Christian,
Thanks for your response! In-line...
On 27/2/20 21:43, Christian Huitema wrote:
[....]
This may be a cynical point of view, but it matches what Bernard Aboba
mentions in his description of "tussle space". Experience shows that if
intermediaries gain benefits in messing around with data in transit,
they will. The IETF may send them RFC copies in triplicate, but that
won't stop them. In the absence of encryption, the only reason it is a
tussle and not a free for all is the fear of breaking existing
applications. The network operators will not deploy a middle-box that
breaks important services, because disruption will make them lose
customers or otherwise incur costs.
There seems to be plenty of empirical evidence that that's not the case.
Not that they mean to break things, but they do -- e.g., a box that
rewrites TCP sequence numbers, but fails to rewrite the SACK options.
And many many others.
[....]
You are mentioning segment routing variants. For me, they fall very much
in this tussle category. Network equipment makers believe that this
technology will make the network better in some ways -- maybe faster, or
maybe easier to manage. It is definitely a departure from Steve
Deering's IPv6 vision of a simple network happily forwarding IPv6
datagrams.
Don't we have a standards process for this, as in "Publish a draft that
formally updates RFC8200, gain consensus, and get it published as RFC"?
Or, where/when did things change to "This wg has decided to violate the
specs from another wg"?
And, more generally: does anybody do anywork or have a say on the
architecture of the whole system?
For instance, we have an "Internet Architecture Board". Does the IAB
have a say one the architecture and principles that we're developing
specs within?
Thanks,
--
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492
