Re: I-D Action: draft-voyer-6man-extension-header-insertion-07.txt

Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> Fri, 18 October 2019 09:23 UTC

Return-Path: <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
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 47DF212008C for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Oct 2019 02:23:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.631
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.631 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 AZ7FRm9qFzko for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Oct 2019 02:23:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cirse-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr (cirse-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr [132.167.192.148]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DF1FA12003F for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Oct 2019 02:23:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by cirse-sys.extra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id x9I9N4ei035590; Fri, 18 Oct 2019 11:23:04 +0200
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 10EB0204202; Fri, 18 Oct 2019 11:23:04 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from muguet2-smtp-out.intra.cea.fr (muguet2-smtp-out.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.13]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02FB6203F09; Fri, 18 Oct 2019 11:23:04 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [10.8.35.150] (is154594.intra.cea.fr [10.8.35.150]) by muguet2-sys.intra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id x9I9N3uH024722; Fri, 18 Oct 2019 11:23:03 +0200
Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-voyer-6man-extension-header-insertion-07.txt
To: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>
Cc: 6man <ipv6@ietf.org>
References: <156903961333.5092.16807379687598480151@ietfa.amsl.com> <c9702ec2-61d9-66e4-1d2c-d462eaf00f21@gmail.com> <9d3652bd-4659-809c-c5fe-03496042bc95@si6networks.com> <94378713-fc8a-82eb-fdc8-6658a1b980ca@gmail.com> <CALx6S34kA-i2Nmn6JzyicwNyLBJo-CYEo2H_9eWn2sqUAEmQJA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <e7f23c2d-d27f-75cb-2135-f60b256fa8da@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2019 11:23:03 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.1.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CALx6S34kA-i2Nmn6JzyicwNyLBJo-CYEo2H_9eWn2sqUAEmQJA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: fr
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/fyptkRXKD_Mzj2yCCLqp1fdpR8c>
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: Fri, 18 Oct 2019 09:23:09 -0000


Le 17/10/2019 à 18:19, Tom Herbert a écrit :
> 
> 
> On Thu, Oct 17, 2019, 6:20 AM Alexandre Petrescu 
> <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com <mailto:alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>     Le 15/10/2019 à 00:12, Fernando Gont a écrit :
>      > On 12/10/19 16:57, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>      >> Hi,
>      >>
>      >> I'd like to comment on this version. It is in fact a complete
>      >> rewrite compared to its predecessors and I thank the authors for
>      >> that. The tone is now purely technical, and that's a great
>      >> improvement.
>      >
>      > It is somewhat frustrating that the draft still fails to argue why
>      > EH insertion instead of encapsulation.
> 
>     As usual, I think one of the reasons is a difficulty in qualifying what
>     it means 'encapsulation'.
> 
>     There is IP-in-IP encapsulation.
> 
>     But there is also encapsulation like in transporting, or carrying, by
>     means of other intermediary headers, layer2, MPLS, security headers and
>     future internet shims and GRE and routing headers.
> 
>     IP-in-IP encapsulation is clearly an alternative to EH insertion.
> 
>     But all the other encapsulations are so messy that one may legitimately
>     think that a new EH insert/delete standardized according to good WG
>     principles would be proper, universal, and solve all  problems of GRE
>     for example.
> 
> 
> Alex,
> 
> What are the problems of GRE to which you referring?

Tom,

If I remember correctly, on the negative side, GRE does not work with 
IPsec security, GRE has no IPv6-GRE-IPv6 deployment, GRE is for 
limited-domains and does not work across the Internet contrary to VPN.

On the positive side, thanks to its key field, only with GRE it is 
possible to link together several tunnels such as to increase available 
bandwidth by aggregating, whereas with IP-in-IP it is not possible.

Alex

> 
> Tom
> 
> 
>     Alex
> 
>      >
>      >
> 
>     --------------------------------------------------------------------
>     IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>     ipv6@ietf.org <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
>     Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>     --------------------------------------------------------------------
>