Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Joe,

On 21/1/21 14:17, Joseph Touch wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Jan 20, 2021, at 3:27 PM, Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> On 20/1/21 17:25, Joe Touch wrote:
>>>> On Jan 20, 2021, at 12:07 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker 
>>>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 0) Nowhere does the 'end to end' principle demand that the 
>>>> source and destination addresses on an IP packet remain 
>>>> constant
>>> IP addresses is the only means for identifying an Internet 
>>> endpoint per RFC 1122. While I agree that there may be utility of
>>> having proxied endpoints (e.g. NATs) with effectively internal
>>> addresses behind them, it doesn’t help the case to begin with
>>> this inaccurate assertion.
>> 
>> 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).

At the end of the day, I guess we cannot publish a PS that clearly
breaks E2E, while at the same time claim or pretend that we keep/have 
E2E....

(Full-disclosure: I was on the side of keeping E2E
(https://www6.ietf.org/iesg/appeal/gont-2020-04-22.txt))

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