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

Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com> Thu, 27 February 2020 23:29 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 9837D3A0832 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 15:29:16 -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 Z93uyoYwpF7s for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 15:29:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from wout4-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout4-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.20]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F0BC23A081F for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 15:29:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from compute5.internal (compute5.nyi.internal [10.202.2.45]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25A427D5; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 18:29:14 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute5.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 27 Feb 2020 18:29:14 -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=h8lCbx q6T+/MTJZT8hCyN4fvjyf9Oya2nPswM2JwGdY=; b=hNtAQcjGEMAemxwXMXCCZ8 b2c3rgiY2RRa6PxRqjCxinEoKLCq26hKYmqlRco7mhSJp1KKZzGEd5XUKiNJ+bVC c73UYbcvtt7GM1GfHJQJx+ucCQbVmUppdzmDNlLt4t432Ivzls5c10uBeELhmxzc UNtPLf7HWkPSENMpPrE2lo+heWd/R04u0Nk8R1775VMPwoPDkhipMn5FyKR4ffO8 fLy8/oRn+KXc/1bSKRmL5SDbTyVPKboW7z3ctKvfKo33YAR2RP7GLGzeEqV6BFnU 52UQ2ewS6fCe4Mt7bRozvuKKAZ0p4WKt2a0VhzJesXVlM+HX6NLu2tdHlIsF4ImQ ==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:yVBYXkWQIncjFkTYjGArZAMQGbd2zEejBch3i1sRFAIXHMOjCmTzZQ>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedugedrleejgddutdcutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecunecujfgurhepuffvfhfhkffffgggjggtsegrtderre dtfeejnecuhfhrohhmpefmvghithhhucfoohhorhgvuceomhhoohhrvgesnhgvthifohhr khdqhhgvrhgvthhitghsrdgtohhmqeenucfkphepuddtkedrvddvuddrudektddrudehne cuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepmhhoohhr vgesnhgvthifohhrkhdqhhgvrhgvthhitghsrdgtohhm
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:yVBYXsHD1-Wv_gbJee7r4HieYXvvRaLoT0xhrqecwewdGPUaKonx9Q> <xmx:yVBYXrO2dcDxw4wn3upfzxSYKo8_ZnAnJlELbSEcN3IYEpEeTomPqA> <xmx:yVBYXg7A39UrybKRwQkzvimWDgWKOIQGCxMDfMZosHl6he-5zY9-Og> <xmx:yVBYXlzLmnTl85nm5S4_oc4uA6W0HGaPZwfIrkEtcGIjv-t0Hsm0Dw>
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 E7EFA3060BD1; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 18:29:12 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: [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> <d41a94f5ede994b9e14605871f9f7140@strayalpha.com> <CALx6S34n58pD4o5wyb7CDDLTH63OxksMDxKZr6uJN+NO0kVboQ@mail.gmail.com> <cca04620062692b54d38d1cf6c78e213@strayalpha.com>
From: Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>
Message-ID: <e4ff9ded-2e49-3e80-54d1-204040faa124@network-heretics.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2020 18:29:12 -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: <cca04620062692b54d38d1cf6c78e213@strayalpha.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------25122CB75EC1ACEE536CFCE2"
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/a5I0JvFx0f8CI4vWbtJlGl2Z-Wo>
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, 27 Feb 2020 23:29:17 -0000

On 2/27/20 6:05 PM, Joe Touch wrote:

> Tunnels don't make packets bigger. They make a bigger packet at the 
> tunnel level. That then becomes the tunnel's problem to deal with (see 
> draft-intarea-tunnels).
> Making the IP packet bigger itself creates a problem that cannot be 
> recovered that way.
> I.e., same problem but very different consequences.

precisely.

Keith