Re: [Coin] Challenges for routing systems

[Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]>]

All of the points are inter-related.

 

Standardisation is not the act of standardisation, but the need for it. 

 

Some approaches to forwarding can live with individual network nodes making decisions based on their view of objectives and network state – each network node can have a different way of making decisions and yet packets get successfully delivered. ML/AI forwarding engines are examples. Such approaches do not need standardisation, and there is nothing to standardise.

 

Other approaches work if and only if all nodes in the network have a common understanding of how to forward packets. And some approaches require that all nodes learn a common view of the network. Those approaches need standardisation.

 

A critical question to ask when evaluating a routing system is into which category the approach under consideration fits.

 

Best,

Adrian

 

From: Marie-Jose Montpetit <[e-mail]> 
Sent: 03 February 2022 12:58
To: David R. Oran <[e-mail]>et>; [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; King, Daniel <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Coin] Challenges for routing systems

 

Well 4. is also related to 1, 2, 3 and 5 :) But obviously not standardisation.

 

 

mjm

 

 

 

Marie-José Montpetit, Ph.D.

[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> 

 

 


From: David R. Oran  <mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Reply: David R. Oran  <mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: February 3, 2022 at 7:22:32 AM
To: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>   <mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Cc: King, Daniel  <mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>uk>, [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>   <mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>om>, [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>   <mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Re: [Coin] Challenges for routing systems 





Hi - thanks for the comprehensive list to get a parsing/decomposition of the possible research areas to include in a work program. It would also be valuable in general for IRTF folks to get a sense for which research groups around the world are working in which of these areas and what some of their recent publications are.

I don’t follow routing research much beyond issues related to the narrow case of ICN, so I haven’t seen much in most of these areas in the conferences and journals I do follow. 

Of the things on this list, which do you think are good topics for discussion and research agendas for COINRG? My reading of is that COINRG would be a candidate venue for part of #4, but not for any of the other items. What do others think?

___________________________
iDevice - please excuse typos.

> On Feb 3, 2022, at 2:53 AM, Adrian Farrel <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> > wrote:
> 
> Hi again,
> 
> This email introduces some of the challenges that exist for
> routing/forwarding systems.
> 
> Our motivation in putting this document together has been our experience
> with many pieces of research that are based either on simple networks or on
> very stable networks. Such approaches can show that a new routing system can
> work, but they don't evaluate the utility of the system in real-world
> networks. Thus, we are attempting to collect guidance for the research
> community to help make routing research more grounded and so more valuable
> as input to the engineering community.
> 
> While our personal drive behind this work comes from Semantic Routing (and
> particularly observing which Semantic Routing research work is in need of
> additional effort), we hope that our ideas will be valuable across the
> research community where-ever new approaches to packet routing/forwarding
> are being considered. As with the core Semantic Routing work, our focus here
> is at layer 3 (IP layer), packet-level routing and forwarding. We are not
> spending much time considering the application of routing at higher layers
> or through overlays: while many similar considerations may exist, the nature
> of things is that as you abstract upwards, the number of network nodes and
> links becomes fewer, the network becomes more stable, and the problem space
> becomes simpler.
> 
> I won't repeat the contents of
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-king-irtf-challenges-in-routing in
> this email since the purpose of the draft is to provide the more detailed
> basis for discussion and record, but it may be helpful to give context by
> listing out the top-level considerations that we have so far:
> 1. What is the scope of the routing proposal? 
> Global, backbone, overlay, gateway-based, limited domain?
> 2. What will be the impact on existing routing systems?
> 3. What path characteristics are needed to describe the desired
> IP-layer paths and as input to route computation?
> 4. Can we solve these routing challenges with existing routing tools
> and methods? Is new hardware needed? Do we need new routing
> protocols?
> 5. Do we need new management tools and techniques?
> 6. What is the impact on the security of the routing system?
> What are the implications to privacy?
> 7. What is the scalability impact on routing systems?
> 8. To what extent can the proposed routing scheme be applied
> to multicast transmission schemes?
> 9. What aspects need to be standardized?
> 
> We have been discussing this work within the IETF (specifically the Routing
> Area discussion list and the RTGWG) because the engineers there will have a
> perspective on what gets forgotten and what problems they have seen with
> deploying new routing techniques, but the purpose of the work is to give
> input to researchers. And, of course, we have started to take this material
> to workshops and conferences to spread the word.
> 
> In the context of COIN, we are interested to know how we could make this
> more relevant to what COIN researchers are doing, and we would love to have
> feedback on whether this is useful, scary, or irrelevant.
> 
> Best,
> Adrian
> 
> -- 
> Coin mailing list
> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> 
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/coin

-- 
Coin mailing list
[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> 
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/coin