Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Sat, 23 January 2021 07:36 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 DB61A3A0D82 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Jan 2021 23:36:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.15
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.15 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.262, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, T_SPF_TEMPERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 kQkGUsKLxYD1 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Jan 2021 23:36:47 -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 1C5693A0D81 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Jan 2021 23:36:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPv6:2800:810:464:2b9:6089:a63f:4623:bf2b] (unknown [IPv6:2800:810:464:2b9:6089:a63f:4623:bf2b]) (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 49150284ED6; Sat, 23 Jan 2021 07:36:40 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal
To: Joseph Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
Cc: Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>, IETF Discussion Mailing List <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>
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Message-ID: <53d7190a-3e1f-66b3-0574-8e8fbb3a7a5e@si6networks.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2021 04:36:22 -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: <CB1A6DF0-8CDD-495D-9F7B-80BF72F08C1E@strayalpha.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/d1WYjMI0PjltLNrVPeH9XVbIntU>
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 07:36:52 -0000

Hi, Joe,

On 21/1/21 14:17, Joseph Touch wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Jan 20, 2021, at 3:27 PM, Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> On 20/1/21 17:25, Joe Touch wrote:
>>>> On Jan 20, 2021, at 12:07 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker 
>>>> <phill@hallambaker.com> 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: fgont@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492