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

Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> Thu, 27 February 2020 22:47 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 EAD833A0E26; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 14:47:53 -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 o1aNbOSzGLqX; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 14:47:52 -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 5B82F3A0E13; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 14:47:52 -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=LttuMOxeuhJ/ujXQ43uRlr63k24O3UZply91l7Qf1RM=; b=ryE1ckvO06ta9ipQdQEwoiNy5 bFpLXYA98Usik7JskBQRbohHhGWcsaOErnPghZFFcg6bNAcpL3MNW9LKz2ixG/s3sz0V7JOY0QkrQ +yFYkAqdyZb2Y5jYIXzkppq+cm/JffZnx4h2zT7XybZis444ULzyaOtpdDHVf4rgOoNTsTDV75kvu b3ytVwrf8u4xydTUHRHehHgMQHYvmAGfoi1+7uyksVNwGY3TP7CpP8blsPOQwe9MlcUa7VVs2Cmjw vnJAgFM4mtVlchl5unRl9kltQcCxYYk53xVEI0frfD/LmQpLp/jT4h8Tq6eZly3EX0CuuximO200f GNeZ0KgQQ==;
Received: from [::1] (port=46320 helo=server217.web-hosting.com) by server217.web-hosting.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <touch@strayalpha.com>) id 1j7RwZ-0016lf-9G; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 17:47:51 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_f8bb42a5e640aa2441d3577a2eb45516"
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2020 14:47:47 -0800
From: Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
To: Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>
Cc: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>, Internet Architecture Board <iab@iab.org>, architecture-discuss@iab.org, Internet Area <int-area@ietf.org>, ietf@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <CAMm+Lwg+4xMv=EKLfvmZMCgrQz31+38Fv0bYKeJ0fTB5vbXiaw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <876c9105-3da4-e614-2db0-bea025b54663@si6networks.com> <7749f91f-03f1-cc14-bae8-5fe68c88879f@si6networks.com> <CALx6S36wN7VEi_rxLC1ETcTvkGaPhs20KhQrGWAGGTrCL5OT+g@mail.gmail.com> <CAMm+Lwg+4xMv=EKLfvmZMCgrQz31+38Fv0bYKeJ0fTB5vbXiaw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8d3e7b714666db00e0c05a2e06959da6@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/u5QCsvJSgLQE3vyjRjzcm60O2qU>
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: Thu, 27 Feb 2020 22:47:54 -0000

On 2020-02-27 14:26, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 5:09 PM Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com> wrote: 
> 
>> Fernando,
>> 
>> I think we need to be careful that IETF is labeled as a collection of
>> inflexible architectural purists. We know that standards conformance
>> is voluntary and we haven't seen the last time that someone, possibly
>> even a major vendor, will circumvent the system for their own
>> purposes.
> 
> IP end to end does not mean the IP address is constant end to end. It never has meant that and never will.

Actually, that's the only thing it ever meant and always will. When
addresses change, *by definition*, the*ends* change (and yes, that's
what NATs do - they create end-to-end CONTENT transfer over separate
end-to-end Internets). 

> ..
> We discovered that there were good reasons for NATing IPv4 besides address multiplexing. The topology of my network is none of your business.

Agreed; there's nothing that forces you to use IP addresses in a way
that exposes your topology (you're free to build a net using host
routing). That has nothing to do with NAT. 

I have not found a rationale for NATs that doesn't start and end with a
business model where servers are charged business rates and clients are
charged customer rates. Everything else about NATs either isn't a NAT
property (hiding topology) or can be achieved by a stateful firewall
(that predates NATs by a decade, e.g. that lets outgoing connections go
through but not incoming). 

> More generally, Internet standards only apply to the Inter-net, the network of networks. What happens inside the networks at either end is for the owners of those networks to decide. If we go back to the original Internet design, they didn't even need to run IP. IP end to end come later.

That's true, but then their "end" on the public Internet would be the
firewall or NAT box at their edge. 

> So let us stop being dogmatic about things that don't actually matter. The only job of the network layer is to get packets from one end to another. The only job of the transport layer is to provide reliable streams. An application protocol that depends on the IP address remaining constant end to end is a bad protocol and should be rejected.

That's a very OSI view of protocols - about as out-dated and about as
useful., IMO. Every layer of the stack might be involved in any
function; anything that claims a single layer owns a single job hasn't
existed since at least IP over IP. 

Joe