Re: [v6ops] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-wkumari-long-headers-01.txt

[Joe Touch <[e-mail]>]

On 7/5/2013 3:16 AM, [e-mail] wrote:
...
>> E.g., it's incorrect to claim that this is a forwarding issue. It is a
>> *firewall* (and possibly NAT) issue.
...
> Looks like we need to come up with a new term here.
>
> A pure IPv6 router, as you define it, is completely useless to me.

Feel free to come up with a new term, document its requirements, and 
publish a standard on it.

At that point we should consider its implications on existing standards.

Until then, we have a situation where false marketing is driving a 
change to a standard.

> My real, operation requirements include IPv4 / IPv6 forwarding for
> multiple 10 Gbit/s links *and* very basic, stateless access lists
> that must be able to look at address *and* L4 info (port numbers).

The Internet doesn't need port examination to function correctly, and 
ports are increasingly meaningful only at the endpoints anyway. Port 
examination provides exactly two things:

- a false sense of security (that services are truly being blocked)
- a false view that the operator has control over traffic by type

> Your definition of router is not the same as that of many operators.
> Let's make a note of this and move on.

Feel free. That 'note' would be a standards-track RFC.

Until then, I don't think it's useful to use the IETF for (mis)marketing.

Joe