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 23:13 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 8DF3C3A0865; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 15:13:45 -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 qrFVYsMTPo8P; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 15:13:44 -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 668C03A0747; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 15:13:44 -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=JVYzjjIwOk02SxFg3rA/QTvC6krXxM3O0FZD/HRwlp0=; b=Bk33LTZiuv52+KtC/1wBjLuWs 5eDTMkTzq29uM/RfkgVL/JCJSqF6R0RexFQPIk5dfrBB/7zjIAuFnTRvaxffkvm6boBgjLMdS0Obo 4Y31MBOj3k+rUUFBEpPuht3v1I6k9/ukGd13JCxdbupq6RiHVOY+01HDIxjBLQouD+e/T6URtHp/e 8LdIiLk0zy5nYo30bGPjbBbxPx6nKDSbmn0HXZNJ6aLFSux1xkvFchSlrxnAt01wp0nyfWpmrLLcf zzH4Z5OqpA063YjKGtk1wBXa7hcmiGuJX690x6vK/1NirkPPurcJj5o8xJPVE0taIcsaZTHmHUmBV g6WUV6kxg==;
Received: from [::1] (port=49858 helo=server217.web-hosting.com) by server217.web-hosting.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <touch@strayalpha.com>) id 1j7SLb-001bvD-Pq; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 18:13:44 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_e9353be2dc638d4b259916efce2c29f1"
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2020 15:13:39 -0800
From: Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
To: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Cc: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>, Internet Architecture Board <iab@iab.org>, architecture-discuss@iab.org, Internet Area <int-area@ietf.org>, IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAOj+MMFL_O7MRUc_Lea=_qp0Lkpd5n16naSeb9Gr9PifUz=1_A@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> <CAOj+MMFo=7G6ygCNEkwNXzzzdbYh7Aw6SzcjL_Atg6RGyDJdjA@mail.gmail.com> <435b3561fd446be01d7d464e0c0762c5@strayalpha.com> <CAOj+MMFL_O7MRUc_Lea=_qp0Lkpd5n16naSeb9Gr9PifUz=1_A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <c77309278a8ca2dc303cc4d69cd1ffbb@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/yxnZSqmBylSH3cy5gbdd2QtTCOs>
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 23:13:51 -0000

On 2020-02-27 15:10, Robert Raszuk wrote:

>> It does matter whether it happens at the IP source (origin host, tunnel ingress, etc.) or on the path of that header. 
> It happens on tunnel ingress and tunnel egress nodes (egress = node listed in DA of the packet).

Ingress can create whatever header it wants but needs to do
fragmentation (and potentially PLPMTUD over the tunnel with the egress).


Egress can strip the outer header but not make the inner one bigger,
IMO. 

Is something else being proposed? 

Joe