Hi, Joe,
On 21/1/21 14:17, Joseph Touch wrote:
On Jan 20, 2021, at 3:27 PM, Fernando Gont <fgont@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On 20/1/21 17:25, Joe Touch wrote:
On Jan 20, 2021, at 12:07 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker
<phill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
0) Nowhere does the 'end to end' principle demand that the
source and destination addresses on an IP packet remain
constant
IP addresses is the only means for identifying an Internet
endpoint per RFC 1122. While I agree that there may be utility of
having proxied endpoints (e.g. NATs) with effectively internal
addresses behind them, it doesn’t help the case to begin with
this inaccurate assertion.
I'd have agreed with you. BUt since
draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming has been approved by the
IESG, you probably cannot make such assertion anymore.
One draft that doesn’t update or obsolete numerous others does not
undermine 40 yrs of E2E.
Esp. when (AFAICT) that doc series never mentions how transport
protocols are supposed to deal with indeterminate endpoint addresses
in their pseudo headers or the impact to security protocols at the
transport (not transport content) layer.
One *internet-draft* certainly doesn't undermine E2E. However, I guess
that an *RFC* published as a "Proposed Standard" probably does
(undermine) E2E? -- (draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming has been
approved by the IESG).
At the end of the day, I guess we cannot publish a PS that clearly
breaks E2E, while at the same time claim or pretend that we keep/have
E2E....
(Full-disclosure: I was on the side of keeping E2E
(https://www6.ietf.org/iesg/appeal/gont-2020-04-22.txt))
Thanks,
--
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492
