Re: e2e [was: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal]

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Brian,

On 23/1/21 18:47, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
[...]
>>
>> At the end of the day, I guess we cannot publish a PS that clearly
>> breaks E2E, while at the same time claim or pretend that we keep/have
>> E2E....
> 
> Much as I had concerns about draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming,
> I think we should be clear about what e2e is about. It *isn't* about
> idealised transparency or even about forbidding packet mangling.
> For example, what we said in RFC1958 is:
> "The basic argument is that, as a first principle, certain required end-
> to-end functions can only be performed correctly by the end-systems
> themselves."
> That wasn't the last word, of course: see RFC3724, for example.

Well, header removal is one of those. At least at the time of this 
writing, it breaks, at least:

* ICMPv6-based error reporting
* IPsec


[...]
> available at the final destination. But IMHO it *doesn't* tell us
> that a routing header must not be deleted by the penultimate
> hop, because it's of no value to the final destination anyway.
> 
> (Logically, it's also a no-op, because the final destination
> ignores routing headers. Go figure.)

Which gives even more the impression that we ended up screwing-up the 
architecture because folks want to use RH, and their own boxes fail to 
comply with even the most basic requirements for RH handling...

Regards,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: [e-mail]
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492