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

Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com> Sat, 29 February 2020 00:29 UTC

Return-Path: <hallam@gmail.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 08E253A07AB for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Feb 2020 16:29:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.395
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.395 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 bg-QXh_cbJEV for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Feb 2020 16:29:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ot1-f47.google.com (mail-ot1-f47.google.com [209.85.210.47]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3621A3A07AA for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 28 Feb 2020 16:29:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ot1-f47.google.com with SMTP id r16so4337252otd.2 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 28 Feb 2020 16:29:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=mz3QM1MFKHWYGJE+5+qNDnmmMlkNM4P72Bs1ra5mPKs=; b=mJeL29PsZUUoK4OW7i7d68jFbLFpLvHggwmoaP9ZDjJA1tK2SgkR2xLZQJ0yijWMJs B93QPenI5aj08STTXRH7nZk48VpJizrL7WakVMBoOMHTWB4/Gt1k3rTM73FdPgZEQd6U +UOpnrCuPYh3q/hyH2RKAjWMl38/55btJp9swTRF2bhBOrFVb5EKka5Skk3GAFmZMLVT Ae1COXX4GBK4rKPbymGw/yoQ94EYnkfRtA8Ilca2bIIhjA7nBnOFGzpSZWUa8qEWHt+7 Eu4N3ehl3hCP1Vzt5YbMdprVkTgxpgQdAZ91CBk2T8aceZyqXFMGgExZnrZqZ1qTXU9W 6zZA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAW8xA7hgNk2gdsTm8rzuh0wxlAp0r8Z3ckQDOyxXfyTZd1unc8/ Q4E+R25znFYXDc9PuSCNNlnhpzcCzbOaXE62q6M=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqy/XVkji7uGUYEgiG4nTO5DZ6Z8DzTUsM9TctcgCbepcG0avY6xJFw+54BFW6eqC6wJDaxOwHWsoJrmR6II5eM=
X-Received: by 2002:a9d:7305:: with SMTP id e5mr5125367otk.64.1582936184442; Fri, 28 Feb 2020 16:29:44 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <876c9105-3da4-e614-2db0-bea025b54663@si6networks.com> <7749f91f-03f1-cc14-bae8-5fe68c88879f@si6networks.com> <CALx6S36wN7VEi_rxLC1ETcTvkGaPhs20KhQrGWAGGTrCL5OT+g@mail.gmail.com> <8d3e7b714666db00e0c05a2e06959da6@strayalpha.com> <CAMm+LwjYeSTro_TJujtRPDfVKtVMg7JbDL6A5V3Tj447c2E7nA@mail.gmail.com> <74763844-FA56-43DC-981E-E366E2C24758@strayalpha.com> <CAMm+LwjeWXUmOEzvbUhrG1H8OMqG9EhcF3TzdZBA61LnySSPqw@mail.gmail.com> <CAMm+LwjxxTQmJMPxydMGC5GByHu2qkbd_+W1and=xOMhq2RV6g@mail.gmail.com> <ce5ac3bd-c5e3-28a5-e4ec-b7c2432783f0@network-heretics.com> <CAMm+LwjpOd5AB0_HYSYA7Ma-WeBhAv_XL9KLP6jiMSGqv9a5eQ@mail.gmail.com> <5C60C807CE70E1ECC1BAB1D1@PSB>
In-Reply-To: <5C60C807CE70E1ECC1BAB1D1@PSB>
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2020 19:29:32 -0500
Message-ID: <CAMm+Lwju-ygMaoiVE3GmKp_fdEGJwcnnb84udR-H-6+NyNzO7w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [arch-d] [Int-area] Is IPv6 End-to-End? R.I.P. Architecture? (Fwd: Errata #5933 for RFC8200)
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
Cc: Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>, IETF Discussion Mailing List <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000f9d28c059fac0cca"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/COfrR08tZ8Q_VmFS1jaG8OLFvOs>
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: Sat, 29 Feb 2020 00:29:48 -0000

On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 5:12 PM John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> wrote:

> I've been trying to stay out of this, but...
>   Keith's comment about practices that might have many
> advantages but that also result in single points of failure may
> be a particularly relevant example.
>
>
As you both know, we designed the DNS so that it is not a single point of
failure, there is the option for redundancy.

Rail at the DNS as a single point of failure if you like. But it isn't and
I don't think people are going to start using IP addresses.

And moreover, since the vast majority of applications people decided to go
for HTTP rather than TCP as our transport protocol in recent years, and we
have multiple hosts on the same IP address, it is no longer possible to
connect to most Internet resources by IP address. And the same is true of
SMTP.