Re: SRH insertion vs SRH insertion + encapsulation

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

On 8/9/19 02:47, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Hi Fernando,
> 
> On 08-Sep-19 11:11, Fernando Gont wrote:
>> On 8/9/19 01:52, Ron Bonica wrote:
>> [...]
>>>  
[....]
> 
>> That's why I think it's not even in the scope of 6man.
> 
> 6man "is not chartered to develop major changes or additions
> to the IPv6 specifications." Of course it's a matter of judgment,
> but I agree that changing this is "major".

I cannot think of many other changes that could be considered major as
this. It even changes the end-to-endness of IPv6.



> Look, this is one of the reasons we wrote
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-carpenter-limited-domains
> which is currently being considered as an Independent Submission.

I will look at the I-D again (I think I had at least skimmed through it
a while ago). Was the term "limited domains" coinced there?


> If the community wants to standardise mechanisms that are *not*
> intended to work across the open Internet, we need to make that
> clear, and specify how it works safely and securely. That's a
> community choice, not a WG choice, IMHO.

I do agree that it's an IETF-wide choice, since this would be out of the
scope of 6man.

That said, while I do think the concept of limited domains is applicable
to things such as "domains where IP fragmentation or EHs can be safely
used", I think when things fail, the implications of EH insertion can
span more than the intended domain. And all this architectural mangling
to save 40 bytes for a protocol that's not the most performance/optimal
(in terms of overhead) one.

I'd bet money that if this proposal had not come from a big vendor, it
had been shot down 1 millisecond after it was made public.

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: [e-mail]
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492