IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal

Joseph Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> Thu, 21 January 2021 17:17 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@strayalpha.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 3DD093A1304 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Jan 2021 09:17:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.319
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.319 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=strayalpha.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 Th0ReSq3OWQp for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Jan 2021 09:17:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from server217-2.web-hosting.com (server217-2.web-hosting.com [198.54.115.98]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C7AC83A1301 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Jan 2021 09:17:44 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=strayalpha.com; s=default; h=To:References:Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:From:Subject:Mime-Version: Content-Type:Sender:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=MsCmNUpATZ/SQxP8UtjMG3ybFX7GEd15y64ZIeFrXSQ=; b=F2bohXeq4NPmFQFNlhlITBPqs pgHM8FbxY/B11LkHTLjolHoHSUbxdYxmZVtE5rOgi5TjOhWS3acdBlVXl5eCyddr/10ob/KE0e67m 3yrGLUdSKynFE2cPGGS7tbf26FgSlHh2jDzvyx8ccN/SPgHHrVcGvRkElG6wqN4ntaluFqCpcV4o/ Toc7+kNHBuug9QRbER2X4qFgiU8txJUkPspu70xxgPdrf6Nd4E0WINZJLbuqZ5mJ629Vl63Fc11Tk jAwHuynUSZUVRxVEi0cdLS2nh/TOAC7IjLc1cnP2PVP7cCbNhdghe6mfvRPkoZgzWTIJboJ6Bled2 v9gxKbTfg==;
Received: from cpe-172-250-225-198.socal.res.rr.com ([172.250.225.198]:55030 helo=[192.168.1.14]) by server217.web-hosting.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.93) (envelope-from <touch@strayalpha.com>) id 1l2daK-001AQ8-NC; Thu, 21 Jan 2021 12:17:33 -0500
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.40.0.2.32\))
Subject: Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal
From: Joseph Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
In-Reply-To: <7cc9e38c-5a00-ec59-a8c2-10503cc40d50@si6networks.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2021 09:17:25 -0800
Cc: Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>, IETF Discussion Mailing List <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <CB1A6DF0-8CDD-495D-9F7B-80BF72F08C1E@strayalpha.com>
References: <CAMm+LwjNiE0P7RAVqzKMypNbh3=9BeqiWn_hGv3E=zX7-YmSXQ@mail.gmail.com> <72F969A9-AF94-47B6-B48C-B3CD4D9A7C72@strayalpha.com> <7cc9e38c-5a00-ec59-a8c2-10503cc40d50@si6networks.com>
To: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.40.0.2.32)
X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - server217.web-hosting.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - strayalpha.com
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: server217.web-hosting.com: authenticated_id: touch@strayalpha.com
X-Authenticated-Sender: server217.web-hosting.com: touch@strayalpha.com
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
X-From-Rewrite: unmodified, already matched
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/YCkVeOTkRCqY0uzPDsqeklA-QB0>
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: Thu, 21 Jan 2021 17:17:49 -0000


> On Jan 20, 2021, at 3:27 PM, Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> wrote:
> 
> On 20/1/21 17:25, Joe Touch wrote:
>>> On Jan 20, 2021, at 12:07 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 0) Nowhere does the 'end to end' principle demand that the source and destination addresses on an IP packet remain constant
>> IP addresses is the only means for identifying an Internet endpoint per RFC 1122. While I agree that there may be utility of having proxied endpoints (e.g. NATs) with effectively internal addresses behind them, it doesn’t help the case to begin with this inaccurate assertion.
> 
> I'd have agreed with you. BUt since draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming has been approved by the IESG, you probably cannot make such assertion anymore.

One draft that doesn’t update or obsolete numerous others does not undermine 40 yrs of E2E.

Esp. when (AFAICT) that doc series never mentions how transport protocols are supposed to deal with indeterminate endpoint addresses in their pseudo headers or the impact to security protocols at the transport (not transport content) layer.

Joe

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email