RE: One size fits all !?! (was: Re: So where have all these new 6man WG people come from?)

"Templin (US), Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> Mon, 01 June 2020 17:47 UTC

Return-Path: <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.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 79EA53A1395 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Jun 2020 10:47:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, PLING_QUERY=0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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=boeing.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 SskpTiQaOu88 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Jun 2020 10:47:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from clt-mbsout-02.mbs.boeing.net (clt-mbsout-02.mbs.boeing.net [130.76.144.163]) (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 434303A1396 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Jun 2020 10:47:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by clt-mbsout-02.mbs.boeing.net (8.15.2/8.15.2/DOWNSTREAM_MBSOUT) with SMTP id 051Hla2c008636; Mon, 1 Jun 2020 13:47:38 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=boeing.com; s=boeing-s1912; t=1591033658; bh=P0apQDJbKFy2k88wQK9AC18rDVvps4WQvAbAM+dgJ3A=; h=From:To:CC:Subject:Date:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=L2yCKox88/n+Qp3oMYHG+Ia9ubt7d4e0zMMmZtrabwk7cOWfszRVIqbhuuB6UO/+x 82c1xN75DYiZksFIS36Qf7FbOeoi3QCOUbWmGlddCufVUWFYrvZDQHbLyPCA9C25Wh gL+zyl7KChDRcI04eh3EVLpfDoJyvPtSrf4YWnYF3yyebhRKzJPKar5Ey5ADZvc+9K jcAcGD1hPLgmvzgrIFlfTUGxh9mek1UU/3Mdvh2klHaX0vwdmEbQTlH3nLTSmznFng 6u1UBo4NYzi8+HqIQWRZ4f5trIGiaTacq28NrS/DWCz6PQbw/Qeq7nBCxtlSpO8vkE T4db1zhXwaDXQ==
Received: from XCH16-07-07.nos.boeing.com (xch16-07-07.nos.boeing.com [144.115.66.109]) by clt-mbsout-02.mbs.boeing.net (8.15.2/8.15.2/8.15.2/UPSTREAM_MBSOUT) with ESMTPS id 051HlOGE007487 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 1 Jun 2020 13:47:24 -0400
Received: from XCH16-07-10.nos.boeing.com (144.115.66.112) by XCH16-07-07.nos.boeing.com (144.115.66.109) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384) id 15.1.1979.3; Mon, 1 Jun 2020 10:47:23 -0700
Received: from XCH16-07-10.nos.boeing.com ([fe80::e065:4e77:ac47:d9a8]) by XCH16-07-10.nos.boeing.com ([fe80::e065:4e77:ac47:d9a8%2]) with mapi id 15.01.1979.003; Mon, 1 Jun 2020 10:47:23 -0700
From: "Templin (US), Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
To: John Scudder <jgs@juniper.net>
CC: Philip Homburg <pch-ipv6-ietf-6@u-1.phicoh.com>, "ipv6@ietf.org" <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: One size fits all !?! (was: Re: So where have all these new 6man WG people come from?)
Thread-Topic: One size fits all !?! (was: Re: So where have all these new 6man WG people come from?)
Thread-Index: AQHWODRh4UB17/vKvU+kMltlc+YSHajEBcAggAB3hoD//4s9MA==
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2020 17:47:23 +0000
Message-ID: <37c84cbca4cc4c0e80e93ec8f0f7c4da@boeing.com>
References: <CAO42Z2xDygUXTGwVunGSTMkZGMF8VePrPaXLSAJg14vAJdca5A@mail.gmail.com> <6DB604C0-2C29-44A8-AB01-DA697552C7DA@employees.org> <1C1F0496-33A8-4646-B356-369EA9ABAD33@gmail.com> <DM6PR05MB6348501B266FF51DD805C25DAE8F0@DM6PR05MB6348.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <70CDD965-C9B4-4A15-9ACA-FFE685D97129@gmail.com> <7AC15DBA-17DD-4CF7-95C1-0F1C6775BF30@fugue.com> <20200529171234.GY62020@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <m1jfnYY-0000IJC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <370ce45962cf4890b15851663f55291d@boeing.com> <EC7323D4-BCEE-4240-B6EC-5304668AD1EA@juniper.net>
In-Reply-To: <EC7323D4-BCEE-4240-B6EC-5304668AD1EA@juniper.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [137.137.12.6]
x-tm-snts-smtp: A4C69E99B6DE0445E554B3B05B93AB1ACD87640DDE418A91C5D76DF0714B35872000:8
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/v8YDynWtM4f8_f184Uk-9PMpRno>
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, 01 Jun 2020 17:47:44 -0000

Good point, John, I may have glossed over it too quickly. Definitely worth considering.
Still, on multi-access links I wonder if there may be challenges but certainly something
we should consider.

