Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal
Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> Sat, 23 January 2021 13:04 UTC
Return-Path: <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
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 03E513A1188 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 23 Jan 2021 05:04:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.16
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.16 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.262, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 lVhuCzw1QxYq for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 23 Jan 2021 05:04:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp (necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp [131.112.32.132]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id B5E9A3A1187 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 23 Jan 2021 05:04:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 34105 invoked from network); 23 Jan 2021 12:43:15 -0000
Received: from necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp (HELO ?127.0.0.1?) (131.112.32.132) by necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp with SMTP; 23 Jan 2021 12:43:15 -0000
Subject: Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal
To: 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>
From: Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Message-ID: <ea0a046a-067d-694b-3811-a2a2ad30ae8e@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2021 22:04:27 +0900
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.6.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <53d7190a-3e1f-66b3-0574-8e8fbb3a7a5e@si6networks.com>
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/bCINhBo_jvvBeM6qHVBMOC0BduA>
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 13:04:35 -0000
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. It is *VERY* well known that powerful formal description can not fully analyzed mechanically, which is the incompleteness theorem. So, the draft or PS or whatever is totally broken. Just ignore it along with people who are working for it. The only formal system fully analyzed mechanically is finite state systems. So, if there is similar draft but only applicable to "behavior only as complex as to be represented by finite state automaton", the draft may be valid, but, such representation is so poor to be useful. Masataka Ohta PS The situation has been obvious when deoccifying was mentioned by IAB, which means most, if not all, of them do not understand the incompleteness theorem. 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.
- Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal Nick Hilliard
- Non routable IPv6 registry proposal Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal Joe Touch
- Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal John Levine
- Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal Nick Hilliard
- Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal Fernando Gont
- Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal Fernando Gont
- Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal Fernando Gont
- Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal John R Levine
- Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal Christopher Morrow
- Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal George Michaelson
- Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal Michael Richardson
- Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal John R Levine
- Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal Nick Hilliard
- Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal Masataka Ohta
- Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal Michael Richardson
- Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal Joseph Touch
- Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal Nick Hilliard
- Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal Nick Hilliard
- Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal Christian Huitema
- Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal Christian Huitema
- Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal Nick Hilliard
- Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal Fernando Gont
- Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal Eliot Lear
- Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal Masataka Ohta
- Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal Joe Touch
- Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal Fernando Gont
- e2e [was: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal] Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal Fernando Gont
- Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal Joe Touch
- Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal Fernando Gont
- Re: e2e [was: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal] Fernando Gont
- Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal Joel M. Halpern
- Re: e2e [was: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal] Joseph Touch
- Re: e2e [was: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal] Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Unique 128 bit identifiers. Was: Non routable IPv… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal Nico Schottelius
- Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal Keith Moore
- Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal David Farmer
- Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal David Farmer
- Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal David Farmer
- Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal Fred Baker
- Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal David Farmer
- Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal David Farmer
- Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal Bob Hinden
- Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal David Farmer
- Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal Nico Schottelius
- Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal Nico Schottelius
- Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal Bob Hinden
- Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal Keith Moore
- Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal Nick Hilliard
- Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal Bob Hinden
- Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal David Farmer
- Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal Nick Hilliard