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 23:21 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 E7FBF3A07BC; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 15:21:12 -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 XHL7TkXuWLGH; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 15:21:11 -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 C16EB3A07B1; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 15:21:11 -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=chN2PizV8jhdCwwKxp8Kib8UHGfNRC+ayuODi46bXOc=; b=6FU9ZsClI0pxmIk4YqC0Udttl 7qlWyr5rgRAlO+vZV3fIVkTi+Lq8TsfqSj1thjZLwkjmh+WRv2yY+2nbrcMDJ5cMRbc8Q2UpyUmo9 IJ3HfRDeR/+Pil4DyAjibtJe5GMG5Y56PehHJicTenH743JVrgfCFbTVQxc5PaFd6PFz8XqL/kC3q 8M1O7KRumpWlyWjptr6sUFKdwTB6rJJVfWOvNH0HNZDB34KvEJFe9GcfE3WrmcL2+ULf9W86RfY81 B8/I8Kif3tBv6oNtYCSm2AFnm+bWWZTq1dBUZfs/YrmZVoi7Hn2zyqJ9Mj4Q0rN7U1yZlnSGUZUNw GWCWGBxiA==;
Received: from [::1] (port=40812 helo=server217.web-hosting.com) by server217.web-hosting.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <touch@strayalpha.com>) id 1j7SSp-001j9k-KI; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 18:21:11 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_3f338b4322f86b70b3d43c246ea52353"
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2020 15:21:07 -0800
From: Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
To: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Cc: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>, architecture-discuss@iab.org, Internet Architecture Board <iab@iab.org>, Internet Area <int-area@ietf.org>, ietf@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <69bd06b8-7eee-dfbc-5476-bba0f71ae915@si6networks.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> <69bd06b8-7eee-dfbc-5476-bba0f71ae915@si6networks.com>
Message-ID: <3c307da7e8f52b7a29037a1084daf254@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/kuFnxZMXlY5gAW1Yw58V72yX0dM>
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 23:21:13 -0000

EH isn't a HBH option or extension. 

Joe 

On 2020-02-27 15:06, Fernando Gont wrote:

> 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.