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

Marie-Jose Montpetit <marie@mjmontpetit.com> Wed, 24 February 2021 13:01 UTC

Return-Path: <marie@mjmontpetit.com>
X-Original-To: irtf-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: irtf-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B8243A155F for <irtf-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Feb 2021 05:01:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.895
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.895 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mjmontpetit-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 OQlEqvD38mwl for <irtf-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Feb 2021 05:01:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lj1-x22c.google.com (mail-lj1-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::22c]) (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 6F5F83A155E for <irtf-discuss@irtf.org>; Wed, 24 Feb 2021 05:01:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lj1-x22c.google.com with SMTP id a17so2306320ljq.2 for <irtf-discuss@irtf.org>; Wed, 24 Feb 2021 05:01:43 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mjmontpetit-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=1HU0edegs1Z/htrB/b+NI1qcFsRMoZKcWrZ9ytXIv+U=; b=j5wGT0pnKaKQtvbjGWBW/J0JrI2HwJrcFj1peFSVT+Z+GNTSYolOaiEC1u+nizk/qz SGq8+J2v9FeKvx/BslcrNUGP2XRhvwsBvrstKyV6h2xht+VPey3iYbnRWVgjGTBOV2RR /1y5KRT6m8x2ZlGb3FpfFiNy6t37nVGyISPfOHk990RpGPbaPfAZD0Q8JlItlrwqvyNG 90V5SQO40IT3yD4az5z/JyPUe5Av2zmuUFHBwLCcRh3v+XHT0TogP1+vHyqsodyCUElX az+O72Mg2yqCgk/bT6P/SiX4Q5uPZx8svBpm05T18QY4lZduYA49EFWXjW3w/4VOLJ4o WeeA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=1HU0edegs1Z/htrB/b+NI1qcFsRMoZKcWrZ9ytXIv+U=; b=H2kPqWwn5Kp9kY1BajDoePKHxR7048FzS8SPQQlRdYeQlrpxLDLE5XwM6Y2EGHQ+xQ 9Iqhc8VdecaAxnVtoZH6689Cnvib1NgbRPcMGWrW+unWv/XZVP9Wg+IAVfrgth875vcN zjtaKKx+os4rX/9pX73pcOTUgq1yVE3UOQDuSADZZed750e8AlAxi4MJH+sFSmILSCOR Ij07ObjmNuWWK8eChHoHJB7VzGDEutzO9Ti24cRJU4Pfm2bxnD9iyTC8/RktoNFLYTwH IOe5gdSR6VbVILpWIQ0mITjkT0nZE6TEU73lUYhCgO/t4HGZvKO4V1ynk2Cqwg8ZZNFt DhfA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531F34hpaTlMfkfCg4QoHdF5VuNHlM/R42PQqVVlplkK1TLbDOZR BB1lNqRQbMYhuVx2S6pjWuvMjRpHqoxTjokXi+YSyw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxKSinJVVjkjc+P/ndoELpgsRXLduRvQ1xk7pT/ldtyoGQ17YHZhgwrKBfGOb6CkcNAEm5m0IQorGPP2LhXpcs=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:87cb:: with SMTP id v11mr2886804ljj.9.1614171701198; Wed, 24 Feb 2021 05:01:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 1058052472880 named unknown by gmailapi.google.com with HTTPREST; Wed, 24 Feb 2021 08:01:40 -0500
From: Marie-Jose Montpetit <marie@mjmontpetit.com>
In-Reply-To: <049c01d70aaa$bf2107d0$3d631770$@olddog.co.uk>
References: <045901d70a93$ec0ffce0$c42ff6a0$@olddog.co.uk> <B3F2CF00-C94C-4C3A-8426-4FD55880888B@mjmontpetit.com> <049c01d70aaa$bf2107d0$3d631770$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2021 08:01:40 -0500
Message-ID: <CAPjWiCSFXKUFGWXexYJ4JHKyVXe5YhXqdeSU8_RYtB+wuVDC1g@mail.gmail.com>
To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
Cc: irtf-discuss@irtf.org, draft-king-irtf-challenges-in-routing@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000db518405bc14a241"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/irtf-discuss/iuWoch51a4iOgKgp4okDLnYjExc>
Subject: Re: [irtf-discuss] Update on "Challenges for the Internet Routing Infrastructure Introduced by Changes"
X-BeenThere: irtf-discuss@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IRTF general and new-work discussion list <irtf-discuss.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/irtf-discuss>, <mailto:irtf-discuss-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/irtf-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:irtf-discuss@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:irtf-discuss-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/irtf-discuss>, <mailto:irtf-discuss-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2021 13:01:46 -0000

Well I guess for IRTF it would be great to talk about the research that is
done or the one you want to propose in the field. You yes very much focus
on “what was”.

mjm

Marie-José Montpetit, Ph.D.
marie@mjmontpetit.com



From: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk> <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
Reply: adrian@olddog.co.uk <adrian@olddog.co.uk> <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
Date: February 24, 2021 at 7:44:13 AM
To: Marie-Jose Montpetit <marie@mjmontpetit.com> <marie@mjmontpetit.com>
Cc: irtf-discuss@irtf.org <irtf-discuss@irtf.org> <irtf-discuss@irtf.org>,
draft-king-irtf-challenges-in-routing@ietf.org
<draft-king-irtf-challenges-in-routing@ietf.org>
<draft-king-irtf-challenges-in-routing@ietf.org>
Subject:  RE: [irtf-discuss] Update on "Challenges for the Internet Routing
Infrastructure Introduced by Changes"

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 <marie@mjmontpetit.com>
Sent: 24 February 2021 12:24
To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
Cc: irtf-discuss@irtf.org; draft-king-irtf-challenges-in-routing@ietf.org
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 <adrian@olddog.co.uk> 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)