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

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Sun, 24 January 2021 05:51 UTC

Return-Path: <fgont@si6networks.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7AC43A0C74 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 23 Jan 2021 21:51:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.161
X-Spam-Level:
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 mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id g5uqV1WsC4kn for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 23 Jan 2021 21:51:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fgont.go6lab.si (fgont.go6lab.si [91.239.96.14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C15AA3A0C6F for <ietf@ietf.org>; 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 fgont.go6lab.si (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 <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, Joseph Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
Cc: Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>, IETF Discussion Mailing List <ietf@ietf.org>
References: <CAMm+LwjNiE0P7RAVqzKMypNbh3=9BeqiWn_hGv3E=zX7-YmSXQ@mail.gmail.com> <72F969A9-AF94-47B6-B48C-B3CD4D9A7C72@strayalpha.com> <7cc9e38c-5a00-ec59-a8c2-10503cc40d50@si6networks.com> <CB1A6DF0-8CDD-495D-9F7B-80BF72F08C1E@strayalpha.com> <53d7190a-3e1f-66b3-0574-8e8fbb3a7a5e@si6networks.com> <6d2f587f-6b8a-dfe0-04cd-cc66fcdf44dd@gmail.com>
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Message-ID: <969f1a24-1fec-a33b-b82b-f145eaa130e9@si6networks.com>
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: <6d2f587f-6b8a-dfe0-04cd-cc66fcdf44dd@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/3avlTfjy0nZT-Iv2tVbhogj7oeE>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=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...

Regards,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492