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

[Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>]

This below note deserves to be printed and framed ! Spot on.



On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 11:26 PM Phillip Hallam-Baker <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 5:09 PM Tom Herbert <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Fernando,
>>
>> I think we need to be careful that IETF is labeled as a collection of
>> inflexible architectural purists. We know that standards conformance
>> is voluntary and we haven't seen the last time that someone, possibly
>> even a major vendor, will circumvent the system for their own
>> purposes.
>>
>
> IP end to end does not mean the IP address is constant end to end. It
> never has meant that and never will. An IP address is merely a piece of
> data that allows a packet to reach its destination. There is no reason to
> insist on it remaining constant along the path.
>
> The sooner people get over that fact the better.
>
> If an IPv4 device interacts with an IPv6 device, there will be address
> translation going on somewhere along the path. That is inevitable.
>
> We discovered that there were good reasons for NATing IPv4 besides address
> multiplexing. The topology of my network is none of your business.
>
> More generally, Internet standards only apply to the Inter-net, the
> network of networks. What happens inside the networks at either end is for
> the owners of those networks to decide. If we go back to the original
> Internet design, they didn't even need to run IP. IP end to end come later.
>
> So let us stop being dogmatic about things that don't actually matter. The
> only job of the network layer is to get packets from one end to another.
> The only job of the transport layer is to provide reliable streams. An
> application protocol that depends on the IP address remaining constant end
> to end is a bad protocol and should be rejected.
>