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

Philip Homburg <pch-v6ops-9@u-1.phicoh.com> Wed, 29 July 2020 11:06 UTC

Return-Path: <pch-b9D3CB0F5@u-1.phicoh.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 CB9443A08FF for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Jul 2020 04:06:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.918
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.918 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=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 WItKcC8Id648 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Jul 2020 04:06:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (stereo.hq.phicoh.net [130.37.15.35]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5E5E03A08F8 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Jul 2020 04:06:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (localhost [::ffff:127.0.0.1]) by stereo.hq.phicoh.net with esmtp (TLS version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305) (Smail #157) id m1k0jv0-0000HjC; Wed, 29 Jul 2020 13:06:42 +0200
Message-Id: <m1k0jv0-0000HjC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
To: v6ops@ietf.org
From: Philip Homburg <pch-v6ops-9@u-1.phicoh.com>
Sender: pch-b9D3CB0F5@u-1.phicoh.com
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>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 29 Jul 2020 12:43:23 +0200 ." <FCBD1043-A0B2-435A-9AB9-0FCE3566C769@employees.org>
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2020 13:06:39 +0200
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/z8S0k_onZSRzVDyH26Xj8DPkOgI>
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: Wed, 29 Jul 2020 11:06:55 -0000

>So you are proposing to fully embrace ossification and deprecate all EHs?

In my experience, any area where IPv6 is different from IPv4 is 
extremely annoying. As long as IPv6 is just IPv4 with bigger addresses,
you write the code once, taking into account the difference in 
addresses and that's it.

For the most part, todays internet is IPv4 with a bit of IPv6. So you have
do the IPv4 part anyhow, and it needs to work well.

There may be some isolated parts of the internet that can benefit from
features that only exist in IPv6, but in general, I think those features
are just going to be igored.

Of course this may change when IPv6 becomes the default, dominant protocol
and IPv4 is left to rot, but that may take a few years.