Re: [Flexip] [Int-area] The small address use case in FlexIP

Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com> Fri, 05 February 2021 18:24 UTC

Return-Path: <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: flexip@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: flexip@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5C433A0E22; Fri, 5 Feb 2021 10:24:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 QKZh1lI_J7ie; Fri, 5 Feb 2021 10:24:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wm1-x32e.google.com (mail-wm1-x32e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::32e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6A6503A0E1F; Fri, 5 Feb 2021 10:24:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wm1-x32e.google.com with SMTP id m1so6642185wml.2; Fri, 05 Feb 2021 10:24:56 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=X8JAfh7tLQRQ0ixdXKdgY3U9llor2bueNzZ0z0KAWAM=; b=Mu3jbU9V89Lq8flncLIFgqMKdE+I/Vc1iDFLsq4HuULotEkqheUei8DSn0n5VtN3uP Lepix1lApxPgaPcUMNUWewqk7snMAPAN/w8nm9VbtH6j6+xViJfPwWiHDstKE4A6dK5m w+YbEN0gDr0xUT23Z4aI2FNswPo+bp6AM9eE1VG2rHWr9oGzbZ7weJvkcZAXXmfwwsmG NqUeUqTXAL1ydSdeCyuvq6rcZG6NJMJcmGZnwT6oxQAVU4kk+sNlBGNd2EpLNsu+UCII G/hSiXMpVabmrtzR83m8WhejZtQH2+dkaoI/Wqq2Z3MjXwC17yXJOXAHtJtXprMsFn4E WXzA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=X8JAfh7tLQRQ0ixdXKdgY3U9llor2bueNzZ0z0KAWAM=; b=j7aOTVM+iRCfMElg5RK34+D6FkLV7sK2ixq8ScLRlSWTz5VY9PhyOQ3fSG9V/Pb7Hp qeGkR9JS/Rz3OawFa7414wNL44M0Lu7ErzCRjfS1OUiL/NII/pr2cASAE+fJs3Dpap97 no3RzXC0b/doxZ5upr5ghS4MK2gQ/xL47B+cWaDuv0/aiabzI2TnjUe/st4hIplBbeYo 3uRg6l1hf1gdKB5adsZKqDujYMpZeC4p0HcRBKIvxQOKCngaNlhZGUNrY9Y203Ksr+RX yiBo6lGI+LXEdd7SYRBd8MdjAsqMgs5gat4rcXKEecJSUCw5IJ0A71Rb8r77qlSaXOKc 1ZGQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532C0rhbBa/E+uYo5XMB45Z4Ypp1F1ddm4vfiXZkb+giI5wL0j4P qyMSRHej+jg/7pWBjKUPmci0l3/Mi+pWlQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwRiFt5SAENEhSgTNym/6Zcw16XWOdORL08ZBjzAZnJ87lJuPLK52U6hSPhe6SdywZhyAsEMg==
X-Received: by 2002:a1c:a957:: with SMTP id s84mr4591720wme.166.1612549494731; Fri, 05 Feb 2021 10:24:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from broadband.bt.com ([2a00:23c5:3395:c901:e83f:f200:1e3c:2cf7]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d23sm9546181wmd.11.2021.02.05.10.24.53 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 05 Feb 2021 10:24:54 -0800 (PST)
From: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>
Message-Id: <8EFF0C7E-32B2-4C30-B27A-6C165BA7A30B@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_E87FE328-9084-4838-8BE2-F75252ED1E5B"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.4\))
Date: Fri, 05 Feb 2021 18:24:52 +0000
In-Reply-To: <854102e6d17441fcabb16748245b18af@huawei.com>
Cc: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>, Jiayihao <jiayihao@huawei.com>, Lin Han <lin.han@futurewei.com>, "draft-jia-flex-ip-address-structure@ietf.org" <draft-jia-flex-ip-address-structure@ietf.org>, int-area <int-area@ietf.org>, "flexip@ietf.org" <flexip@ietf.org>, "sarikaya2012@gmail.com" <sarikaya2012@gmail.com>, "draft-jia-scenarios-flexible-address-structure@ietf.org" <draft-jia-scenarios-flexible-address-structure@ietf.org>
To: Dirk Trossen <dirk.trossen@huawei.com>
References: <727cfc33b0cb41acaeacc21a33c39d4d@huawei.com> <B697AF2A-8B98-4CB8-ACDC-688058276F43@gmail.com> <854102e6d17441fcabb16748245b18af@huawei.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.4)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/flexip/OsPUB3p-StQ2IWeFbZiutr4mu28>
Subject: Re: [Flexip] [Int-area] The small address use case in FlexIP
X-BeenThere: flexip@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Flexible Internet addressing and Flexible routing <flexip.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/flexip>, <mailto:flexip-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/flexip/>
List-Post: <mailto:flexip@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:flexip-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/flexip>, <mailto:flexip-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Feb 2021 18:24:59 -0000

Dear Dirk

There may be some material that you can use from

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bryant-arch-fwd-layer-uc-01
And 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bryant-arch-fwd-layer-ps/

- Stewart

> On 5 Feb 2021, at 15:12, Dirk Trossen <dirk.trossen@huawei.com> wrote:
> 
> Stewart, all,
>  
> As Yihao pointed out, we are working on an update to the draft to focus the discussion on the communication scenarios and problems arising in those scenarios. In that sense, we agree with your desire for a holistic discussion and see this upcoming update as one of the next towards that.
>  
> With that in mind, I suggest that we continue the discussions after this upcoming update since it is not the intention at this stage to propose any solutions or constrain any thinking about solutions but to agree that problems may exist that will need to be addressed.
>  
> Best regards,
>  
> Dirk
>  
> From: Int-area [mailto:int-area-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Stewart Bryant
> Sent: 05 February 2021 15:59
> To: Jiayihao <jiayihao@huawei.com>
> Cc: Lin Han <lin.han@futurewei.com>; draft-jia-flex-ip-address-structure@ietf.org; int-area <int-area@ietf.org>; flexip@ietf.org; sarikaya2012@gmail.com; draft-jia-scenarios-flexible-address-structure@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Int-area] The small address use case in FlexIP
>  
>  
> 
> 
> On 5 Feb 2021, at 12:06, Jiayihao <jiayihao@huawei.com <mailto:jiayihao@huawei.com>> wrote:
>  
> - Indeed, the network scale of limited domain is supposed to be less that IPv6, but it doesn't mean the address space should be strictly less than 128-bit. If the space of the address is abundant enough, the public key could be embedded without truncation (compare to CGA in IPv6) for certain security purpose.
>  
> Interesting, what are the advantages in adding the signature of the address in the address as opposed to carrying it in a different field?
>  
> The disadvantage is that you bind the address to the signature algorithm which you would not want to do since you would expect to change the signature algorithm during the lifetime of the protocol.
>  
> Also would you really want to feed the signature into the longest match engine? Of course you could and there are some advantages in that you look up both the address and it signature, but I think you loose longest match capability and you significantly increase the size of the TCAM or other FIB design memory, and that memory is very expensive as it determines the line rate of the forwarder.
>  
> So this points back to the need for a holistic discussion of what we are trying to achieve, the extent to which modifying existing protocols satisfies that need, and whether (given the presupposed need for a gateway) we should be looking for a single protocol, a family of protocols, or an adaptable protocol.
>  
> I don’t think we can design the addressing system in the absence of a discussion on those points.
>  
> Best regards
>  
> Stewart
>  
>