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 20:08:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ed1-x542.google.com (mail-ed1-x542.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::542]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BBE0D3A0EDB for <architecture-discuss@iab.org>; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 20:08:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ed1-x542.google.com with SMTP id m13so1745077edb.6 for <architecture-discuss@iab.org>; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 20:08:10 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=herbertland-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=xlrGmDiaBgRJFYtGA9l2osPh0Hd06REn3xnbZsY4Z+c=; b=pcZkwdVaGmfsMQuzkTV172aDTpItGcTSoOp2AGAcfUighyYVTGJ/EUdALR6oOsUoBP J+8eLsjNdQN6J/IDGJUk7g9Zab0HzwKpGnoso5aYApAxg0oml3p+rGVvlWkH0G4u7U8N VJkG0tBC/jM9mlvN1VP2Xn0K0fpLcg4g8NkOvHEkLBLKuzifdL8o9/jEZc/Wsj//Lxbi CubNUnRdaznLgejIrA4gvhok7gNcZUpAT40rE+ev47aIXI8U1T1/ji0/90xcg4y9ziUE lkYLNeCLoBfoRjGFeMgeQ1KCAr2ekhMBmoGjgMA2O5GWx7qU/Qppf/9UkvMH7KJvajtx eRDw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=xlrGmDiaBgRJFYtGA9l2osPh0Hd06REn3xnbZsY4Z+c=; b=iOHxNv6xN6kzXQIfGglGZbfNCiW4VsiQ16vgQwzuK4xeOLcpNNZ+eOqPS+fn5KB8yd XOIbxcqLnGbUIVUgwsPt15GcoVRJa2hwaU3IrwjkvH/Oycen6PRWoDZUQ/lWqwiJicPW l2Fyl9w7NYhW9cxge0xbCxHsQoCp27YYhHU7YKnq1unmioUD9mJ5WtUoPh6ag+HRou/4 +5nqeqdyx6leX57oSq+WzD+YL0HPn657RkgjTyTw+gCoiQR8n5S8R/o36FWfNFRQCdel ySLqxhgpKKHL+4Z7api1q+SC9HZlaeK2G1Lio1px1i1Ma2nBsmwP4mJb3WNxQkcd01QR PZ+g==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAX7wS9zgeewADs8tkFRraIlRPmkTnXkEwe8qGFNZl308XHAbp4L LT1TLELpW2GA44JtIHYY6UtKFzCqWcqUzYaBS1BRFw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqy3RH/tfT1NgHvoTnrUOwNbA9Dkyf6miwOYGFDY9HeZNf+LK08Ulcyk6YK9eVLivV3/K/EX6I2aVIItCQlIiFs=
X-Received: by 2002:aa7:d505:: with SMTP id y5mr1953223edq.370.1582862889264; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 20:08:09 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CALx6S36ChFy-6y_tnGwzs7J5nwmzvzsxAWBhTB=iro4qoVpZ7w@mail.gmail.com> <3D64B077-9478-46AF-81E4-F60691B9377E@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <3D64B077-9478-46AF-81E4-F60691B9377E@gmail.com>
From: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2020 20:07:58 -0800
Message-ID: <CALx6S34nEWeudUnfzbyHPGV97ahM61rMNC8ReUiVZ8pWFL-76A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com>
Cc: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>, Internet Area <int-area@ietf.org>, IETF <ietf@ietf.org>, architecture-discuss@iab.org, Internet Architecture Board <iab@iab.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/architecture-discuss/On2MGqRRUzXtIdWQRlJhYpIUpO0>
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 04:08:12 -0000

On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 7:39 PM Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 27, 2020, at 7:29 PM, Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com> wrote:
> >
> > To me, security, robustness, and interoperability are more important
> > than performance for end users. We
>
> You chose a 3-tuple to a 1-tuple tradeoff . There is no tradeoff. One must deliver a 4-tuple.
>
Sure, but EH insertion has not been shown to be secure, robust, or
interoperable. So this is currently is trading off three critical
requirements for just one (assuming that EH insertion is necessary for
performance which isn't even clear).

Tom


> My 2 cents,
> Dino