Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

On 23/1/21 10:04, Masataka Ohta wrote:
> Fernando Gont wrote:
> 
>>>> 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.
>>
>> One *internet-draft* certainly doesn't undermine E2E. However, I guess
>> that an *RFC* published as a "Proposed Standard" probably does 
>> (undermine) E2E? -- (draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming has 
>> been approved by the IESG).
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> That the draft state "any complex user-defined behavior" means
> it is subject to incompleteness theorem applicable to any
> system complex enough to be able to handle natural numbers, which
> means its behavior can not be fully reversed by external systems
> to restore the E2E transparency even though its behavior is
> formally fully described, which means the E2E principle can
> not be kept regardless of whatever random things IESG might
> have stated.

The problem here is not how things were specified, but rather *what* was 
specified.



> PPS
> 
> E2E transparency can be fully restored by end systems, even if it
> is disturbed by intermediate systems, if, and only if, the end
> systems not merely have formal description of the intermediate
> systems but can actively and properly interact with the intermediate
> systems to control actively their internal activities.

In this case, they can't.

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: [e-mail]
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492