Re: [irtf-discuss] Update on "Challenges for the Internet Routing Infrastructure Introduced by Changes"

[Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]>]

Thanks Marie-José,

Yes, this is certainly work that is needed.

We should present a little more about the architectures that people are considering, and the split of address/metadata/data is a helpful distinction. In fact, the metadata/data is largely historic, and we're looking at the various proposals to encode information in the address. Perhaps our draft currently has too much information about previous work, and not enough about current proposals -- work in progress!

I just want to note that it's not our new addressing 😊. What we're trying to do is collect information about all of the proposals and research that are out there.

The pointer to COIN is helpful, and we'll try to factor something into the next revision.

Best,
Adrian

-----Original Message-----
From: Marie-Jose Montpetit <[e-mail]> 
Sent: 24 February 2021 12:24
To: [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [irtf-discuss] Update on "Challenges for the Internet Routing Infrastructure Introduced by Changes"


I think it would be nice if your document was putting more focus on the proposed architecture and the applications that could need your new addressing. Also I think there are three layers here: address (IP or IP like), meta data and data. Of course you could route on any or all of them which I think is what you propose. And the more you go from simple ‘this is where I want to go’ into how and why complexity increases and speed goes down. Maybe you should also highlight performance aspects  more clearly. There is a link to the COIN work where discovery and essentially in-router computations would add new potential for routing algorithms.

mjm

Marie-José Montpetit, Ph.D.

> On Feb 24, 2021, at 5:01 AM, Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> We received some feedback (thanks) on draft-king-irtf-challenges-in-routing
> and posted an update at
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-king-irtf-challenges-in-routing/
> 
> To recap, the draft presents a brief survey of technologies related to IP
> address semantic proposals and describes the challenges to the existing
> routing system that they present. It then summarizes the opportunities for
> research into new or modified routing protocols to make use of new address
> semantics. It does not pass comment on the advisability or practicality of
> any of the solutions.
> 
> The intention, therefore, is to try to get a broad view of the work that has
> been done, is in hand, and needs to be done. The document is not attempting
> a detailed technical analysis, and is not proposing technical solutions.
> 
> We would really appreciate comments, feedback, and pointers to related work.
> 
> Thanks,
> Adrian (for the authors)