Philip,
On 27/2/20 19:26, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 5:09 PM Tom Herbert <tom@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:tom@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Fernando,
I think we need to be careful that IETF is labeled as a collection of
inflexible architectural purists. We know that standards conformance
is voluntary and we haven't seen the last time that someone, possibly
even a major vendor, will circumvent the system for their own
purposes.
IP end to end does not mean the IP address is constant end to end. It
never has meant that and never will. An IP address is merely a piece of
data that allows a packet to reach its destination. There is no reason
to insist on it remaining constant along the path.
You seem to be missing the point I was trying to make.
We're talking about IPv6 routers doing heavy surgery on IPv6 packets,
while en-route to destination.
And we are also talking about violating IETF specs at will, and
circumventing IETF processes.
This does break things, make troubleshooting painful, etc.
AH may break
PMTUD may break
Error may reporting break
I'm not being purist. I'm just arguing that we probably can do better
than simply rubber-stamping any hacks a vendor with big pockets may
bring up.
Otherwise, I don't see the point of all this big structure.
For instance, we have an "Internet Architecture Board", which I guess
have a say on things that affect architecture?
Thanks,
--
Fernando Gont
e-mail: fernando@xxxxxxxxxxx || fgont@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1
