Re: I-D Action: draft-smith-6man-in-flight-eh-insertion-harmful-00.txt

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 13-Oct-19 23:25, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> Brian E Carpenter wrote on 13/10/2019 01:36:
>> The packet is too dumb to know anything ;-). My question is how each
>> node it traverses knows. Indeed, Mark's draft describes a scenario
>> where the controlled domain argument breaks, because the exit node
>> might not know that the packet had suffered EH insertion. The
>> draft-voyer- scenario is not like that, because the affected IPv6
>> headers are created locally and identifiable as such.
> 
> the world isn't nearly this pigeonholed though.  The edge around this 
> "controlled domain" that you're implicitly suggesting is sharply-defined 
> is in reality more of a blurry smear.  Think tunnels, leaks, back-doors, 
> "SD-WAN" (whatever that means), policy routing, routed VPNs, etc.

Of course. In the limited-domains draft we're advocating an explicit
mechanism for defining the boundary; which of course wouldn't automatically
make it watertight, but would offer some hope of making it watertight.
But that being hand-waving, I'll stick to what I said: defining the boundary
by means of adddress scope and router config is the state of the art.
 
> If the ietf wants to define a new ipv6-like protocol which is not 
> guaranteed to be interoperable with 8200, there's still space in 
> www.iana.org/assignments/version-numbers to accommodate this :-)

No need. People who want to deploy it will just do so.

    Brian