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

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Thu, 27 February 2020 23:07 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 EE8AD3A0802; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 15:07:31 -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=unavailable 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 2eQP2pJm_6Iu; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 15:07:30 -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 148413A0816; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 15:07:30 -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 901D782A18; Fri, 28 Feb 2020 00:07:25 +0100 (CET)
To: Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>, Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>
Cc: architecture-discuss@iab.org, Internet Architecture Board <iab@iab.org>, Internet Area <int-area@ietf.org>, ietf@ietf.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>
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Message-ID: <69bd06b8-7eee-dfbc-5476-bba0f71ae915@si6networks.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2020 20:06:44 -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: <d41a94f5ede994b9e14605871f9f7140@strayalpha.com>
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/kV8INAyFGxBVQrwt3lbIk71xbwM>
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 23:07:38 -0000

On 27/2/20 19:52, Joe Touch 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.

Besides AH (which obviously breaks), hosts typically try to validate 
that the error messages they receive correspond to something they 
actually sent.

EH removal breaks that.

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