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

Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com> Fri, 28 February 2020 00:44 UTC

Return-Path: <moore@network-heretics.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 999893A0ACB for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 16:44:22 -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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.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 OAEl3kOgXZdM for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 16:44:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from wout1-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout1-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.24]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8B95F3A0AAF for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 16:44:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from compute5.internal (compute5.nyi.internal [10.202.2.45]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF4AD7C9; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 19:44:20 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute5.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 27 Feb 2020 19:44:21 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=i4SOMX q1buA/b0LSpTtoErZp1tYDGLiAAMSYlFkTKXs=; b=24055IaDH26GFd74hJ9svG otWGZhLt3kPznDuU/81eLQz4XxH+QOa7dIORN1YoYfVhpq3YAHU+RWk6PTnujAHO JoRCL3pO16nZf0J/rmSouzsGVyhDnm5hKJWhNqIvKrsTQHvvJdSKhYJH76hKrUHx czEaJti+/LsTS5eu/thM5QhrrlMTKH44PlFB/OPm8tNSRMs23OSy0hc1DShe3GyQ vfEmSc7Gs2zUVgzBu1kARRo7EoVVATdUXgQjcmPysAObuAtMXLCQxK+4K8earMMt 9SSPk/ESxHROk5vQ3HvGFuXGu17V412Zb5834FW6EDo4n/cymc8qCFDoUKCV7wCQ ==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:ZGJYXi6gLfvRxf0-hfV1j2zPZ1Ms0wBMczdUxFYp9X54Eu1qm9PPvg>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedugedrleejgddviecutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecunecujfgurhepuffvfhfhkffffgggjggtsegrtderre dtfeejnecuhfhrohhmpefmvghithhhucfoohhorhgvuceomhhoohhrvgesnhgvthifohhr khdqhhgvrhgvthhitghsrdgtohhmqeenucfkphepuddtkedrvddvuddrudektddrudehne cuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepmhhoohhr vgesnhgvthifohhrkhdqhhgvrhgvthhitghsrdgtohhm
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:ZGJYXsGjEzxm7GoLPWXbSvNFQyfzX7KiliNRtEL4tfy50Vqh8FerHg> <xmx:ZGJYXkGES-Gb40frrdL-jt7y7frXF4Jbz-7I3lOE1uWmtkP-G2b3lw> <xmx:ZGJYXqusZWaPNNIfBJetU21LqTIRXMebE-vrbI73Z-HBaibC4G-GlQ> <xmx:ZGJYXpuhk3SS_zoqTYxf9NNi3OuG3s9i8J0kzJD7zbGYlmioFAlN4A>
Received: from [192.168.1.97] (108-221-180-15.lightspeed.knvltn.sbcglobal.net [108.221.180.15]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 02E0230612AF; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 19:44:19 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: [arch-d] [Int-area] Is IPv6 End-to-End? R.I.P. Architecture? (Fwd: Errata #5933 for RFC8200)
To: ietf@ietf.org
References: <876c9105-3da4-e614-2db0-bea025b54663@si6networks.com> <7749f91f-03f1-cc14-bae8-5fe68c88879f@si6networks.com> <CALx6S36wN7VEi_rxLC1ETcTvkGaPhs20KhQrGWAGGTrCL5OT+g@mail.gmail.com> <CAMm+Lwg+4xMv=EKLfvmZMCgrQz31+38Fv0bYKeJ0fTB5vbXiaw@mail.gmail.com> <8d3e7b714666db00e0c05a2e06959da6@strayalpha.com> <CAMm+LwjYeSTro_TJujtRPDfVKtVMg7JbDL6A5V3Tj447c2E7nA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>
Message-ID: <2e5b51a3-a81b-4e01-03f0-415c92ae5341@network-heretics.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2020 19:44:19 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAMm+LwjYeSTro_TJujtRPDfVKtVMg7JbDL6A5V3Tj447c2E7nA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------1FB4268670C9B7D179AA4A8E"
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/_TDc9wneMg3hb5nA2jd2_rKv_NA>
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 00:44:29 -0000

On 2/27/20 7:21 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:

> As the application layer designer, I am the customer here. I do not 
> care about the IP address.

You are only one of many, many application level designers.   The fact 
that you don't care about the IP address doesn't mean that no 
application designer needs to care about the IP address.

Fundamentally the Internet is a peer-to-peer network, and there's no 
particular reason to assume that peers only interact in pairs.

Keith