Re: SRH insertion vs SRH insertion + encapsulation

Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> Mon, 09 September 2019 18:49 UTC

Return-Path: <otroan@employees.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 C302B1200A4; Mon, 9 Sep 2019 11:49:28 -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=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 7QIZr36YwZSw; Mon, 9 Sep 2019 11:49:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from clarinet.employees.org (clarinet.employees.org [198.137.202.74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 01325120020; Mon, 9 Sep 2019 11:49:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from astfgl.hanazo.no (unknown [IPv6:2a01:79c:cebd:c078:2c31:60a5:11fc:c22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by clarinet.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 52E414E11AE0; Mon, 9 Sep 2019 18:49:26 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by astfgl.hanazo.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74B1A1C03740; Mon, 9 Sep 2019 20:49:23 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
Subject: Re: SRH insertion vs SRH insertion + encapsulation
From: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
In-Reply-To: <BYAPR05MB5463AD77FA21C76C5A68E68BAEB70@BYAPR05MB5463.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2019 20:49:23 +0200
Cc: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>, Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>, draft-voyer-6man-extension-header-insertion <draft-voyer-6man-extension-header-insertion@ietf.org>, "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <5A25A20C-3BE3-4CD0-8558-2FC6E1BE717A@employees.org>
References: <BYAPR05MB5463306B3328F460C2417764AEB50@BYAPR05MB5463.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <32ED6621-3D17-4EC8-AC11-AFE64F05E6A9@employees.org> <BYAPR05MB5463AD77FA21C76C5A68E68BAEB70@BYAPR05MB5463.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
To: Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/pr1OyxeN7IwEj3H9uRariU-dQVg>
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: Mon, 09 Sep 2019 18:49:29 -0000

Dear Ron,

I think we both have used up our posting quota for long into next year, but I'll one more on this topic.

> There is a big difference between translating a packet’s source/destination address and adding something to a packet. The best way to explain this difference is with an analogy.
>  
> Assume the following:
>  
> 	• I, Ronald, am conversing with an Italian speaker through a translator
> 	• I say to the Italian speaker, through the translator, “your shoe is untied”
>  
> It is OK for the translator to tell the Italian speaker, “Aldo says that your shoe is untied”. He has translated my name into Italian, but not changed the message.
>  
> It is not OK for the translator to tell the Italian speaker, “Aldo says that your shoe is untied, and that you are ugly “.  If he were to do that, he would be originating a message and attributing it to me.

Translating the source address and/or destination address on the Internet is of course much worse than if a header inserted packet leaked.
Translation breaks fundamental parts of the Internet architecture, which has shaped the unidirectional centralized network we have been forced into today.

I do think you are attacking a strawman though. I don't think many, apart from Fernando is talking about changing 8200. I.e the ground rules for end to end IPv6.
The only realistic option for "header insertion" is within a limited domain.

A more fitting analogy would be something like:

- Ronald wants to ship a Birthday parcel to his aunt in Rome. He delivers the packet to the ACME shipping company in Boston
- The shipping company puts the parcel into a bigger sturdier box and gets it loaded onto the first ship bound for Europe.
- When arriving in London the European arm of ACME opens the outer box and slips a big bag of jelly babies in there and close the box up again.
- ACME's box then travel to Rome by train, and arrives to the Italian postal service.
- The Italian postal employee opens the box, eats the jellybabies and take Ron's birthday parcel to his aunt.

Of course if Ron had just shipped the parcel himself directly with the Best Effort Real Internet Inc company, it would have in half the time at half the cost, but the Italian postman would not have gotten any jelly babies...

Cheers,
Ole

PS: For unknown reasons Bassett Jellybabies are really hard to get hold of outside of the UK. Apparently because everyone else thinks the frosting looks like mold.