IETF Logo Mail Archive

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 23:05 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 46EF43A046E; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 15:05:10 -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 iKJDv6Tb6Q4F; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 15:05:09 -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 A683A3A080B; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 15:05:08 -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=M7s7yLXL0GL+8BFKTZobWcxuaJBJkRBK7OQy8iT7Wbw=; b=2CfTHyhBnuqgUl6OGiH2ajygt a3G7oPVKWZ5yEE43hZ7lhDcmHlpLyUqsay3PjHp0ao5gE1Ots0E0sGcMjJTbfufdPVpJC5S2xAE5L tlf2IbSh5EQrBhbucMhxTrNW9OFQIR73KR0iS/Wt5JEKccaR04Wk3MeJcV7L+WpPaoZmZCdLwgqBJ ARfcs/ouEY+3r86/7StoFI8NgCqwuzyPM9Iq4VYJyxfwSdEMA1kRl0AANr8iBj7KpViJ88Z5sutkp zWGPru4TOI/sAp3XZcpnESsxmZJW+CSY9zkxbf1bCwrqAxL59FwKLaL85fj4QArWPqGuw1GAc1QFF sdzs9EuqQ==;
Received: from [::1] (port=54180 helo=server217.web-hosting.com) by server217.web-hosting.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <touch@strayalpha.com>) id 1j7SDI-001RmS-Ep; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 18:05:08 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_962e905e51b5ecafbe0b7ecb3e72807e"
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2020 15:05:04 -0800
From: Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
To: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>
Cc: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>, architecture-discuss@iab.org, Internet Architecture Board <iab@iab.org>, Internet Area <int-area@ietf.org>, IETF-Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <CALx6S34n58pD4o5wyb7CDDLTH63OxksMDxKZr6uJN+NO0kVboQ@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> <CALx6S34n58pD4o5wyb7CDDLTH63OxksMDxKZr6uJN+NO0kVboQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <cca04620062692b54d38d1cf6c78e213@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/jHKSu28r21tfNnaXFqUXN17fdSs>
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 23:05:15 -0000

On 2020-02-27 15:00, Tom Herbert wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 2:52 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,
> 
> Per the problem about making packets larger in the network, I'd point
> out that this is already common due to in-network tunneling. In any
> case, it's really the only interesting case here (as opposed to making
> packets smaller).

Tunnels don't make packets bigger. They make a bigger packet at the
tunnel level. That then becomes the tunnel's problem to deal with (see
draft-intarea-tunnels). 

Making the IP packet bigger itself creates a problem that cannot be
recovered that way. 

I.e., same problem but very different consequences. 

Joe

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email