Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Sun, 24 January 2021 05:19 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 31BAE3A0AF8 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 23 Jan 2021 21:19:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.15
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.15 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.262, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, T_SPF_TEMPERROR=0.01, 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 k_uSPXTqqUAS for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 23 Jan 2021 21:18:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fgont.go6lab.si (fgont.go6lab.si [IPv6:2001:67c:27e4::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 A4A663A0AEC for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 23 Jan 2021 21:18:48 -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 73906283A5A; Sun, 24 Jan 2021 05:18:43 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal
To: Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
Cc: Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>, IETF Discussion Mailing List <ietf@ietf.org>
References: <85fca9a5-14f3-c875-c69a-33cb565ac508@si6networks.com> <454D230B-437B-4DEE-9766-4246E6BB4575@strayalpha.com>
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Message-ID: <d99a1264-d700-37c4-4309-e90de823baef@si6networks.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2021 02:18:35 -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: <454D230B-437B-4DEE-9766-4246E6BB4575@strayalpha.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/WO8PSZj0YBHnDdhpF1__qkwDuEQ>
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 05:19:03 -0000

On 24/1/21 01:52, Joe Touch wrote:
> 
>> On Jan 23, 2021, at 8:37 PM, Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 23/1/21 14:12, Joe Touch wrote:
>>>>> On Jan 22, 2021, at 11:37 PM, Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> One *internet-draft* certainly doesn't undermine E2E. However, I guess
>>>> that an *RFC* published as a "Proposed Standard" probably does (undermine) E2E?
>>> Not when it doesn’t update the hundreds of other standards that don’t.
>>
>> It doesn't formally update them, true. But it is a de-facto update: behavior that goes against such other standards has been approved as PS.
> 
> There is no such thing as de facto updates.

defacto update = a document that is doing something that goes against 
existing specs and documents. It fails to formally update existing 
documents, as well as having existing "Update" tags -- still, it changes 
the assumtions and behaviors of said specs.

(Do I like that? -- Of course not)


> You’re confusing the “let a thousand flowers bloom” approach with a change in architecture.

"Let a thousand flowers bloom" would possible for *internet-drafts*, 
*or* for standards that can exist without harming harming each other.
When the "mangling EHs on the fly" flower blooms, the IPv6 flower fades.

I could ask the question: can IPv6 routers remove EHs on the fly?
The IPv6 architecture implies that it doesn't. But there's a PS (not 
just Info or Experimental) about that -- so yes, they do.

The whole point of having an architecture is that it guides the 
development of specs. When it doesn't, the "architecture" is just words 
on paper.

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