Re: Next steps on Extension Header Insertion

[Mark Smith <[e-mail]>]

On 3 November 2016 at 21:09,  <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Fernando,
>
<snip>
>
> End to end transparency has to be done by the end hosts with some sort of crypto.
>

I think crypto is necessary for an assurance of end-to-end
transparency, however I don't think it is a requirement. If I send a
packet into an IP network that follows and is processed according
RFC2460, the only changes that will or may be made are to the HC and
TC values - there will be no structural changes to the packet.

As an analogy, while I might need to send a letter in an envelope to
attain some privacy and tamper evidence, I can send my holiday
postcards without an envelope, and still expect that the postal system
won't modify them, because that is the postal system specification
(and in most (all?) countries this processing is backed by law). (The
postal analogy seems to apply specifically as if I recall correctly,
early TCP specs, before the split off of IP, used it to describe
concepts.)

I think we're talking about a fundamental and default assumption about
how the network will treat and process packets according to the
specifications. Currently there is one field value that will be
modified and another that possibly may be. Other than that, you
receive what you send - the structure of the packet doesn't change.

Regards,
Mark.


> Best regards,
> Ole
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [e-mail]
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------