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

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Fri, 28 February 2020 01:34 UTC

Return-Path: <fgont@si6networks.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 679CE3A0A62; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 17:34:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 wyOj0Mjv7ohx; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 17:34:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fgont.go6lab.si (fgont.go6lab.si [91.239.96.14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C72793A0B92; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 17:34:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.0.10] (unknown [181.45.84.85]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by fgont.go6lab.si (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D054A80998; Fri, 28 Feb 2020 02:34:32 +0100 (CET)
To: Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net>
Cc: Internet Area <int-area@ietf.org>, IETF <ietf@ietf.org>, architecture-discuss@iab.org, Internet Architecture Board <iab@iab.org>
References: <876c9105-3da4-e614-2db0-bea025b54663@si6networks.com> <7749f91f-03f1-cc14-bae8-5fe68c88879f@si6networks.com> <CALx6S36wN7VEi_rxLC1ETcTvkGaPhs20KhQrGWAGGTrCL5OT+g@mail.gmail.com> <d41a94f5ede994b9e14605871f9f7140@strayalpha.com> <69bd06b8-7eee-dfbc-5476-bba0f71ae915@si6networks.com> <3c307da7e8f52b7a29037a1084daf254@strayalpha.com> <a24a3621-99f6-755d-c679-2061b9a67adf@si6networks.com> <CAOj+MMGJ11CBCov=-jfZUtROJPwhQB3A=+0gMBhzZgxoF_9N1A@mail.gmail.com> <b18d881a-9b37-396c-0a1a-332cdf5dd10a@huitema.net>
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Message-ID: <9e91a8dc-2796-070b-f174-c8abcb29b88c@si6networks.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2020 22:34:18 -0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <b18d881a-9b37-396c-0a1a-332cdf5dd10a@huitema.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-area/_VHS2GjNCD4JMPtqKN5JafIFKXM>
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: Fri, 28 Feb 2020 01:34:42 -0000

Christian,

Thanks for your response! In-line...

On 27/2/20 21:43, Christian Huitema wrote:
[....]
> This may be a cynical point of view, but it matches what Bernard Aboba
> mentions in his description of "tussle space". Experience shows that if
> intermediaries gain benefits in messing around with data in transit,
> they will. The IETF may send them RFC copies in triplicate, but that
> won't stop them. In the absence of encryption, the only reason it is a
> tussle and not a free for all is the fear of breaking existing
> applications. The network operators will not deploy a middle-box that
> breaks important services, because disruption will make them lose
> customers or otherwise incur costs.

There seems to be plenty of empirical evidence that that's not the case.

Not that they mean to break things, but they do -- e.g., a box that 
rewrites TCP sequence numbers, but fails to rewrite the SACK options. 
And many many others.


[....]
> You are mentioning segment routing variants. For me, they fall very much
> in this tussle category. Network equipment makers believe that this
> technology will make the network better in some ways -- maybe faster, or
> maybe easier to manage. It is definitely a departure from Steve
> Deering's IPv6 vision of a simple network happily forwarding IPv6
> datagrams. 

Don't we have a standards process for this, as in "Publish a draft that 
formally updates RFC8200, gain consensus, and get it published as RFC"?

Or, where/when did things change to "This wg has decided to violate the 
specs from another wg"?

And, more generally: does anybody do anywork or have a say on the 
architecture of the whole system?

For instance, we have an "Internet Architecture Board". Does the IAB 
have a say one the architecture and principles that we're developing 
specs within?

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492