Re: FW: Next steps discussing Routing Challenges of Semantic Addressing

Le 06/05/2021 à 22:04, Robert Raszuk a écrit :
> All,
> 
> May I ask why this topic is being taken outside of IETF ?

Maybe because https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A0=SARAH is
not on IPv6?

> Is it so difficult to create a new list ?

I think it is very easy for IETF Secretariat to create email lists, but
it is very difficult for me to create a new local filter for each new
mailing list, and since some time now.  To address that problem, there
is a need of a new communications protocol feature to be used by the
IETF Secretariat in a trustful manner, such that it automatically
creates an email filter in my email reader and a new folder, upon the
creation of a new email list.

Creating a list first outside the IETF, and then potentially moving it
to IETF or IRTF, poses a significant challenge in automatically updating
these filters.  Because there would be no single entity (like the IETF
Secretariat) that could trigger this.  The Secretariat would have to
have a close relationship with that organisation outside of IETF.

> Or is this so off topic to say ipv6 or 6man lists that it can not be
>  discussed there ?

I think it does make sense to discuss it at IETF.

I doubt though that routing on more bits than a dst address can be
qualified as semantics.  Semantics would be if the packets could smell
something and routing would happen on that smell.  Or be coloured
something, or have a spin, or similar.

Addressing something with something else than an address also poses a
challenge.  On another hand, the semantics of an address could be
augmented with port numbers, and then routing could be done based on
address+portnumbers, maybe traffic engineering.

Just some simple thoughts...  I have to read the description first.

Alex

> 
> Thx, Robert
> 
> 
> On Thu, May 6, 2021 at 9:09 PM Manfredi (US), Albert E 
> <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com <mailto:albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com>>
>  wrote:
> 
> This is something that ought to be of interest to organizations which
> want to use their own semantics, in the IPv6 prefixes. There was some
> discussion on 6man some time ago, in which the assumption appeared to
> be, such a thing is already viable.
> 
> Bert
> 
> -----Original Message----- From: routing-discussion 
> <routing-discussion-bounces@ietf.org 
> <mailto:routing-discussion-bounces@ietf.org>> On Behalf Of Adrian 
> Farrel Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2021 05:49 To: irtf-discuss@irtf.org 
> <mailto:irtf-discuss@irtf.org>; routing-discussion@ietf.org 
> <mailto:routing-discussion@ietf.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Next steps 
> discussing Routing Challenges of Semantic Addressing
> 
> EXT email: be mindful of links/attachments.
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> Back in March we posted an initial draft to open the discussion of 
> research related to routing based on additional meaning assigned to 
> IP addresses, and to routing based on fields other than the 
> destination address field of an IP packet. That draft attracted some
>  comments, and one thing was clear: we needed to split the draft into
>  a survey of work that has happened / is happening, and a discussion
>  of the challenges to routing together with the research question.
> 
> So we have done this now (sorry it took so long) and have posted: 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-king-irtf-semantic-routing-survey/
>
>
>
>
>
> 
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-king-irtf-semantic-routing-survey/>
> 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-king-irtf-challenges-in-routing/
>
>
>
>
>
> 
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-king-irtf-challenges-in-routing/>
> 
> 
> These new drafts do not pick up all of the comments received (we 
> focused on the split), but we hope to address the comments in new 
> revisions soon.
> 
> At the same time, we have set up a dedicated mailing list for 
> discussion of "Semantic Addressing Routing and Hardware" (SARAH) at 
> sarah@jiscmail.ac.uk <mailto:sarah@jiscmail.ac.uk>. This is an 
> academic, research-based community where we can discuss all aspects 
> of the drafts, introduce our research to each other, and advertise 
> related conference activity. You can subscribe at 
> https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A0=SARAH 
> <https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A0=SARAH>.
> 
> We hope the new list will help to focus discussion and avoid
> spamming existing mailing lists.
> 
> Looking forward to hearing your opinions.
> 
> Adrian and Dan
> 
> _______________________________________________ routing-discussion 
> mailing list routing-discussion@ietf.org 
> <mailto:routing-discussion@ietf.org> 
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion 
> <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion>
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org 
> <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org> Administrative Requests: 
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 
> <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative 
> Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 