On Thu, Feb 27, 2020, 2:26 PM Phillip Hallam-Baker <ph...@hallambaker.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 5:09 PM Tom Herbert <t...@herbertland.com> 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. > > The sooner people get over that fact the better. > > If an IPv4 device interacts with an IPv6 device, there will be address > translation going on somewhere along the path. That is inevitable. > > We discovered that there were good reasons for NATing IPv4 besides address > multiplexing. The topology of my network is none of your business. > > More generally, Internet standards only apply to the Inter-net, the > network of networks. What happens inside the networks at either end is for > the owners of those networks to decide. If we go back to the original > Internet design, they didn't even need to run IP. IP end to end come later. > > So let us stop being dogmatic about things that don't actually matter. The > only job of the network layer is to get packets from one end to another. > The only job of the transport layer is to provide reliable streams. An > application protocol that depends on the IP address remaining constant end > to end is a bad protocol and should be rejected. > So Authentication Header and any other sort of Inetwork layer authentication are bad protocols that should be rejected? Tom
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list Int-area@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