Fred

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Scudder [mailto:jgs@juniper.net]
> Sent: Monday, June 01, 2020 10:44 AM
> To: Templin (US), Fred L <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
> Cc: Philip Homburg <pch-ipv6-ietf-6@u-1.phicoh.com>om>; ipv6@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: One size fits all !?! (was: Re: So where have all these new 6man WG people come from?)
> 
> Isn’t that a good application for link-level header compression, as Philip alludes to being used on good ol’ SLIP and PPP?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> —John
> 
> > On Jun 1, 2020, at 1:41 PM, Templin (US), Fred L <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> wrote:
> >
> > [External Email. Be cautious of content]
> >
> >
> > Philip, good message but I do see an element of truth in what the original poster
> > was trying to communicate. In aviation, we often deal with wireless links with
> > bandwidth less than 1Mbps - sometimes even *much* less. Asking those links
> > to carry at least two IPv6 addresses per packet is a considerable commitment
> > of resources, but that is our current plan. Should we be open to considering
> > alternatives?
> >
> > Thanks - Fred
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: ipv6 [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Philip Homburg
> >> Sent: Monday, June 01, 2020 9:45 AM
> >> To: ipv6@ietf.org
> >> Subject: Re: One size fits all !?! (was: Re: So where have all these new 6man WG people come from?)
> >>
> >> In your letter dated Fri, 29 May 2020 19:12:34 +0200 you wrote:
> >>> IMHO, it is a misguided dogma to think that RFC8200 128 bit
> >>> addresses IPv6 is a one-size-fits-all solution not only for
> >>> what it was built for, the Internet, but also all arbitrary controlled
> >>> networks - for the infinite future!
> >>
> >> For IPv4, one-size-fits-all was a good thing. Anybody who remembers
> >> the nightmare of many different network protocols, all slightly different
> >> knows how great it was to have just one protocol.
> >>
> >> Even in the early days, one-size-fits-all was a bit of a problem. I remember
> >> SLIP and PPP header compression trying do deal with big headers on slow links.
> >>
> >> Right now we have IPv6, which can address all devices in the world. Which is
> >> great for software, no need to worry where something is, just generate an
> >> IPv6 packet and it will get there somehow.
> >>
> >> If we look at the overhead of IPv6 then certainly at speed of 100 Mbps and
> >> higher, the effect of bigger addresses is left in the noise.
> >>
> >> Obviously, IPv6 on slow links in a limited domain is not a great fit. Does
> >> that mean that IPv6 has to change? What is the benefit for all those devices
> >> that are on fast links and have no problem?
> >>
> >>> IoT with IPv6 is an extreme pain (header compression, MTU).
> >>> Most controlled networks do not even want global addresses (security,
> >>> segment based app-gateway architectures, ...).
> >>
> >> My first question would be, why not use IPv4 if address size and MTU are
> >> a problem? IPv4 is certainly a mature technology.
> >>
> >>> 16-bit/32-bit/48-bit address sizes would be highly desirable.
> >>> Even the 1980'th CLNP network protocol had variable sized addresses.
> >>
> >> Nobody who does low level software wants veriable size anything.
> >>
> >> If I compare processing an IPv4 header (which is variable size) with an IPv6
> >> header, then dealing with an IPv6 header is so much easier. With variable
> >> length addresses that would only get worse.
> >>
> >>> IPv6 has not solved core problems to be even equal to L2 switching:
> >>> plug routers together, get automatic connectivity, no bother about addresses.
> >>> CLNP was a lot closer to that goal too.
> >>
> >> Both DHCPv6 PD and homenet deal with this problem.
> >>
> >>> but think really about another
> >>> instance of IPv6-NG, but this time backward compatible.
> >>
> >> I doubt that the world is waiting for a third protocol that brings a
> >> completely new set of issues.
> >>
> >> And I have no clue what a backward compatible internet protocol is supposed
> >> to look like. People have complained for years that IPv6 is not backward
> >> compatible with IPv4, but in all that time I have never seen a sensible
> >> protocol that is actually backward compatible with IPv4.
> >>
> >>> If we continue to proliferate this "one-size-fits-all" myth,
> >>> then we are just continuing to extend our own version of
> >>> a winchester mystery house and kill our industry.
> >>
> >> I doubt that the IETF has any power to stop a new local networking protocol.
> >>
> >> If, for example, IoT needs a light weight local networking protocol, then
> >> anybody can just design it. It may help adoption if there is an easy way
> >> to convert to and from IPv6, but such a protocol can easily exist outside
> >> the internet world.
> >>
> >>
> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> >> ipv6@ietf.org
> >> Administrative Requests: https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6__;!!NEt6yMaO-
> gk!UJAdvTzn_Z3n89OKnyACbWXrj22QQm2ZQ2bl3eO4TithKf6Zoo08UEqtwY0FLw$
> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> > ipv6@ietf.org
> > Administrative Requests: https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6__;!!NEt6yMaO-
> gk!UJAdvTzn_Z3n89OKnyACbWXrj22QQm2ZQ2bl3eO4TithKf6Zoo08UEqtwY0FLw$
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------