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

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

On 29/2/20 23:19, Joseph Touch wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Feb 29, 2020, at 5:46 PM, Fernando Gont <[e-mail] 
>> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>
>>> I did look at the protocols involved here; the ingress does add 
>>> headers but doesn’t appear to handle fragmentation.
>>> That’s a non-starter if you want your packets to traverse a network 
>>> because people WILL hand you 1280-byte packets, so what will you do?
>>
>> FWIW, we have been insisting on this point (and others) since they 
>> first tried to push EH insertion in 
>> draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header.
>>
>> THey removed it from *that* document, but they keep trying to push 
>> similar ideas in other documents.
> 
> Well its seems simple to me - they need a plan for fragmentation or it’s 
> simply a nonstarter because they can’t support 1280-B packets traversing 
> the network.

Indeed.

But it's worse than that. The proponents, and others, claim that IPv6 
supports extension header insertion/removal en-route to a destination.

In order for that to be the case, the IPv6 specification itself 
(RFC8200) would have a plan to make PMTUD work (and IPsec AH, too). But 
obviously it doesn't (because it never supporte EH insertion/removal 
en-route to destination).

Still, the errata I submitted 
(https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5933), is unprocessed, and at 
least there was a statement that would be "held for document update" 
(see: 
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/yVKxBF3VnJQkIRuM8lgWN4_G3-o/)




> No amount of “but this is what the user wants” translates to “they want 
> their packets dropped silently”.

It smells even worse when they pretend that the IPv6 allows for their 
proposed behavior.

Thanks!

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