Re: IETF Last Call conclusion for draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis-08

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 31/03/2017 02:11, Jeff Tantsura wrote:
> Brian,
> 
> if I understand you correctly: 
> 
> If properly worded (improved) draft-voyer explicitly states – the intention is to change the 2460(bis) behavior and to allow header insertion within a controlled domain, and given there’s a valid justification of why encap wouldn’t’ meet the need, you wouldn’t oppose? 

No, I wouldn't. I might even help; hence my suggested tweak to 2460bis. Note that the tricky bit (in reality and in the text) is a crisp definition of what the domain boundary is and what happens when packets with inserted headers accidentally escape. We did hit that difficulty when trying (and failing) to define local-use rules for stateful use of the flow label. But we were trying to do that in a generic document (in effect, an extension of RFC2460) and failed for essentially the same reasons that led Suresh to his decision on 2460bis.

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6man-flow-3697bis-01 shows some remnants of that attempt.

    Brian


> 
> Thanks! 
> 
> Cheers,
> Jeff
> 
> On 3/30/17, 07:44, "ietf on behalf of Brian E Carpenter" <[e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>     On 30/03/2017 15:59, Leddy, John wrote:
>     
>     ...
>     > If this insert/delete of an SRH is prematurely prohibited;  What is a recommended solution to the Real World problem above.  Not use case, we are implementing.
>     > 
>     > Again; I’m worried we are eliminating a tool that may prove very helpful, preclude its use in future IETF work and shutdown a path for Innovation in Networking,
>     
>     I've tried to say this before but I'm not sure people are getting it: 
>     
>     RFC2460bis, if approved as is, draws a line in the sand *for interoperability across the whole Internet*. There are reasons for this - PMTUD in any form, any future replacement for the unsuccessful IPsec/AH, and all the problems of deploying extension headers that are understood by some nodes and not by others. 
>     
>     There is no reason why a subsequent standards-track document cannot allow header insertion (and removal) within finite domains where the above issues do not apply. In fact, an improved version of draft-voyer-6man-extension-header-insertion-00 could become exactly that.
>     
>     There doesn't need to be a tussle here. 
>     
>        Brian Carpenter
>     
>     
> 
> 
>