Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Limited Domains:

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 17-Apr-21 12:30, Robert Raszuk wrote:
> Hi Brian,
>  
> 
>     On that argument the SPRING WG should never have been chartered and the 6MAN WG should never have approved RFC8754. Also, we should never have defined diffserv in 1998. And NAT, of course, would be excluded by definition, and RFC1918 from 1996 would need to be obsoleted.
> 
> 
> I beg to differ in the perspective on this. 

Not so much. I was simply trying to underline that the IETF has been actively defining limited domain solutions for many years, while claiming to define Internet-wide protocols.
 
> I would rather see 6man understanding the reality, understanding that hardware engineering and innovation there have moved on and that protecting original father's of IPv6 fixed size header wall garden does not make sense any more. 
> 
> Yet we still see orthodox protection over technically obsolete dogmas. 

I also see people from the hardware side of the router and firewall world asking for less flexible header design. There's quite a tussle going on here.
 
> As we see in parallel there is equally interesting discussion on use of the last 64 bits of IPv6 address happening. This is pretty interesting considering that even most conservative folks agree that IPv6 address should be assigned to the interfaces. So I define a logical interface which is an anchor to internal switching vector and different processing function. 
> 
> Last RFC1918 just talks about address allocation - not sure how is this related to any of this discussion ... you mean that the notion that private addresses are not routable globally is the key point here ? 

I should probably have pointed the finger at RFC1597 (Address Allocation for Private Internets). But yes, that was an explicit enabler for limited domains within which you could do whatever private protocol you wanted, between a subset of hosts, in 1994.

> I thought the concern is with router's processing capabilities not with where such processing is subject to happen.

Routing is only one aspect. Limited domains exist for all kinds of reasons. Like it or not (and some people don't like it), the current architecture of the Internet includes thousands (probably millions) of limited domains.

> 
> Best,
> R.
> 
> PS. Btw FWIW my interest and former activity in 6man list on SR topics where not so much motivated in that I like SR. Much more I oppose hardcore resistance to protect something which technology wise is all pretty much obsoleted. 
> 
> And I fully understand why this is going on like this - to make sure new features do not break existing IPv6 world ... it is just that protecting something which technically is already addressed and keeping innovation gated is IMO not the best strategy for networking. 

Yes. That's exactly why I worked on RFC8799. 

    Brian