Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Limited Domains:

On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 3:36 PM Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> +1 on the different meanings to different people on limited domains
>
> The concept of limited domains has definitely evolved and grown but I
> think the main underlying theme of limited or I think a better term is
> “closed” domain is simply the “operators” network whatever that encompasses
> which could be a single AS or 100s of ASs that maybe have many
> administrative sub domains as containers within the overall operators
> domain.
>
> MPLS was a means of confining the concept of a domain but within inter AS
> options the domain sprawl can still be a collection of ASs.
>
> There are many nuances with the term limited or closed domain so can also
> be very different on a case by case basis.
>
> Also the concept of domain varies drastically even from public operators
> domain verses private internal domain.  Also even within a single operators
> network their maybe multiple sub domains within public and private network
> within an operators overall “domain” that may be parts of different
> administrative boundaries but even so they still communicate and is not a
> “limited or closed” domain.  There are even case where the public and
> private have peering points to each other connect at the hip over MPLS.
>
> At a high level you can think of a corporation and all of its many sub
> domains which are part of many separate administrative domains that somehow
> are all interconnected public and private are now part of one very large
> “limited” or “closed” domain.
>
> There are so many variables and variations and nuances the idea of a
> “limited” or “closed” domain exists which could encompass all sub domains
> and thus in some cases that limited domain may not see that limited as it
> could be quite massive.
>
> Yes, and the scale of those large domains renders any proposal that relies
on a perfectly synchronized configuration across all the elements to
inevitably be problematic in deployment. Even in a limited domain, It is
better to use explicit code points for new features to avoid any ambiguity
and allow incremental deployment (i.e. no "flag days").

Tom

> Thanks
>
> Gyan
>
> On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 6:12 PM Manfredi (US), Albert E <
> albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com> wrote:
>
>> From: ipv6 <ipv6-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Robert Raszuk
>>
>> > I think this this thread nicely demonstrates that we need to first
>> define what a "limited domain" is.
>> >
>> > To some it seems to be 1980s definition of an IGP network boundary.
>> More modern folks would consider as "limited domain" a set of IGP ASNs
>> areas interconnected by p2p BGP still under the same administration.
>> >
>> > For me "limited domain" is an arbitrary collection of sites anywhere in
>> the world using Internet for inter-connectivity.
>>
>> Good point! Whereas to me, "limited domain" means, only inside this
>> platform.
>>
>> > So any protocol which claims to be defined for "limited domain" and
>> which claims that it is backwards compatible with nodes not supporting it
>> is equal to allow it to traverse Internet.
>>
>> "Backwards compatible" may mean different things to different people, and
>> it seem dubious in this case (because flow label is to be a random value,
>> per IPv6). My main view is, if the domain is truly limited, firewalled or
>> even air gapped, then what is the motivation to seek approval in a
>> standards body?
>>
>> Bert
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>> ipv6@ietf.org
>> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
> --
>
> <http://www.verizon.com/>
>
> *Gyan Mishra*
>
> *Network Solutions A**rchitect *
>
> *Email gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com <gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com>*
>
>
>
> *M 301 502-1347*
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>