Re: [Int-area] I-D Action: draft-eckert-intarea-functional-addr-internets-00.txt
Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de> Wed, 14 July 2021 01:12 UTC
Return-Path: <eckert@i4.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
X-Original-To: int-area@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: int-area@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A17843A0CD5 for <int-area@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Jul 2021 18:12:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, GB_FAKE_RF_SHORT=1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, 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 8fF8QQui0J1B for <int-area@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Jul 2021 18:12:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de [131.188.34.40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C34393A0CDA for <int-area@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Jul 2021 18:12:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de [IPv6:2001:638:a000:4134::ffff:51]) by faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 088EC549E0F; Wed, 14 Jul 2021 03:12:09 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Postfix, from userid 10463) id F2BA04E7A2F; Wed, 14 Jul 2021 03:12:08 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2021 03:12:08 +0200
From: Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Cc: int-area@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20210714011208.GA23384@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
References: <162612002506.8537.612243158469867340@ietfa.amsl.com> <52321780-7219-1e1f-401b-b3d24ce27679@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <52321780-7219-1e1f-401b-b3d24ce27679@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-area/QSr0SXxT8XYk7g5ZWGNsovjd0Dk>
Subject: Re: [Int-area] I-D Action: draft-eckert-intarea-functional-addr-internets-00.txt
X-BeenThere: int-area@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Internet Area Mailing List <int-area.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/int-area>, <mailto:int-area-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/int-area/>
List-Post: <mailto:int-area@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:int-area-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area>, <mailto:int-area-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2021 01:12:22 -0000
Thanks Brian I think i agree with most what you write in that memo, and i think what i am proposing in my draft is not too much misaligned either. Putting really the function/program/path to get to a particular destination moves the purpose of the adress field much more away from the "globally unique" address field that was at the root of IP/IPv6. I just picked the word source/destination address to at least keep vocabulary. And remembering how we couldn't even agree in IETF about better terminology. E.g.: all hell would break out again if the destination address field was called "locator". But i'll be happy to attempt calling the destination address field "forwarding-function" and the source address field "diagnostic-function". When it comes to names<->forwarding function, i think there can and should be various options. Within a limited size family, relative names seem to work fine "uncle joe" which is only valid relative to a particular source works fine. Especially when there are multiple joe, but all with different paths (relationship). Meaning: In many interconnected IoT/ industrial networks i can see that you do not need to bother about any additional names, but the forwarding-function will suffice. Adding DNS to embedded networks is often avoided due to "not required". When it comes to other use-cases, such as Internet or anything too large or with too many muggles involved, i am all for names. The draft has some high level outline. In general, i tried to avoid talking about solutions that require in-forwarding-plane name<->forwarding-function resolution, because this can be expensive and/or slow. And i think our MPLS/IGP/VPN/BGP architecture has teached us quite a bit how to move all this work out into the control plane. But of course, this is in general wide open. All the writeup in your doc about pessimisn of adoption is even more true today than when you wrote it. I think the requirement for any new hop-by-hop network layer are offerings where a third party could buy a self-programmable hop-by-hop network as they can today buy compute+ networking at cloud DC for softwre routers. Cheers Toerless On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 10:12:20AM +1200, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > Hi all, > > I think there's a case to be made that layer 3 itself is the problem, not the details of an addressing scheme [1]. (That reference predated QUIC, but I think the main conclusions stand.) A more radical solution like NDN [2] may be needed. > > [1] https://doi.org/10.1145/2602204.2602215, a.k.a. https://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~brian/CCR-201404-IPaddrHarmful.pdf > > [2] https://named-data.net > > Regards > Brian Carpenter > > On 13-Jul-21 08:00, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote: > > > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. > > > > > > Title : Functional Addressing (FA) for internets with Independent Network Address Spaces (IINAS) > > Author : Toerless Eckert > > Filename : draft-eckert-intarea-functional-addr-internets-00.txt > > Pages : 30 > > Date : 2021-07-12 > > > > Abstract: > > Recent work has raised interest in exploring network layer addressing > > that is more flexible than fixed-length addressing as used in IPv4 > > (32 bit) and IPv6 (128 bit). > > > > The reasons for the interest include both support for multiple and > > potentially novel address semantics, but also optimizations of > > addressing for existing semantics such as unicast tailored not for > > the global Internet but to better support private networks / limited > > domains. > > > > This memo explores in the view of the author yet little explored > > reasons for more flexible addresses namely the problems and > > opportunities for Internetworking with Independent Network Address > > Spaces (IINAS). > > > > To better enable such internetworks, this memo proposes a framework > > for a Functional Addressing model. This model also intends to > > support several other addressing goals including programmability and > > multiple semantics. > > > > > > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-eckert-intarea-functional-addr-internets/ > > > > There is also an htmlized version available at: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-eckert-intarea-functional-addr-internets-00 > > > > > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > I-D-Announce mailing list > > I-D-Announce@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce > > Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html > > or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt > > -- --- tte@cs.fau.de
- Re: [Int-area] I-D Action: draft-eckert-intarea-f… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Int-area] I-D Action: draft-eckert-intarea-f… Toerless Eckert