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

Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com> Fri, 28 February 2020 04:08 UTC

Return-Path: <tom@herbertland.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 ED3413A0EDA for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 20:08:12 -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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=herbertland-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 jpTWFBFnbjGp for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 20:08:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ed1-x541.google.com (mail-ed1-x541.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::541]) (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 CA7843A0EDE for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 20:08:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ed1-x541.google.com with SMTP id dc19so1718493edb.10 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 20:08:10 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=herbertland-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=xlrGmDiaBgRJFYtGA9l2osPh0Hd06REn3xnbZsY4Z+c=; b=pcZkwdVaGmfsMQuzkTV172aDTpItGcTSoOp2AGAcfUighyYVTGJ/EUdALR6oOsUoBP J+8eLsjNdQN6J/IDGJUk7g9Zab0HzwKpGnoso5aYApAxg0oml3p+rGVvlWkH0G4u7U8N VJkG0tBC/jM9mlvN1VP2Xn0K0fpLcg4g8NkOvHEkLBLKuzifdL8o9/jEZc/Wsj//Lxbi CubNUnRdaznLgejIrA4gvhok7gNcZUpAT40rE+ev47aIXI8U1T1/ji0/90xcg4y9ziUE lkYLNeCLoBfoRjGFeMgeQ1KCAr2ekhMBmoGjgMA2O5GWx7qU/Qppf/9UkvMH7KJvajtx eRDw==
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=xlrGmDiaBgRJFYtGA9l2osPh0Hd06REn3xnbZsY4Z+c=; b=pLjeXHwNn84Hs/eYUf3cH/UckqTPih0gHYqgy7cCAE162znzIKUDlD0LvCt1V7F42f sZLjCBG+qSqZTXzjNtDjYvFkSFD9dL3WP8xD3a0jHzZpDuzVTjTK6toWPW3coy8k3Cgo 1YvkqSAGB3edYIkqBlhbPEe1wZZqC1T73i9oNC99n1RyK02DfQmMEzFhIdKIqA1bP4NP /uJR7+2wEWsPoHarqQQasf0FgTaHvf2qgh0VJUwa7ow0Q+2fw4Vk2/GHu1AjL+ZWFVHz eDVP5JUvJnKgsQgiNox+zU4lXAudvpj3zd2iZvOYECONi5hVKzviCYZ4Mpxzf4sFRFUS TCjQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUZfrsg7zAtt8rPy6uObjywDuXsfQ23DP5lThflEFfvDSLVGo5U uTGcJ8iXjJ1TA0LRz/DwSzo4Q0YDrHWQPLg/g0pljQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqy3RH/tfT1NgHvoTnrUOwNbA9Dkyf6miwOYGFDY9HeZNf+LK08Ulcyk6YK9eVLivV3/K/EX6I2aVIItCQlIiFs=
X-Received: by 2002:aa7:d505:: with SMTP id y5mr1953223edq.370.1582862889264; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 20:08:09 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CALx6S36ChFy-6y_tnGwzs7J5nwmzvzsxAWBhTB=iro4qoVpZ7w@mail.gmail.com> <3D64B077-9478-46AF-81E4-F60691B9377E@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <3D64B077-9478-46AF-81E4-F60691B9377E@gmail.com>
From: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2020 20:07:58 -0800
Message-ID: <CALx6S34nEWeudUnfzbyHPGV97ahM61rMNC8ReUiVZ8pWFL-76A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [arch-d] [Int-area] Is IPv6 End-to-End? R.I.P. Architecture? (Fwd: Errata #5933 for RFC8200)
To: Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com>
Cc: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>, Internet Area <int-area@ietf.org>, IETF <ietf@ietf.org>, architecture-discuss@iab.org, Internet Architecture Board <iab@iab.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/E11EAiBurh50vl3ETKKsSwVFpec>
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: Fri, 28 Feb 2020 04:08:13 -0000

On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 7:39 PM Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 27, 2020, at 7:29 PM, Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com> wrote:
> >
> > To me, security, robustness, and interoperability are more important
> > than performance for end users. We
>
> You chose a 3-tuple to a 1-tuple tradeoff . There is no tradeoff. One must deliver a 4-tuple.
>
Sure, but EH insertion has not been shown to be secure, robust, or
interoperable. So this is currently is trading off three critical
requirements for just one (assuming that EH insertion is necessary for
performance which isn't even clear).

Tom


> My 2 cents,
> Dino