Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-ula-usage-recommendations - work or abandon?

Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> Thu, 12 November 2015 18:06 UTC

Return-Path: <owen@delong.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DB001B2BEB for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Nov 2015 10:06:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.111
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.111 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_ALL=0.8, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 4A_NSOz4hY0q for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Nov 2015 10:06:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from owen.delong.com (owen.delong.com [192.159.10.2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 128111B2BE5 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Nov 2015 10:06:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from delong-dhcp229.delong.com (delong-dhcp29 [192.159.10.229]) (authenticated bits=0) by owen.delong.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id tACI55xH014988 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 12 Nov 2015 10:05:06 -0800
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2104\))
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <563FA84C.7030601@si6networks.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 10:05:05 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <28EECB50-9F5F-4F47-95EB-86BD5E9A9C72@delong.com>
References: <D25D5920.C914E%Lee.Howard@twcable.com> <5637FDD0.70300@jvknet.com> <D25E32F1.C9507%Lee.Howard@twcable.com> <CAKD1Yr1VvzkSmJo3hu6t_3CUguLN_UkNZjRUqvU_ygPBTyb+8g@mail.gmail.com> <8AE0F17B87264D4CAC7DE0AA6C406F45C2319739@nkgeml506-mbx.china.huawei.com> <CAKD1Yr3g-ZV+MkbtDrusbtYaZ_wmCxDG9XbT25Ldma4koGpV6A@mail.gmail.com> <D25E7DDF.C9709%Lee.Howard@twcable.com> <CAKD1Yr3Vsn7Ny_xSCr_=sVCHyU+=ZrRh2iQDUPx-5FWdHajv2w@mail.gmail.com> <D2614A6A.CA099%Lee.Howard@twcable.com> <563B9D1E.4030606@umn.edu> <D261FE8E.CA1FB%Lee.Howard@twcable.com> <CAKD1Yr3jip0NBkDxg=MvgZXg0LMS+PtREDw2jSRx0xJLqHwhGQ@mail.gmail.com> <563C7C01.6010703@foobar.org> <CAKD1Yr1rKjkDhhuD9L=R_MJ+ofOAZ2Nt+5mszZKQxCh-kH4vqw@mail.gmail.com> <563FA84C.7030601@si6networks.com>
To: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2104)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/17LKrgMZEbpupB_HOaHTqzuNcgE>
Cc: IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-ula-usage-recommendations - work or abandon?
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/v6ops/>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 18:06:18 -0000

>> They still work fine on networks that
>> operate the way the Internet was originally designed with end-to-end
>> connectivity.
> 
> not sure what you mean by "end-to-end" connectivity.

I won’t speak for Lorenzo, but what I mean when I talk about “end-to-end”
is the situation where the L3 packet that leaves the origin host arrives
at the destination host without being modified except for certain fields
intended to be modified in flight. (Namely TTL/Hop Count, L2 and lower
layer fields, etc.). Certainly the L3 and higher layer identifiers are not
to be tampered with in flight.

If they are, then that is a clear layering violation of the worst possible
type.

> But if you refer to the property where there is no filtering between the
> aforementioned two devices, I wonder how many of such networks are
> interconnected via the public Internet.

I don’t think that’s what is meant in this context, but I’ll leave it to Lorenzo
to speak for himself.

>  ... that train has left ages ago.

Filtering is not the same as packet mutilation.

Deliver the packet or don’t deliver the packet according to your policies on your network, fine.

Editing the packet to alter its behavior in flight, OTOH, is one of the worst kinds of network skulduggery IMHO.

Owen