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 04:36 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 9A58F3A0F26; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 20:36:36 -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 e-YUKMWhFgQG; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 20:36:35 -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 61FB43A0F23; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 20:36:35 -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=PR1ZtLBm2zMPgviRmDlJN5pBY6aKAkOCIYJHPPlwtsA=; b=7UI1fe/5ZXGY8SJhkO3l6tToo u/nGxUeOe2C/KNOwOkgDkiU+fO4umVx1tgYvF7fNYm2XULH7koSwqCrdib8Md4R7BuaMoKB9Jwf/Q AuGO+oUAUf604D38/ge0mSanTDsfGau+esKkTX1XLRHHnIB/CBGN0BJ5czX6zRsFOhosrhTHPT0GD 2vKTob7m8o/nxKrO3l1TxptjeQ+0iODBvyNSJrlKhFaZXD2mczixgKWTvxEUul/Ijw8a/tHb3gwrE +PGlPdoiXI4LyvMWk4Tg6aM4dW6xINOUVUjeXJvgotX9hfrgufsOB2/x5WV7CJIkrQIX9vGSH19hf nXcY9YYeg==;
Received: from cpe-172-250-225-198.socal.res.rr.com ([172.250.225.198]:58094 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 1j7XO2-002kXW-Rf; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 23:36:35 -0500
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_68867991-103B-4979-B9D7-D15C30F39E65"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
From: Joseph Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMm+LwjYeSTro_TJujtRPDfVKtVMg7JbDL6A5V3Tj447c2E7nA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2020 20:36:29 -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 Mailing List <ietf@ietf.org>
Message-Id: <74763844-FA56-43DC-981E-E366E2C24758@strayalpha.com>
References: <876c9105-3da4-e614-2db0-bea025b54663@si6networks.com> <7749f91f-03f1-cc14-bae8-5fe68c88879f@si6networks.com> <CALx6S36wN7VEi_rxLC1ETcTvkGaPhs20KhQrGWAGGTrCL5OT+g@mail.gmail.com> <CAMm+Lwg+4xMv=EKLfvmZMCgrQz31+38Fv0bYKeJ0fTB5vbXiaw@mail.gmail.com> <8d3e7b714666db00e0c05a2e06959da6@strayalpha.com> <CAMm+LwjYeSTro_TJujtRPDfVKtVMg7JbDL6A5V3Tj447c2E7nA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>
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/ufGdFCtEGPbf3jjHpa6x--9-yb8>
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 04:36:37 -0000


> On Feb 27, 2020, at 4:21 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com> wrote:
> 
>> IP end to end does not mean the IP address is constant end to end. It never has meant that and never will.
>  
> Actually, that's the only thing it ever meant and always will. When addresses change, *by definition*, the*ends* change (and yes, that's what NATs do - they create end-to-end CONTENT transfer over separate end-to-end Internets).
> 
> By whose definition? Not by mine.

I’d start with RFCs 791 and 1122, but there’s also the pseudo header in RFC 793, to be very specific.

> TCP and TLS give me a reliable end-to-end stream. The fact that the IP address is exposed is merely an unfortunate defect in the legacy APIs. 
> 
> As the application layer designer, I am the customer here. I do not care about the IP address.

Hmmm. By what value do you call  TCP endpoint?

You must have magic sockets that don’t actually refer to IP addresses.

Joe