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

Fernando Gont <> Sun, 24 January 2021 05:51 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7AC43A0C74 for <>; Sat, 23 Jan 2021 21:51:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.161
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.161 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.262, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id g5uqV1WsC4kn for <>; Sat, 23 Jan 2021 21:51:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C15AA3A0C6F for <>; Sat, 23 Jan 2021 21:51:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPv6:2800:810:464:2b9:3833:9808:6bb9:a1d8] (unknown [IPv6:2800:810:464:2b9:3833:9808:6bb9:a1d8]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 20C07280626; Sun, 24 Jan 2021 05:51:26 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: Re: e2e [was: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal]
To: Brian E Carpenter <>, Joseph Touch <>
Cc: Phillip Hallam-Baker <>, IETF Discussion Mailing List <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Fernando Gont <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2021 02:51:20 -0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2021 05:51:43 -0000

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...

Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492