IETF Logo Mail Archive

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 21:59 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 994CD3A0FF7 for <architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Apr 2020 14:59:33 -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 AFzi5FgJlvWO for <architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Apr 2020 14:59:31 -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 758CD3A0FF1 for <architecture-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Apr 2020 14:59:31 -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 C8072548015; Thu, 9 Apr 2020 23:59:25 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Postfix, from userid 10463) id BF517440040; Thu, 9 Apr 2020 23:59:25 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2020 23:59:25 +0200
From: Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>
To: Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com>
Cc: Tony Li <tony1athome@gmail.com>, architecture-discuss@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20200409215925.GA44502@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
References: <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> <20200409212841.GK28965@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <0A15B52E-2A67-4D6A-AACF-8A92FB67ADEC@gmail.com> <53EFFD37-57EB-4288-AE19-2EB2DC3BDE39@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <53EFFD37-57EB-4288-AE19-2EB2DC3BDE39@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/architecture-discuss/A7jOlgCzkW87r6hYgqte-BOb06o>
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 21:59:34 -0000

On Thu, Apr 09, 2020 at 02:43:41PM -0700, Dino Farinacci wrote:
> And OSPF was too complicated for networks and IGRP will live on into 2020.  ;-)
> 
> My point being Toerless, is that the variable length issue would now be 2 decades behind us, very well understood and mainstream today.

I got your point.  But remember last years forwarding plane talk (i think you where there).

Right now we only have the disucss whether somehing works in forwading plane
individually in each protocol new field discuss, and that does not give us
good coverage. It also raises the risk that someone who does not like a
protocol uses the "not possible in forwarding plane" as a scapegoat
not having to say no on a protocol due to otherreasons (company policies etc..).

Cheers
    toerless

> Dino
> 
> > On Apr 9, 2020, at 2:35 PM, Tony Li <tony1athome@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> Aka: IMHO the argument of variable length addresses is still 
> >> quite an open issue..
> > 
> > 
> > It shouldn???t be.  Today???s hardware is enormously capable and continues to grow aggressively (thank you Gordon Moore).
> > 
> > It would be backwards to let hardware limitations constrain the architecture.  Instead, the hardware will always grow to what is needed by the architecture.
> > 
> > That said, that???s no excuse to create enormously wasteful architectures.  Resources are not free. Waste not, want not.
> > 
> > Tony
> > 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Architecture-discuss mailing list
> Architecture-discuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email