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

Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> Thu, 27 February 2020 23:07 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@strayalpha.com>
X-Original-To: int-area@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: int-area@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC9073A0832; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 15:07:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.318
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.318 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 fbkeBAyXjUpd; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 15:07:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from server217-3.web-hosting.com (server217-3.web-hosting.com [198.54.115.226]) (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 7703B3A084C; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 15:07:55 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=strayalpha.com; s=default; h=Message-ID:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Cc: To:From:Date:Content-Type:MIME-Version:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding: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=FjdQ6ijo0mRma6i0+lnxP2u7p8EDYxcXSazlAVCRPZc=; b=bCDVsqLTpAvXjPJXpApR8p0Nh qvqgyCjlTDExaNu1TzSRDt4G6qBbGSwnO89cZSebJG/HL7E7wGTsdyxqDQZrhxGZBKcTbR45k6AIB 6RivTCKQYf/SkLjW56E/RebvC/3SVR+4m7KaMnV4s7cF/pdpwfcdO2h2OzliK8S7KevOffk0OClaW 2yQIsCeZfKNus5C0GVltCHNRaj+Z/ZjEw5ReQNtcp6nvHerYmsqtPjBP5WHxtxPPo+PSawbpCzL5d cLdMEN59OFR3k41XjSURQ88taN5k+zZkoXvlfKnHdYEScqNttTrtucivvg8s0vEVaiH4O7FhpBfZb P3H003C5g==;
Received: from [::1] (port=49116 helo=server217.web-hosting.com) by server217.web-hosting.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <touch@strayalpha.com>) id 1j7SFz-001Vbq-8p; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 18:07:55 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_261c004a46da80cd44cc55aefc52616c"
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2020 15:07:51 -0800
From: Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
To: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Cc: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>, Internet Architecture Board <iab@iab.org>, architecture-discuss@iab.org, Internet Area <int-area@ietf.org>, IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAOj+MMFo=7G6ygCNEkwNXzzzdbYh7Aw6SzcjL_Atg6RGyDJdjA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <876c9105-3da4-e614-2db0-bea025b54663@si6networks.com> <7749f91f-03f1-cc14-bae8-5fe68c88879f@si6networks.com> <CALx6S36wN7VEi_rxLC1ETcTvkGaPhs20KhQrGWAGGTrCL5OT+g@mail.gmail.com> <d41a94f5ede994b9e14605871f9f7140@strayalpha.com> <CAOj+MMFo=7G6ygCNEkwNXzzzdbYh7Aw6SzcjL_Atg6RGyDJdjA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <435b3561fd446be01d7d464e0c0762c5@strayalpha.com>
X-Sender: touch@strayalpha.com
User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.3.7
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/int-area/Mt7OhJTPINBF2J8Y3IlwtTj5Lxo>
Subject: Re: [Int-area] Is IPv6 End-to-End? R.I.P. Architecture? (Fwd: Errata #5933 for RFC8200)
X-BeenThere: int-area@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Internet Area Mailing List <int-area.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/int-area>, <mailto:int-area-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/int-area/>
List-Post: <mailto:int-area@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:int-area-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area>, <mailto:int-area-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2020 23:08:03 -0000

Hi, Robert, 

It doesn't matter on what IP header this occurs. 

It does matter whether it happens at the IP source (origin host, tunnel
ingress, etc.) or on the path of that header. 

The former is allowed exactly because it is where source fragmentation
can occur (in IPv6, and preferably the only kind of fragmentation used
in IPv4). 

Joe

On 2020-02-27 15:04, Robert Raszuk wrote:

> Joe, all, 
> 
> Just to clarify something Fernando purposely missed in his call for action: 
> 
> All operations on the packets discussed in SPRING WG are happening NOT on the original (end to end) packet header. They are all defined to happen within new imposed outer encapsulated header (IPv6 in IPv6 to be precise).  
> 
> So original packet just get's tunneled between various points of the network. Last time I checked that operation is allowed by RFC2473.  
> 
> Its subtle detail, but fundamental one to this entire context/discussion. 
> 
> Kind regards, 
> R. 
> 
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 11:54 PM Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> wrote: 
> 
>> FWIW - there are separable issues here: 
>> 
>> - whether an IP header (or parts thereof) should be changed in transit 
>> 
>> AFAICT, the answer has always been yes, but limited to the hopcount/ttl in the base header and hop-by-hop options in the options/extension headers. 
>> 
>> - whether an IP header length can change in transit 
>> 
>> I see no reason why it can't become smaller, but if it can become larger then PMTUD and PLPMTUD don't work. 
>> 
>> So the question isn't just what is wanted, it's what is feasible. 
>> 
>> Joe