RE: SRH insertion vs SRH insertion + encapsulation

[Ron Bonica <[e-mail]>]

Ole,

I am a little worried about the Italian postal worker in your example. She opened the outer box, which should have had the following return address:

- ACME Shipping, Boston, USA

She knows and trusts the ACME Staff in Boston, so she eats the Jelly Belly's. But the people in Boston didn't put the Jelly Belly's in the box. Some guy in London did.

So now, any trust that she had bestowed upon the ACME staff in Boston has been usurped by a stranger in London.

                                                                    Ron


Juniper Business Use Only

-----Original Message-----
From: Ole Troan <[e-mail]> 
Sent: Monday, September 9, 2019 2:49 PM
To: Ron Bonica <[e-mail]>
Cc: Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>; Mark Smith <[e-mail]>; draft-voyer-6man-extension-header-insertion <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: SRH insertion vs SRH insertion + encapsulation

Dear Ron,

I think we both have used up our posting quota for long into next year, but I'll one more on this topic.

> There is a big difference between translating a packet’s source/destination address and adding something to a packet. The best way to explain this difference is with an analogy.
>  
> Assume the following:
>  
> 	• I, Ronald, am conversing with an Italian speaker through a translator
> 	• I say to the Italian speaker, through the translator, “your shoe is untied”
>  
> It is OK for the translator to tell the Italian speaker, “Aldo says that your shoe is untied”. He has translated my name into Italian, but not changed the message.
>  
> It is not OK for the translator to tell the Italian speaker, “Aldo says that your shoe is untied, and that you are ugly “.  If he were to do that, he would be originating a message and attributing it to me.

Translating the source address and/or destination address on the Internet is of course much worse than if a header inserted packet leaked.
Translation breaks fundamental parts of the Internet architecture, which has shaped the unidirectional centralized network we have been forced into today.

I do think you are attacking a strawman though. I don't think many, apart from Fernando is talking about changing 8200. I.e the ground rules for end to end IPv6.
The only realistic option for "header insertion" is within a limited domain.

A more fitting analogy would be something like:

- Ronald wants to ship a Birthday parcel to his aunt in Rome. He delivers the packet to the ACME shipping company in Boston
- The shipping company puts the parcel into a bigger sturdier box and gets it loaded onto the first ship bound for Europe.
- When arriving in London the European arm of ACME opens the outer box and slips a big bag of jelly babies in there and close the box up again.
- ACME's box then travel to Rome by train, and arrives to the Italian postal service.
- The Italian postal employee opens the box, eats the jellybabies and take Ron's birthday parcel to his aunt.

Of course if Ron had just shipped the parcel himself directly with the Best Effort Real Internet Inc company, it would have in half the time at half the cost, but the Italian postman would not have gotten any jelly babies...

Cheers,
Ole

PS: For unknown reasons Bassett Jellybabies are really hard to get hold of outside of the UK. Apparently because everyone else thinks the frosting looks like mold.