Fernando Gont <fg...@si6networks.com> wrote:
>>
>> Why do these kind of arguments emerge right now instead of 5 years
>> ago? We left the “problem “ for 5 years? And suddenly we notice them?
>> How interesting.
> One possibility: All this kind of arguments did emerge a long time ago
> -- NAmely, when working on rfc2460bis, which eventually became
> RFC8200. As a results of the problems associated with EH-insertion,
> there was IETF consensus to explicitly ban it in RFC8200. Maybe some
> 6man'ers were not subscribed to the spring wg list, were quite
> surprised to see documents relying on EH-insertion (one ins spring, and
> another, indirectly, in lsr), and hence decided to comment.
I would suggest that the result was slightly different.
We decided in RFC8200 that EH-insertion by random devices for randomly
defined purposes was banned.
That if a device/operator needed to do that, that they ought to use IPIP
insertion. We failed to actually follow through with RFC8504 to make
it possible to actually use IPIP in a general case.
What I think that we wound up in RFC8200, and I think that it was
intentionally very subtly under-stated by the AD at the time, was that any
IETF Specification could in effect make any rule it wanted, and it
would be subject to IETF Last Call and IESG review.
So what we banned was EH-insertion by vendors or operators without
significant (standards-level) thought as to applicability. We are now here,
we are supposed to be discussing if this use case, along with it's
applicability, warant a reasonable exception.
I have not followed the hundreds of messages in this thread, but I read a few.
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
