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

Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com> Fri, 28 February 2020 04:08 UTC

Return-Path: <tom@herbertland.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 17A003A0EDE for <int-area@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 20:08:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=herbertland-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 YCL6aT9c6-2l for <int-area@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 20:08:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ed1-x543.google.com (mail-ed1-x543.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::543]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BFACA3A0EDC for <int-area@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 20:08:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ed1-x543.google.com with SMTP id e25so1755650edq.5 for <int-area@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 20:08:10 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=herbertland-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=xlrGmDiaBgRJFYtGA9l2osPh0Hd06REn3xnbZsY4Z+c=; b=pcZkwdVaGmfsMQuzkTV172aDTpItGcTSoOp2AGAcfUighyYVTGJ/EUdALR6oOsUoBP J+8eLsjNdQN6J/IDGJUk7g9Zab0HzwKpGnoso5aYApAxg0oml3p+rGVvlWkH0G4u7U8N VJkG0tBC/jM9mlvN1VP2Xn0K0fpLcg4g8NkOvHEkLBLKuzifdL8o9/jEZc/Wsj//Lxbi CubNUnRdaznLgejIrA4gvhok7gNcZUpAT40rE+ev47aIXI8U1T1/ji0/90xcg4y9ziUE lkYLNeCLoBfoRjGFeMgeQ1KCAr2ekhMBmoGjgMA2O5GWx7qU/Qppf/9UkvMH7KJvajtx eRDw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=xlrGmDiaBgRJFYtGA9l2osPh0Hd06REn3xnbZsY4Z+c=; b=WeE8P4fhuX6ZJoKDeAPkZj1Aut56PxZ4sGy66F9soifNKchi66MHfVoYA85ZKlAk35 pmpj9DV05xKJa2dtzdzYB8LQ5xCITZJ1qKgKqLchNeajk2Ixmqx8/UD7J1ni32aXQgt7 vIJw9g5yDPbLNCDf7beyr2twxMB/Q9i7j+NnRiOa342EkwF0qiU/g0DgGFiruaDLisRc 475GUxjIBWrtyxzXbGntzSo8d6QfK1cWmVTujTcdryJ9ciUt3840Q43OdD1yJOiPnxUz XOSHqOEBxVJB6TveO2ZWBeNJ8Po1/awKF/3zETea8JeYtsh1+9si3s5ewn5xfXRHk5B6 kQTA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWkKmyVgK1bNx+wc6VU5BV1fURoeIESdzyVU2tHlqbJW0JxrdjJ DYwUOhXvYqHkmSPLYc722d72geJ71zWFHG7IPy+7Yg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqy3RH/tfT1NgHvoTnrUOwNbA9Dkyf6miwOYGFDY9HeZNf+LK08Ulcyk6YK9eVLivV3/K/EX6I2aVIItCQlIiFs=
X-Received: by 2002:aa7:d505:: with SMTP id y5mr1953223edq.370.1582862889264; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 20:08:09 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CALx6S36ChFy-6y_tnGwzs7J5nwmzvzsxAWBhTB=iro4qoVpZ7w@mail.gmail.com> <3D64B077-9478-46AF-81E4-F60691B9377E@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <3D64B077-9478-46AF-81E4-F60691B9377E@gmail.com>
From: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2020 20:07:58 -0800
Message-ID: <CALx6S34nEWeudUnfzbyHPGV97ahM61rMNC8ReUiVZ8pWFL-76A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com>
Cc: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>, Internet Area <int-area@ietf.org>, IETF <ietf@ietf.org>, architecture-discuss@iab.org, Internet Architecture Board <iab@iab.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-area/V7on3xzty_kcqnEO-mjRXYfAzbs>
Subject: Re: [Int-area] [arch-d] 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: Fri, 28 Feb 2020 04:08:13 -0000

On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 7:39 PM Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 27, 2020, at 7:29 PM, Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com> wrote:
> >
> > To me, security, robustness, and interoperability are more important
> > than performance for end users. We
>
> You chose a 3-tuple to a 1-tuple tradeoff . There is no tradeoff. One must deliver a 4-tuple.
>
Sure, but EH insertion has not been shown to be secure, robust, or
interoperable. So this is currently is trading off three critical
requirements for just one (assuming that EH insertion is necessary for
performance which isn't even clear).

Tom


> My 2 cents,
> Dino