Re: [Coin] Semantic Routing : Abstract definition? Architectural formulation?

interesting stuff - most these sorts of scehemes run into trouble (as does  the whole history
of cidr/longest prefix stuff & aggregation) when you have multihoming...

by the way, i recall charigin the BOF on IPng requirements (20+ years ago) and we very
specifically considered most the same questions (certainly, very large numbers of small
footprint devices was absolutely on topic then - folks at boeing had come in with some
interesting estimates which raised eyebrows a bit, but are looking pretty solid 2 decades
later)  - was captured in
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ipng-recommendation-00

I'm not sure much has changed :-)

> Here they are Adrian
>  1.     Nirmala Shenoy, Shreyas, Peter Willis, 'A Structured Approach to 
> Routing in the Internet' workshop on Semantic Routing and Addressing for 
> Future Networks, SARNET 21 in the International Conference on High 
> Performance Routing and Switching. 2021, 7-10 June Paris, France.
> 
> 2. Nirmala Shenoy, Peter Willis, "Expedited Internet Bypass Protocol", 
> Invited Talk, NIPAA, New Internet Protocols Architectures and Algorithms, 
> 28th IEEE International Conference on Network Protocols, Oct 13-16 2020.
> 
> 3. Nirmala Shenoy, "An Expedited Internet Bypass Protocol - Improving 
> Internet Performance", Invited Talk, FIPE Future Internet Protocol 
> Evolution, IETF 109 side meeting, IRTF Research Group. 18th Nov. 2020
> 
> I have also included an invited talk presentation at FIPE.
> 
> Thanks
> Nirmala
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Coin <coin-bounces@irtf.org> On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel
> Sent: Tuesday, March 8, 2022 12:25 PM
> To: Nirmala Shenoy <nxsvks@rit.edu>; coin@irtf.org
> Cc: 'Carsten Bormann' <cabo@tzi.org>; 'Bernier, Daniel' 
> <daniel.bernier@bell.ca>; 'Dirk Kutscher' <ietf@dkutscher.net>; 
> ott@in.tum.de
> Subject: Re: [Coin] Semantic Routing : Abstract definition? Architectural 
> formulation?
> 
> Thanks Nirmala,
> 
> Do you have pointers to your SARNET and NIPAA publications?
> 
> Cheers,
> Adrian
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nirmala Shenoy <nxsvks@rit.edu>
> Sent: 08 March 2022 14:53
> To: adrian@olddog.co.uk; coin@irtf.org
> Cc: 'Carsten Bormann' <cabo@tzi.org>; 'Bernier, Daniel'
> <daniel.bernier@bell.ca>; ott@in.tum.de; 'Dirk Kutscher'
> <ietf@dkutscher.net>
> Subject: RE: [Coin] Semantic Routing : Abstract definition? Architectural 
> formulation?
> 
> Hello all
> See my comments below initialed NS on Carston's suggestions. I would like 
> to investigate our solution options further based on the suggestions by 
> Jon Crowfort, Carston nad Dirk Kutscher - but would appreciate any 
> direction on how to proceed.
> 
> Thanks
>  Nirmala
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Coin <coin-bounces@irtf.org> On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel
> Sent: Thursday, March 3, 2022 5:28 PM
> To: coin@irtf.org
> Cc: 'Carsten Bormann' <cabo@tzi.org>; 'Bernier, Daniel'
> <daniel.bernier@bell.ca>; ott@in.tum.de; 'Dirk Kutscher'
> <ietf@dkutscher.net>
> Subject: [Coin] Semantic Routing : Abstract definition? Architectural 
> formulation?
> 
> Hi again,
> 
> Picking up the third thread arising from questions at the interim.
> 
> Joerg Ott asked about the "picture" I had in mind. I think he was 
> objecting to the fragmented and somewhat abstract view that was coming 
> across, and wanted a step-back big picture. Dirk Trossen jumped in to 
> voice his agreement with what Jon Crowcroft had said on the list that, 
> "There needs to be some 'vision', architecture and abstractions." My 
> comment at the time was that this needs to be supplemented with some 
> concrete formulations of the problems that are being addressed.
> 
> All I can say to this is, "Yes."
> 
> We've started work on this, and (as you might imagine) it is a largish 
> piece of work. That is, it is not a lot of pages, but it is quite an 
> effort to get the taxonomy and ontology tight and precise. We think this 
> will probably turn into a paper.
> 
> I hope that it may lead on to something more concrete. As Carsten Bormann 
> put in the interim, "If we can come up with a labeling system that allows 
> different parts of the overall system to evolve independently, and that 
> provides a reasonable level of incentives to produce/make use of such 
> information, we win."
> 
> NS: This seems to align with some of the features of Expedited Internet 
> Bypass Protocol (EIBP) discussed in some detail in 
> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-jia-intarea-internet-addressing-gap-an
> alysis-02.html and more details in the SARNET 21 and NIPAA 2020 (invited
> talk) publications. EIBP  proposes a modular solution to assign addresses 
> to routers using  physical/virtual structures in networks, thus avoiding 
> the need for routing protocols. This would simplify router operations and 
> speed up packet forwarding significantly.
> EIBP allows limited domains to use their own addressing scheme suited to 
> their network constraints etc. Thus limited domains and  addresses in the 
> limited domain can evolve independently.
> 
> 
> Dirk Kutscher framed this with a warning, "The problem is that there is a 
> matrix of desirable functionality and different conceivable technical 
> means (e.g., app-layer overlays, SFC, NFV, IP layer QoS++, programmable 
> forwarding  semantics). You need a[n] architectural formulation to 
> explain why a particular subset is the right one." And Joerg Ott 
> qualified this as, "...for a given problem space."
> 
> Daniel Bernier took this a step further to ask about the "contractual 
> notion" whereby knowledge of the capabilities of the forwarding entity 
> must be known. This is the classic question that we have seen in various 
> proposals and proto-solutions where, on the one hand the network tells 
> the application what it can do, and on the other hand, the application 
> tells the network what it wants done. Possibly the solution lies with a 
> "broker" in the middle handling the application's declarative requests 
> and mapping them according to what the network has said it can provide 
> before actually instructing the network elements. As Nik Sultana then 
> pointed out, this also has implications for information shared between 
> routing domains.
> 
> I think all of this nicely sets the broad challenge of understanding what 
> semantic routing could offer and what problems it could encounter. And, 
> as I said at the time, it would be good if we could see something that 
> could span multiple problem spaces because generic versus specific is 
> always an interesting trade.
> 
> So, as we work on the abstraction, we are happy to have collaborators.
> 
> Best,
> Adrian
> 
> --
> Coin mailing list
> Coin@irtf.org
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/coin
> 
> --
> Coin mailing list
> Coin@irtf.org
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/coin
> 
> --
> Coin mailing list
> Coin@irtf.org
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/coin
> 