Re: Minneapolis - agenda items please.

[Johan Ihren <johani@autonomica.se>]

Robert Elz <kre@munnari.OZ.AU> writes:

>     Date:        Wed, 27 Feb 2002 21:32:21 -0800
>     From:        Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
>     Message-ID:  <E16gJAz-000G7v-00@rip.psg.com>
> 
>   | i see it as 'your' responsibility to live with the altered physics when
>   | you, irregardless of transport, *leave* the internet by moving behind
>   | a firm boundary.
> 
> There's a presumption in this that leaving the internet is a voluntary
> choice, made by a party that is excluded.
> 
> If your ISP decides that they don't like your mail behaviour (perhaps
> you say bad things about them in public...) and filters you - whose
> responsibility is it to then "hide" the problem by rearranging MX records
> so mail can get delivered without delaying other sites MTAs attempting to
> connect to filtered addresses?
> 
> Of to be even more bizarre, if I decide to filter (the metaphoric) you,
> so my MTA cannot reach your MX target, who should be dealing with that
> as a problem?   You're the filtered one after all.
> 
> Filtering creates all kinds of issues, and simply deciding that someone
> else should "fix" it seems to me to be outside reality.

Well said.

> kre
> 
> ps: is this discussion about the "don't publish unreachable" draft,
> or about the "v4-v6 namespace fragmentation" draft?  I would have
> guessed the former, but some of the comments make me believe that it
> might be about the latter - it would be nice if the Subject header
> gave some clue...  I know that the meeting agenda item is v4-v6, but
> most of the discussion seems to be about whether unreachable
> addresses should be published.  All very confusing...

It is really about both, in a general sense. They are connected in
devious ways, which I think is becoming obvious to anyone who has had
the stamina to follow us this far.

But at a higher level it is not about any of them, but rather about
the definition of "the Internet" (wow, how's that for a meta-discussion?).

There are two choices of definition:

* "1-1 mutual reachability for any pair of nodes, adjust the namespace
  to fit". Let's call this "Internet Classic".

* "same namespace, regardless of reachability". Let's call this
  "Internet Noveau".

and their respective consequences are:

* with the classical, definition the v4/v6 migration goes down in
  flames (since that definition makes v4 and v6 *different* internets
  rather than different transports for the *same* Internet). Then they
  *should* have different namespaces.

* with the latter definition v4/v6 migration becomes at least
  teoretically possible, since nodes are allowed to be unable to reach
  each other while still inhabiting the same Internet. But instead
  split-DNS becomes bad form, since the unreachability characteristics
  should not be tracked in the DNS namespace.

I really don't think that I can make the choice any clearer than that.

It should also be pointed out that with the latter definition we raise
the requirements for the v4/v6 DNS transport bridging ickiness, while
with the former we lower them.

Johan