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

[Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

Le 06/12/2019 à 17:21, Sander Steffann a écrit :
> Hi Robert,
> 
>> To your specific first question this is very popular deployment 
>> model ... just look at SDWANs. So Internet is just a L3 transport 
>> for all routers in your administrative domain or global WAN. Spot 
>> on. I do sincerely hope that whatever the result be of this debate 
>> all features will be legal to run on my boxes regardless how I 
>> choose to interconnect them.
>> 
>> As (Internet) transit boxes would never be destination addresses
>> of the outermost header what problem do you see running anything
>> one likes on R1 or R2 or R3 and transporting it via open Internet
>> or perhaps some third party networks ?
> 
> So this is basically a tunnel over the open internet with all tunnel 
> endpoints in the same (or cooperating) administrative domain. In
> that case it's indeed up to the participants to deal with and debug.
> 
> So the tunnel model I don't mind. Can we be certain it indeed fits 
> all deployments and leaking isn't possible. Theory and practice are 
> the same in theory, but not in practice :)

YEs, a tunnel is a quantum leap between layers, a wormhole between
Universes; a tunnel makes possible what otherwise can not be imagined:
get restricted web content from a country as if one were there.


The limited domain draft does set a perspective with respect to tunnels,
although one might wonder whether questions like whether two limited
domains connected by a tunnel make for a single limited domain (a
reducibility principle).

Alex

> 
> Cheers, Sander
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>  IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [e-mail] Administrative 
> Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>