Re: Compatibility with SRH requirement (was Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing Header (CRH)")

Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> Sat, 30 May 2020 20:45 UTC

Return-Path: <nick@foobar.org>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F10B3A0984 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 30 May 2020 13:45:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wY7ofLBfuq7h for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 30 May 2020 13:45:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.netability.ie (mail.netability.ie [IPv6:2a03:8900:0:100::5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4C5903A095C for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sat, 30 May 2020 13:45:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Envelope-To: ipv6@ietf.org
Received: from crumpet.local (admin.ibn.ie [46.182.8.8]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.netability.ie (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id 04UKjZZI014478 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 30 May 2020 21:45:36 +0100 (IST) (envelope-from nick@foobar.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: cheesecake.ibn.ie: Host admin.ibn.ie [46.182.8.8] claimed to be crumpet.local
Subject: Re: Compatibility with SRH requirement (was Re: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing Header (CRH)")
To: John Scudder <jgs=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: James Guichard <james.n.guichard@futurewei.com>, IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>
References: <19D30186-B180-4F65-BF00-7AD07CEF3925@gmail.com> <C7C2E1C43D652C4E9E49FE7517C236CB02A53F3E@dggeml529-mbx.china.huawei.com> <CALx6S37UQa5rEAkz54N6S_POaduyUnS=ApN+qQGoepnm0=JdkA@mail.gmail.com> <DM6PR13MB306688749E076BDC84AB0023D28F0@DM6PR13MB3066.namprd13.prod.outlook.com> <CALx6S36stS3KSs1d+MxpPzDC4_Gb1N94NW=-gjGho-p9J_UwLw@mail.gmail.com> <DM6PR13MB3066CF17824590C766914C2ED28F0@DM6PR13MB3066.namprd13.prod.outlook.com> <CALx6S35Q7YfH-Widw1KmYv=7VzXF0FT7D=tPnW9huXOFJHEPjQ@mail.gmail.com> <DM6PR13MB30666079D88BC4A8CBF54BB1D28C0@DM6PR13MB3066.namprd13.prod.outlook.com> <CALx6S36va5ctnMi8uSwp1=e_2_jj6e8ftwPncen_EyxjYvdcCw@mail.gmail.com> <DM6PR13MB306694860DBDA60465449ACBD28C0@DM6PR13MB3066.namprd13.prod.outlook.com> <DA0B91AF-FAEB-411A-9F6B-8F84FEFE84D2@juniper.net>
From: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
Message-ID: <e811e9c3-5117-bfe6-0f4a-ba7bebaff4c5@foobar.org>
Date: Sat, 30 May 2020 21:45:34 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 PostboxApp/7.0.17
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <DA0B91AF-FAEB-411A-9F6B-8F84FEFE84D2@juniper.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-GB
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/eF4sedaPaPWEUhHabSaBAj9iNuQ>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 30 May 2020 20:45:44 -0000

John Scudder wrote on 30/05/2020 21:29:
> So now, by definition, you’re saying that two different nodes in the 
> same network have the same (non link-local, also by definition) address. 
> That’s a broken network, of course it’s doing broken things. 

just to put this in context, configuring different nodes with the same 
identifier (e.g. loopback address) on a plain old ipv4 or mpls network 
can cause truly hilarious levels of breakage.  This is not a protocol bug.

Nick