Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal

Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> Wed, 20 January 2021 20:25 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@strayalpha.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 1763C3A14BB for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Jan 2021 12:25:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.319
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.319 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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=strayalpha.com
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 vEXIrtHkSn35 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Jan 2021 12:25:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from server217-2.web-hosting.com (server217-2.web-hosting.com [198.54.115.98]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4253B3A1493 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Jan 2021 12:25:51 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=strayalpha.com; s=default; h=To:References:Message-Id:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To: From:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:Sender: Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender :Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=qW44nZyETGsSiXTIxhAfAZhQIufnT9+jnwZDyg8K0wA=; b=5KSnjdPtO8Kh74t+LPwarC9kbB bSqd4eowHd8xqRro06+O2eZv2qhFaXm6xVmsmsk2PwE6XMmP6SSvFhuRztMraM8nu9HqsRANoqGbg 64l7MedqjLsKhpQyLqM5lUtVvtsNz70cWBZxWRBV8k0WhwQZbjp2DUCikg+u2YZn7hsx6W83kkWyb hsh5tCRGiyriRF0kCDaZHRvgB27MBu1CcYKvPlSJVIMpAoAZPZuyjhCPXjfwCrOwzATGTz3UJ2YxJ daCM7qei/YtoK1WdQJNamSN4UVKuhbIyHe9hB+swTEesd8X2V6uUnQDXY589Dx6xMdJ4TwZamaw1f CY6OA6tA==;
Received: from cpe-172-250-225-198.socal.res.rr.com ([172.250.225.198]:61052 helo=[192.168.1.17]) by server217.web-hosting.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.93) (envelope-from <touch@strayalpha.com>) id 1l2K30-0005Qr-JZ; Wed, 20 Jan 2021 15:25:50 -0500
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Subject: Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal
From: Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMm+LwjNiE0P7RAVqzKMypNbh3=9BeqiWn_hGv3E=zX7-YmSXQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2021 12:25:46 -0800
Cc: IETF Discussion Mailing List <ietf@ietf.org>
Message-Id: <72F969A9-AF94-47B6-B48C-B3CD4D9A7C72@strayalpha.com>
References: <CAMm+LwjNiE0P7RAVqzKMypNbh3=9BeqiWn_hGv3E=zX7-YmSXQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (18C66)
X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - server217.web-hosting.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - strayalpha.com
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: server217.web-hosting.com: authenticated_id: touch@strayalpha.com
X-Authenticated-Sender: server217.web-hosting.com: touch@strayalpha.com
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
X-From-Rewrite: unmodified, already matched
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/yMdwhh0i3kyBO89Hb3IOS3HOKVY>
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 20:25:59 -0000


> 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 encourage just removing it and getting on with the rest of the issues. 

Joe