Re: [spring] We don't seem to be following our processes (Re: Network Programming - Penultimate Segment Popping)

Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl> Fri, 06 December 2019 16:21 UTC

Return-Path: <sander@steffann.nl>
X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0193F120877; Fri, 6 Dec 2019 08:21:39 -0800 (PST)
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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=steffann.nl
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 nU8G0eBOrvBz; Fri, 6 Dec 2019 08:21:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.sintact.nl (mail.sintact.nl [IPv6:2001:9e0:803::6]) (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 4999912086C; Fri, 6 Dec 2019 08:21:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.sintact.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id E28B249; Fri, 6 Dec 2019 17:21:35 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=steffann.nl; h= x-mailer:references:in-reply-to:date:date:subject:subject :mime-version:content-type:content-type:message-id:from:from :received:received; s=mail; t=1575649293; bh=QX1CVnVpR5gb9RIcGv+ kccWQmJXoMEUjC+3Lxtcr05Q=; b=rb/fDONFTHgvR6Scjylp/fXFdRWDbYCJ+aq AH1/6LFHHzimgNAica8Cg5pQpt3IBtrUcJY05i9OyBWl+z0qKTSRZu/8UnlmDaVV iwI8CItcRKohMcXMbulR+yO7WhWdUSBwj57/hv0SCVq2NUbXF+xaapgnb5JU8ava xH/ZpBEM=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mail.sintact.nl
Received: from mail.sintact.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.sintact.nl [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id 8lVfm2dIYXsA; Fri, 6 Dec 2019 17:21:33 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [IPv6:2a02:a213:a300:ce80:6075:199d:31e0:cdef] (unknown [IPv6:2a02:a213:a300:ce80:6075:199d:31e0:cdef]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mail.sintact.nl (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B47793C; Fri, 6 Dec 2019 17:21:33 +0100 (CET)
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
From: Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl>
Message-Id: <741EB111-DA80-4895-A7E3-3B71836E6176@steffann.nl>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_B4A17B30-F66E-4000-980D-C43FBED2C401"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha256
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.0 \(3594.4.19\))
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2019 17:21:32 +0100
In-Reply-To: <CAOj+MMHEb4c_bGH-sV9LC+baHJZisTsXUMpTJNbR1j-YEcyqwA@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: SPRING WG <spring@ietf.org>, 6man <6man@ietf.org>, "int-ads@ietf.org" <int-ads@ietf.org>, rtg-ads <rtg-ads@ietf.org>
To: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
References: <BN7PR05MB56998A05469327E759B5B671AE5D0@BN7PR05MB5699.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <3AD3BD11-8C34-41FE-B88F-49A9F2561D78@cisco.com> <BN7PR05MB569946D6AA5C6B78AFC05F6BAE5C0@BN7PR05MB5699.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <8DEDE597-B7B0-48F5-959E-69757315C2AC@employees.org> <BN7PR05MB56996FFC117F512EEA04AFC8AE5C0@BN7PR05MB5699.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <4FAB68A3-C533-471D-94D0-3F6EB1F32FC1@employees.org> <1e36a492-5931-02de-cf85-63339522b13a@si6networks.com> <F6DD2C7C-DBBF-4B48-B890-3C86005FB9CF@employees.org> <bb3be82d-8ea7-6c29-ad0a-61b491ee997d@si6networks.com> <8A9BC46E-A018-41C0-BE47-4BABC30EFE79@employees.org> <20191205222740.GA9637@ernw.de> <C7BCB0CF-1CA3-4CA8-9E71-13A013955938@employees.org> <E3C0E460-9329-40B1-ACF6-B9D8F6E2B3DF@steffann.nl> <CAOj+MMHEb4c_bGH-sV9LC+baHJZisTsXUMpTJNbR1j-YEcyqwA@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3594.4.19)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/VWvoBqTQHtnZH4Y1Z3Ky4OOHikM>
Subject: Re: [spring] We don't seem to be following our processes (Re: Network Programming - Penultimate Segment Popping)
X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Source Packet Routing in NetworkinG \(SPRING\)" <spring.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/spring>, <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/spring/>
List-Post: <mailto:spring@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring>, <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2019 16:21:39 -0000

Hi Robert,

> To your specific first question this is very popular deployment model .. just look at SDWANs. So Internet is just a L3 transport for all routers in your administrative domain or global WAN. Spot on. I do sincerely hope that whatever the result be of this debate all features will be legal to run on my boxes regardless how I choose to interconnect them.
> 
> As (Internet) transit boxes would never be destination addresses of the outermost header what problem do you see running anything one likes on R1 or R2 or R3 and transporting it via open Internet or perhaps some third party networks ?

So this is basically a tunnel over the open internet with all tunnel endpoints in the same (or cooperating) administrative domain. In that case it's indeed up to the participants to deal with and debug.

So the tunnel model I don't mind. Can we be certain it indeed fits all deployments and leaking isn't possible. Theory and practice are the same in theory, but not in practice :)

Cheers,
Sander