Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal

Fernando Gont <> Sat, 23 January 2021 17:40 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE3F53A0B2F for <>; Sat, 23 Jan 2021 09:40:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.568
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.568 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DATE_IN_PAST_03_06=1.592, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.262, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vV8fsq4BT9qK for <>; Sat, 23 Jan 2021 09:40:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5DB603A0B32 for <>; Sat, 23 Jan 2021 09:39:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPv6:2800:810:464:2b9:38d1:ab5d:d39:595a] (unknown [IPv6:2800:810:464:2b9:38d1:ab5d:d39:595a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7D39328395A; Sat, 23 Jan 2021 17:39:48 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal
To: Masataka Ohta <>,
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Fernando Gont <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2021 10:52:51 -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: Sat, 23 Jan 2021 17:40:05 -0000

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 

> 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.

Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492