Re: [v6ops] Routers are hosts too!

Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com> Fri, 08 January 2016 23:31 UTC

Return-Path: <markzzzsmith@gmail.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 920581B2C9A for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Jan 2016 15:31:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.499
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=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 PQcfT-jBiO5w for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Jan 2016 15:30:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vk0-x233.google.com (mail-vk0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 58AA01B2C99 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Jan 2016 15:30:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-vk0-x233.google.com with SMTP id n1so45616242vkb.3 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 08 Jan 2016 15:30:59 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=m9xl/8CxDT5cLf1wYFUlQEqzT8BendE8eX8zpN9rqJ4=; b=z7xc8VM8/55U3/20q5LgscbDBoMCVl1tL+4DgtObvZ4epxT2dPn8mrgwCBcNDuz4dO Oe+3+/Vp+PEGs058V7nawMWmwrMzu+epNcJai0G5lyjq6svJ1BNh81DbsOrpm53F/h15 78A+cmwhClIbDnvox7KfhGt3dgGUAJ2FW/53Q9sGmMse2UFYdQxn6ELYuSH49tuTwAYz SG9fxmE0YM9K6+oqJie2JgdotZme+WhkktjsN66/XNh2/njlCXFLGWgM7VgXVSYJLdwI 9SzQm/Vq8LLCsFA+d+PwezD4LLvHSDllmEpp/v4AyzLsmYzxOYCGfi6jo8wWxYoS3g62 kqyw==
X-Received: by 10.31.163.197 with SMTP id m188mr80806284vke.89.1452295858521; Fri, 08 Jan 2016 15:30:58 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.103.99.1 with HTTP; Fri, 8 Jan 2016 15:30:28 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <568FD4BF.5080608@gmail.com>
References: <568E6552.9030008@gmail.com> <568EACE4.2070408@isi.edu> <568F8F37.3050708@gmail.com> <20160108.121015.74737501.sthaug@nethelp.no> <67D93E4D-714A-4566-A308-D9EFBB71C43B@puck.nether.net> <568FC62B.2040109@gmail.com> <18838.74.139.119.34.1452263734.iglou@webmail.iglou.com> <568FD4BF.5080608@gmail.com>
From: Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 09 Jan 2016 10:30:28 +1100
Message-ID: <CAO42Z2zm5nJXhg454+a+sbcRevrdtB10++OzPds4XxRZm39eFw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/PG5d_utg076UDX3ZaU0hx9CNCIo>
Cc: v6ops list <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Routers are hosts too!
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: Fri, 08 Jan 2016 23:31:00 -0000

On 9 January 2016 at 02:24, Alexandre Petrescu
<alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Le 08/01/2016 15:35, Jeff McAdams a écrit :
>>
>>

>>
>> So what's your point?
>
>
> Maybe we should find that small rounding error - what OS does not implement
> longest-match and yet connects to the Internet?
>
> Second, until we ifnd that small rounding error, we may stop talking about
> Hosts, and declare the Host RFC historic.  Or update it with a sentence
> saying that Hosts too must implement longest-match.
>

So I think that might be missing the fundamental point I was making.

The distinction between a host and a router is a functional one,
purely related to what a device does when it receives a packet with a
non-local address, rather than being an fixed attribute of a
particular box of electronics. For example, a box of electronics
having multiple physical interfaces doesn't always make it a router,
or a box of electronics that only has a single physical interface
doesn't always make it a host.

I think the simple question to ask to determine whether the device is
performing a host or a router function for a particular packet is
"does the destination address in the packet match one of the receiving
device's addresses?". If the destination address does, then the packet
has reached its final destination, and the receiving device is a host
and will process the complete packet.

Another question to answer (which is more or less a rephrasing of the
previous question), is "where is the packet payload care/don't care
boundary?" If the device doesn't care what the packet payload is, it
is a forwarding device i.e. a router. If the device does care what the
payload is, because it is going to be processing the payload, then it
is a host, and that means that the packet has reached the destination
indicated in the destination address field. In the end-to-end
argument, it is the ends that are processing payloads.

A more specific version of that question is "does payload encryption
matter to the device or not?". If payload encryption doesn't matter,
then the device is a forwarding device/router, if payload encryption
does matter, meaning that the receiving device needs to be in a
position to decrypt the payload, then the device is a host, and the
destination address in the packet matches one of the host's addresses.

Regards,
Mark.