Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal

Fernando Gont <> Sun, 24 January 2021 05:19 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31BAE3A0AF8 for <>; Sat, 23 Jan 2021 21:19:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.15
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id k_uSPXTqqUAS for <>; Sat, 23 Jan 2021 21:18:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:67c:27e4::14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A4A663A0AEC for <>; 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 (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 73906283A5A; Sun, 24 Jan 2021 05:18:43 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal
To: Joe Touch <>
Cc: Phillip Hallam-Baker <>, IETF Discussion Mailing List <>
References: <> <>
From: Fernando Gont <>
Message-ID: <>
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: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-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 <> wrote:
>> On 23/1/21 14:12, Joe Touch wrote:
>>>>> On Jan 22, 2021, at 11:37 PM, Fernando Gont <> 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
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492