Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Sat, 23 January 2021 17:40 UTC

Return-Path: <fgont@si6networks.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 DE3F53A0B2F for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 23 Jan 2021 09:40:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.568
X-Spam-Level:
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 mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vV8fsq4BT9qK for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 23 Jan 2021 09:40:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fgont.go6lab.si (fgont.go6lab.si [91.239.96.14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5DB603A0B32 for <ietf@ietf.org>; 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 fgont.go6lab.si (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7D39328395A; Sat, 23 Jan 2021 17:39:48 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal
To: Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>, ietf@ietf.org
References: <CAMm+LwjNiE0P7RAVqzKMypNbh3=9BeqiWn_hGv3E=zX7-YmSXQ@mail.gmail.com> <72F969A9-AF94-47B6-B48C-B3CD4D9A7C72@strayalpha.com> <7cc9e38c-5a00-ec59-a8c2-10503cc40d50@si6networks.com> <CB1A6DF0-8CDD-495D-9F7B-80BF72F08C1E@strayalpha.com> <53d7190a-3e1f-66b3-0574-8e8fbb3a7a5e@si6networks.com> <ea0a046a-067d-694b-3811-a2a2ad30ae8e@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Message-ID: <bce5f9f1-031a-8d46-24bb-b607dc624937@si6networks.com>
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: <ea0a046a-067d-694b-3811-a2a2ad30ae8e@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/a82yMXkXJz0jwIQXOfljU-qF8s8>
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: 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 
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: fgont@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492