Re: [arch-d] ETSI launches new group on Non-IP Networking addressing 5G new services

Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de> Thu, 09 April 2020 21:28 UTC

Return-Path: <eckert@i4.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
X-Original-To: architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67CE53A0EF3 for <architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Apr 2020 14:28:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.871
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.871 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.248, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dHi4yjGR2MdV for <architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Apr 2020 14:28:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de [IPv6:2001:638:a000:4134::ffff:40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3A5723A0EF1 for <architecture-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Apr 2020 14:28:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de [131.188.34.52]) by faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82D29548017; Thu, 9 Apr 2020 23:28:41 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Postfix, from userid 10463) id 7A28C440040; Thu, 9 Apr 2020 23:28:41 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2020 23:28:41 +0200
From: Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>
To: Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com>
Cc: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org>, architecture-discuss@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20200409212841.GK28965@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
References: <6A3A4410-A889-46C7-8FD5-7C5AA85486A1@tzi.org> <20200408054204.GA6005@nic.fr> <6C2A3533-7F75-45B1-9B51-19938597174B@tzi.org> <20200408194154.GJ28965@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <4200C5F8-9F56-4FFF-90F4-7AD76A9F4FC8@eggert.org> <20200409121941.GZ28965@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <C758BDF2-8CD6-4C22-90CA-6ED98DACD740@eggert.org> <20200409175431.GF28965@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <1e89795e-6bd9-2318-aa81-27f8327e1226@gmail.com> <229AAF4A-C43F-46E9-97C6-99CC124E9B48@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <229AAF4A-C43F-46E9-97C6-99CC124E9B48@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/architecture-discuss/45Vmf4p4wFElzbCbqMjxzBHJ98M>
Subject: Re: [arch-d] ETSI launches new group on Non-IP Networking addressing 5G new services
X-BeenThere: architecture-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: open discussion forum for long/wide-range architectural issues <architecture-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/architecture-discuss>, <mailto:architecture-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/architecture-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:architecture-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:architecture-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss>, <mailto:architecture-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2020 21:28:47 -0000

Anything variable length is still under i think a lot of contention
in forwarding plane, even P4 if i remember correctly some discussions.

Heck, i even had a lot of fight when we wanted to introduce variable
length in control plane addressing a decade ago (FEC in mLDP ;-)

I think this is one of those architectural topics where we need to
push so that hardware inventors invest cycles to make variable
length addresses more likely to become mainstream.

There is quite a good amount of private networks, that have no
interest to deal with 128 bit addresses and are happy with
rfc1918 addresses for example.

Most service provider cores run with 20 bit addresses, not even
requiring aggregation. Others use non-aggregateable 48 Bit
addresses. Or 64 bit addresses.

Aka: IMHO the argument of variable length addresses is still 
quite an open issue..

On Thu, Apr 09, 2020 at 02:19:06PM -0700, Dino Farinacci wrote:
> I agree with you Brian. But remember NSAP addresses are variable length so we could have addressed nodes out of different sized addresses. 
> 
> The big question would TCAM and DRAM vendors have designed their chips for the smaller case or the 20 byte case. For IPv6 they were required to design for the 128-bit case.
> 
> Also, back then, we would have thought crazy that software forwarders would be so popular like they are today.
> 
> Dino

-- 
---
tte@cs.fau.de