Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Limited Domains:

On 17-Apr-21 10:25, Robert Raszuk wrote:
> 
>> My main view is, if the domain is truly limited, firewalled or even air gapped, then what is the motivation to seek approval in a standards body?
> 
> Spot on ! 

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.

> If someone (vendor or operator) is to seek to deploy some functionality limited to his own network new ethertype should be allocated and then he is free to do whatever needed. 
> 
> Otherwise I do not subscribe to this limited domain vs Internet limitation of any IETF spec. I have never seen for the Internet ethertype any way to scope it not to be send over the limited domain boundary.

But we keep on defining limited domain protocols regardless of that problem. Please do read the RFC (https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8799.html). Don't imagine that this issue is ever going to disappear. I believe that the deeper problem is that IETF dogma is to pretend that this issue does not exist.

The problem with the current flow label proposal is of course exactly what you say: it forks the definition of the IPv6 packet, so could only coexist with the Internet-wide flow label if all the routers in the domain check whether the origin or destination of every packet is internal or external.

Regards,
   Brian

> Best,
> R.
> 
> 
> On Sat, Apr 17, 2021 at 12:12 AM Manfredi (US), Albert E <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com <mailto:albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com>> wrote:
> 
>     From: ipv6 <ipv6-bounces@ietf.org <mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org>> On Behalf Of Robert Raszuk
> 
>     > I think this this thread nicely demonstrates that we need to first define what a "limited domain" is. 
>     >
>     > To some it seems to be 1980s definition of an IGP network boundary. More modern folks would consider as "limited domain" a set of IGP ASNs areas interconnected by p2p BGP still under the same administration. 
>     >
>     > For me "limited domain" is an arbitrary collection of sites anywhere in the world using Internet for inter-connectivity.
> 
>     Good point! Whereas to me, "limited domain" means, only inside this platform.
> 
>     > So any protocol which claims to be defined for "limited domain" and which claims that it is backwards compatible with nodes not supporting it is equal to allow it to traverse Internet.
> 
>     "Backwards compatible" may mean different things to different people, and it seem dubious in this case (because flow label is to be a random value, per IPv6). My main view is, if the domain is truly limited, firewalled or even air gapped, then what is the motivation to seek approval in a standards body?
> 
>     Bert
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 