Re: We don't seem to be following our processes (Re: Network Programming - Penultimate Segment Popping)

[[e-mail]]

Joel,

> The TI-LFA task can clearly be done with encapsulation.  That the proponents do not desire to do so is clear and understood.  Not desiring to do so is not a reason to violate a Full Standard RFC.
> 
> That is why I asked what the purpose was for header insertion.  And citing the TI-LFA draft does not answer the quesiton.

The point I tried to make was that propopents of EH insertiona had a slightly more nuanced motivation for doing what they are doing,
than what Fernando portray in this paragraph:

>> 3) Besides the technical arguments against EH insertion (which have been
>> codified in draft-smith-6man-in-flight-eh-insertion-harmful, I have
>> asked *lots* of times what's the technical motivation for doing EH
>> insertion. It boils down to "to save 40 bytes", which doesn't seem to me
>> as a compelling argument to violate the spec -- even less in a design
>> that employs 128-bit waypoints and is claimed to be operated in a
>> limited domain.

I see it necessary to speak up when I see participants consistently arguing against strawman.
And call upon higher deities (RFC8200).

Strawman #1:
The proponents of EH insertion proposes to do insertion/deletion directly on user (Internet) traffic.

=> There may be a suspicion that this is what they want, but it is not what they have written down, nor claim.
Take an example of 3 routers A, B and C that is under the same control.
Traffic travels from left to right.

A -- B -- C

A has a tunnel to C using ULA source and destination.
A packet ingresses on A, is encapsulated and forwarded towards C.
A has for reasons unknown to us outsourced a function to B. Where B insert an extension header in the packet originated by A.
C is also in on the game, being a tunnel end-point, removing the encapsulating header and extension header.

If you can leave the nuances of SR and the whatever they propose on the shelf for a minute.

Do you agree in principle that this approach of "header insertion in a controlled domain" can be made to work,
and should be indiscernible from A inserting the extension header itself?

Ole