IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Network Tokens and HBH option

Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com> Mon, 13 July 2020 18:17 UTC

Return-Path: <tom@herbertland.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 F1C8A3A164D for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Jul 2020 11:17:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=herbertland-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 xzPECnIJU3ps for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Jul 2020 11:17:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ej1-x632.google.com (mail-ej1-x632.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::632]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7C94D3A164C for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Jul 2020 11:17:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ej1-x632.google.com with SMTP id n26so18406412ejx.0 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Jul 2020 11:17:10 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=herbertland-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=VjqtFSU9aHVN05H5cI6AL/p/Ix68zEpLwJ4M/THbXLA=; b=Jjwoehhc28O3GmuxyZKHL7HkFdERQDky2fNH1jS35gCJ1OItFnE7jEo1aiKSVeKgBo irpd+G/AhhizEt73HrhwzCL9Ue1idpGmDaBEoWWg+R1Mm+WHultbS0TjtU5LW3Vg0bcP uiIO+/JlZsqPMmiwI/nSkRLNBKBAhNJ8hM+1a5nUmLpg5p4BDbXi7zXwXoW0fha+6/hs 6TBAXxktRFkIlJPlTmoss9ENp04UtOTaGH4N377cCQCoKK35SK5KRLj1OwbSHZfnEjkN J1xxvacXrJqyQ2yHclI9fXMp2GzYY6cubWH8662Wg/qdDUpnQo7iQCVayr5rdkVz+qWT 6ZBQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=VjqtFSU9aHVN05H5cI6AL/p/Ix68zEpLwJ4M/THbXLA=; b=EJxquOty2QatvLh7haqmFsnHm7D9mHP9CeVc61VsUjmtpvaQIaXqtXGWQkhDJAD3Jk lfWvv9mlSGKC1BsSa9bkWP8k5NnJcgeyISicq0A7cEeNs4VH4JQ3VJGYW4cHgSrCLrnl DCvCMCahbAsrWTgY3L0lIwLfmI7AJMs5dKrBS3s6CyPbhHC7i8BYR1Y39dus+/P9Nx5G e9dqtqqyA6eR/aVE7Xx1cw7oczjefjny5/qs7g+K8RHmdSDggZVKJZtEugq+LBXLRQDb FxcNHGX0jRoYvr1kPQhhmPTtQbJMopqwAxZ3uMF8//xQunXyE3P8noqrlNZepoVopIL4 24zQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533LQLwpmDfX43XDIVeX1CKEup/LKGBwpqcNGwNvMo64u0koVJ79 Q4jd0XOtGdtzeG+HiUPIQvfrjm1Nv/Dj5LCUSMhELrnL
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzUQY5v8RakXPHl+VZwsyx/JgcT4oeJxDJIz6mgWVvBlsB8tffnBYd8bln59orVajpkU9hOmjTzVMQ1wxTyhZ4=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:95d6:: with SMTP id n22mr985043ejy.138.1594664228824; Mon, 13 Jul 2020 11:17:08 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CALx6S35sXX6J75dzQH=hN7pC5=9wZP=o6SqOMpivGPtOdo+YNQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr2iUA9SWJoNsDNFdNYDksKcw8YE2oSB1eJBfy9hiJXb4g@mail.gmail.com> <20200713153422.GZ42197@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <m1jv2qT-00007aC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
In-Reply-To: <m1jv2qT-00007aC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
From: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2020 11:16:57 -0700
Message-ID: <CALx6S36rh1LXRJPuMk1SFMO_Qz2ZFazbOXaZ5=7=NYRqGBWGoQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Network Tokens and HBH option
To: Philip Homburg <pch-ipv6-ietf-6@u-1.phicoh.com>
Cc: 6man <ipv6@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/qZJrejy6Vo4gG1UT_OVS99ttlI4>
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, 13 Jul 2020 18:17:12 -0000

On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 11:07 AM Philip Homburg
<pch-ipv6-ietf-6@u-1.phicoh.com> wrote:
>
> >We have started to look at some of the problems we see in the current network
> >headers in draft-bryant-arch-fwd-layer-ps. We have refrained in that spec
> >to do ore than problem analysis. Would love to see feedback about that doc.
>
> I think this draft could benefit from a companion draft that describes a
> good solution to the stated requirements that completely ignores IPv6 and
> IPv6-related constraints.
>
> A next step would be to have a draft that describes a solution within the
> IPv6 space and compares it to the best case solution.
>
> Then it gets interesting. An economic impact analysis of proposed changes to
> IPv6. Which parties need to change, and of those parties, which parties have
> little benefit from the new features.
>
> For example, if all hosts would have to change to support variable length
> IP address, then that is very unlikely to happen. If on other hand some
> link type would send IPv6 packets in a funny way, then that may be a lot
> easier to coordinate.
>
> One more thing, I think it would be nice to have a (working)group that
> creates protocols and prototype implementations without any constraints.
> In particular working prototypes are often required to convince people that
> some radical idea is actually worth the effort of making major changes to
> existing protocols.
>
Isn't that what IRTF is for?

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email