Re: [v6ops] Operational Implications of IPv6 Packets with Extension Headers - implications from new development for EHs

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Thu, 30 July 2020 06:08 UTC

Return-Path: <fgont@si6networks.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A0D03A0E54 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Jul 2020 23:08:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 Qat0bCtmv4W1 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Jul 2020 23:08:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fgont.go6lab.si (fgont.go6lab.si [IPv6:2001:67c:27e4::14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2FE353A0E51 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Jul 2020 23:08:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2800:810:464:1f7:61d1:782c:89f4:1370] (unknown [IPv6:2800:810:464:1f7:61d1:782c:89f4:1370]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by fgont.go6lab.si (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2265928380A; Thu, 30 Jul 2020 06:08:33 +0000 (UTC)
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, Joseph Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
Cc: IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>
References: <d8d59ce07f7f4031a545ff6e24fdbb88@huawei.com> <20200729084351.GG2485@Space.Net> <32BAEAEA-7352-4BAE-ADA8-FDA2395D5732@employees.org> <a6ed89a8-c12e-b8d2-c720-5cc02e127a68@si6networks.com> <FCBD1043-A0B2-435A-9AB9-0FCE3566C769@employees.org> <4573db3f-ac8d-3103-1979-e803ae40f117@si6networks.com> <DEB1318E-0E5B-4093-A691-8E1FD35B9F50@strayalpha.com> <A197EF3A-1E1E-40F1-BB50-68469E3C8E63@delong.com> <44481FC7-6E3F-4D5A-A5A9-A338C1836EA1@strayalpha.com> <2ad804a2-e714-6256-3afa-4d4a92fd6d3c@si6networks.com> <9c026e30-149b-172f-0953-456fb2d1e715@gmail.com>
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Message-ID: <41c9c9ec-e77c-977e-8b09-33fe844a44a4@si6networks.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2020 01:59:40 -0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <9c026e30-149b-172f-0953-456fb2d1e715@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/LMalCyLwkQNJkllYYU3Qw65v34Q>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Operational Implications of IPv6 Packets with Extension Headers - implications from new development for EHs
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 30 Jul 2020 06:08:51 -0000

On 30/7/20 00:52, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> And it may be another unpopular fact of life, but I believe that RFC8799 is relevant. Certainly some basic rethinking about interoperability is needed.

Indeed, of all the possible outcomes, the worst one is bury one's head 
into sand.

I'm not sure what would be the best part for this particular case 
(whether to embrace the idea of limited domains, and spell out what's 
expected to work where, to constrain the IPv6 spec a bit such that we 
can somewhat close the gap between what 6man specifies and the real 
world, or what else).

Of the possible options, the RFC8799 seems to be among the most 
conservative: acknowledges operational reality, while it doesn't close 
the door.

-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492