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

Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com> Thu, 27 February 2020 23:03 UTC

Return-Path: <moore@network-heretics.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 DE5CE3A07DE for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 15:03:03 -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, HTML_MESSAGE=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=messagingengine.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 zW5TAdQ2lPel for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 15:03:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from wout4-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout4-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.20]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C8A063A07B9 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 15:03:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from compute5.internal (compute5.nyi.internal [10.202.2.45]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFEE76AB; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 18:03:01 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute5.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 27 Feb 2020 18:03:01 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=pgYVrB gfX0vWRNY03X7oeh6/P7hsvcEaxEphxaxeTS8=; b=KI6Xwd9FWc0HO/bpCvpXWE F3a7ahF4fIujoNtR+HjBwWmAOd0vxDi2h2tE9/NVW3VCOBifvPhLssEecd6Zwa5m YBneQBVMh6cfZF41UFVneL804rQNGpxWx4F/rxW6S+LwGbccMKNV5cZALFAfG5ML S6YKeaqIb18mUY5F81pq0tsVyarX9Z50V8ic8OaUvuDcUGUwUEtPak0rmlP8ntMt hjO3+91nLZkcBNjboqDKDBJ3xFZF21tM+b3G7/x5BEQBmz76PJbzYAKFbRNPCBVq 2TRdvtSotnCm4aG0B1UT1YLF/q5rmyunH8ZCFD4j2ZRpb3DhGFeAJHe8nVmoU3Jw ==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:pEpYXhSlzgueIIFbBNNNjD1P_vL0xVsAkGfz5II8481kfTKy8ayf4w>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedugedrleejgddthecutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecunecujfgurhepuffvfhfhkffffgggjggtsegrtderre dtfeejnecuhfhrohhmpefmvghithhhucfoohhorhgvuceomhhoohhrvgesnhgvthifohhr khdqhhgvrhgvthhitghsrdgtohhmqeenucfkphepuddtkedrvddvuddrudektddrudehne cuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepmhhoohhr vgesnhgvthifohhrkhdqhhgvrhgvthhitghsrdgtohhm
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:pEpYXvA24dZCc1K96j7BWRysyGkgARge60aUnR484le1TMbVVL5Lyw> <xmx:pEpYXh3xKlyKQKt-09eCsKCuGEjQq9ljxKlYZnaOn2rxWwLS9Sr03w> <xmx:pEpYXtXAo04faYKs0yyM1qN9SvZqWaIaHF7TqNauwtMODrcVeOwJpg> <xmx:pUpYXqJJUSrihKzGQn2JoJKfeSVagGSZc54hBaHow9nrO01dr5oGNw>
Received: from [192.168.1.97] (108-221-180-15.lightspeed.knvltn.sbcglobal.net [108.221.180.15]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id ADEF73060BD1; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 18:03:00 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: [Int-area] Is IPv6 End-to-End? R.I.P. Architecture? (Fwd: Errata #5933 for RFC8200)
To: ietf@ietf.org
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>
From: Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>
Message-ID: <ae1fb347-86d6-2ca7-b1e9-1af8fe82089b@network-heretics.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2020 18:03:00 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAMm+Lwg+4xMv=EKLfvmZMCgrQz31+38Fv0bYKeJ0fTB5vbXiaw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------266BF27DD3C8007DC3A80EF5"
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/A31GvcpqQfesPjgJ9vk5m1K1S98>
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: Thu, 27 Feb 2020 23:03:11 -0000

On 2/27/20 5:26 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:

>
> IP end to end does not mean the IP address is constant end to end. It 
> never has meant that and never will. An IP address is merely a piece 
> of data that allows a packet to reach its destination. There is no 
> reason to insist on it remaining constant along the path.

I emphatically disagree in every possible way.

Keith