Re: SRH insertion vs SRH insertion + encapsulation

[Sander Steffann <[e-mail]>]

Hi Mark,

> 6296?
> 
> I don't agree with RFC 6296 and NAT in general because of the operational problems it causes and has caused me.*
> 
> The caveat with RFC 6296 is that it is Experimental, not Standards Track. I don't think people should use it, however with that RFC they will hopefully consistently do something they shouldn't do.
> 
> In comparison to anonymous EH insertion, at least the NPT box overstamps the packet source address in the inside to outside direction, so in one direction it isn't anonymous. If you're troubleshooting from that side there is no ambiguity, because the NPT box will look like the packet's original source host.
> 
> If you're troubleshooting from the inside, the location of the NPT box is going to known, likely at the network/Internet edge.
> 
> EH insertion is far worse, because it's entirely anonymous.

Thank you for that summary. I agree with it.

I'm just sad we're having this discussion over and over again. My personal opinion is that at some point the WG chairs should declare this rehashing of the same discussion as out of scope and move on. The problems with EH insertion have been discussed, the fact that domain/scope limiting doesn't work in practice (especially for those who need to debug the results) and RFC 8200 has been reached. Why the *($#&(* are we still wasting everybody's time beating this dead horse?

Cheers,
Sander