Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Wed, 20 January 2021 23:28 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 78C113A15E7 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Jan 2021 15:28:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.161
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.161 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.262, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, 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 HrF4VKwd-r66 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Jan 2021 15:28:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fgont.go6lab.si (fgont.go6lab.si [IPv6:2001:67c:27e4::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 2D3D53A15D2 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Jan 2021 15:28:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPv6:2800:810:464:2b9:d955:1f06:4019:5ef2] (unknown [IPv6:2800:810:464:2b9:d955:1f06:4019:5ef2]) (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 319C0284F80; Wed, 20 Jan 2021 23:28:07 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal
To: Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>, Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>
Cc: IETF Discussion Mailing List <ietf@ietf.org>
References: <CAMm+LwjNiE0P7RAVqzKMypNbh3=9BeqiWn_hGv3E=zX7-YmSXQ@mail.gmail.com> <72F969A9-AF94-47B6-B48C-B3CD4D9A7C72@strayalpha.com>
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Message-ID: <7cc9e38c-5a00-ec59-a8c2-10503cc40d50@si6networks.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2021 20:27:53 -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: <72F969A9-AF94-47B6-B48C-B3CD4D9A7C72@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/ff_2F_DL7nL72PhQbUIn1ohKbrI>
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: Wed, 20 Jan 2021 23:28:24 -0000

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.

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492