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

Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> Thu, 27 February 2020 23:15 UTC

Return-Path: <robert@raszuk.net>
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 6ECE13A089D for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 15:15:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=raszuk.net
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 jmfOKXTlqP9i for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 15:15:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-oi1-x233.google.com (mail-oi1-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AB35F3A0885 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 15:15:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-oi1-x233.google.com with SMTP id r16so1021117oie.6 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 15:15:29 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=raszuk.net; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=rwz27jg0+sMYZGHQLHB6YOjMiFDjp2b95lfxrg8Bavg=; b=Rc1+mpCShoIAAWO3bNd8I/mkMMDXlZa1Z0jPYrJqd49ompOucGwbu2BXjEgwRz6OC1 TVPKqeLM+TaWGF5iYfRZFQXx/RqZTMURVF+4XNxRLhRqMwTGjfMef6xgh5bZ5eYt7noP lsJpZq96+nl9Sf6zJlQ7qQ7aMkXiX7CRptc8T/mHnzDgc3f1/UT6i0rl8tBWvXm/EhKr lOuKjkrezqvf0zTK6OpnTRWEPq7Xilirwniw/wdZ4QLFp0bSlSSuBfRbzjEeTg8psqD6 ccCxjTnJObvhJuSzc4EgnypDxf+Wi9jIyvmbZT/nA+hsNQvW0XKH0HoEFyxZxh2sD3Zd x1jw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=rwz27jg0+sMYZGHQLHB6YOjMiFDjp2b95lfxrg8Bavg=; b=oCx4M1w3bfiryZj/aUkG3Ku6H8p0bqQwNsTiL+VvQV0Vk2DynKR3Mdf3163hd10Xjp vNNaNJWtj/p+og1uyehWBSloLfRHfeEbUA/NYka1ulC3JRhFB3FhoGUrFwfZEg9+eJ43 +x8cHcj2CcYK6Oo3KZqVcWI3wgLFBBi5MHzyBl9DwkXxd72C0tECZy8vbfnCJl+ZhHbv bVzy7Gvkv5fK9v1Io3eOc5WjVkh0gpfsJlDeKS27f3oxs2LcoVaq5Fva2KsmzB+L11dV 83z9XM6iI7k3DNVwzN2A0ozv0eD4EI8TkJMOm+P09AVL4F1N6TROKjZ7/lESt0ksmv4N yv1Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAX2cKop+ijY/lh4SaYyQhvXvL8md0kHjwd4XOGMlHQEi737rJ9u uLsMGtI0lwB0OMTxO4JOFC9jxTaJM/nch1PNbkc3AA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyVFEKzWPBKfbq+fylfP3ZHWbIy54IATK6czqWcafW4hUxSurchtnH3qQOxN+HvGIzKAP8Li+C4k/QEQemXZm4=
X-Received: by 2002:aca:4306:: with SMTP id q6mr1133249oia.54.1582845329041; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 15:15:29 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <876c9105-3da4-e614-2db0-bea025b54663@si6networks.com> <7749f91f-03f1-cc14-bae8-5fe68c88879f@si6networks.com> <CALx6S36wN7VEi_rxLC1ETcTvkGaPhs20KhQrGWAGGTrCL5OT+g@mail.gmail.com> <d41a94f5ede994b9e14605871f9f7140@strayalpha.com> <CAOj+MMFo=7G6ygCNEkwNXzzzdbYh7Aw6SzcjL_Atg6RGyDJdjA@mail.gmail.com> <435b3561fd446be01d7d464e0c0762c5@strayalpha.com> <CAOj+MMFL_O7MRUc_Lea=_qp0Lkpd5n16naSeb9Gr9PifUz=1_A@mail.gmail.com> <c77309278a8ca2dc303cc4d69cd1ffbb@strayalpha.com>
In-Reply-To: <c77309278a8ca2dc303cc4d69cd1ffbb@strayalpha.com>
From: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2020 00:15:19 +0100
Message-ID: <CAOj+MMGAjc5fSEYSkbSNdq=b_eCE7u7R7JLcb8bG6C3qPUkCqA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Int-area] Is IPv6 End-to-End? R.I.P. Architecture? (Fwd: Errata #5933 for RFC8200)
To: Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
Cc: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>, Internet Architecture Board <iab@iab.org>, architecture-discuss@iab.org, Internet Area <int-area@ietf.org>, IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000092815d059f96e56f"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/bihiJK9IBKUxsqooT3M8QHtZWE0>
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 23:15:38 -0000

>  Is something else being proposed?

No. What you said below is exactly what is proposed.

Thank you,
r.

On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 12:13 AM Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> wrote:

> On 2020-02-27 15:10, Robert Raszuk wrote:
>
>
> > It does matter whether it happens at the IP source (origin host, tunnel
> ingress, etc.) or on the path of that header.
>
> It happens on tunnel ingress and tunnel egress nodes (egress = node listed
> in DA of the packet).
>
>
> Ingress can create whatever header it wants but needs to do fragmentation
> (and potentially PLPMTUD over the tunnel with the egress).
>
> Egress can strip the outer header but not make the inner one bigger, IMO.
>
> Is something else being proposed?
>
> Joe
>