Re: [ncrg] Relevance for IPv4 address sharing mechanisms

Scott Brim <swb@internet2.edu> Wed, 07 November 2012 18:21 UTC

Return-Path: <swb@internet2.edu>
X-Original-To: ncrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ncrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAC8821F8C42 for <ncrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Nov 2012 10:21:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id a1qf+pdx+272 for <ncrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Nov 2012 10:21:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from int-proxy01.merit.edu (int-proxy01.merit.edu [207.75.116.230]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9E0E21F8BBF for <ncrg@irtf.org>; Wed, 7 Nov 2012 10:21:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by int-proxy01.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38300100097; Wed, 7 Nov 2012 13:21:01 -0500 (EST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at int-proxy01.merit.edu
Received: from int-proxy01.merit.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (int-proxy01.merit.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ue4fNBaFzjAC; Wed, 7 Nov 2012 13:21:00 -0500 (EST)
Received: from dhcp-11c5.meeting.ietf.org (dhcp-11c5.meeting.ietf.org [130.129.17.197]) by int-proxy01.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0FC90100076; Wed, 7 Nov 2012 13:21:00 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <509AA68B.80700@internet2.edu>
Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2012 13:20:59 -0500
From: Scott Brim <swb@internet2.edu>
Organization: Internet2
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121026 Thunderbird/16.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Michael Behringer (mbehring)" <mbehring@cisco.com>
References: <5097E725.808@skoberne.net> <3AA7118E69D7CD4BA3ECD5716BAF28DF0F58F810@xmb-rcd-x14.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <3AA7118E69D7CD4BA3ECD5716BAF28DF0F58F810@xmb-rcd-x14.cisco.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.5
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-2
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "ncrg@irtf.org" <ncrg@irtf.org>, =?ISO-8859-2?Q?Nejc_=A9koberne?= <nejc@skoberne.net>
Subject: Re: [ncrg] Relevance for IPv4 address sharing mechanisms
X-BeenThere: ncrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Network Complexity Research Group <ncrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/ncrg>, <mailto:ncrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/ncrg>
List-Post: <mailto:ncrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ncrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/ncrg>, <mailto:ncrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2012 18:21:12 -0000

On 11/06/12 16:54, Michael Behringer (mbehring) allegedly wrote:
> The NCRG should *specifically* contribute to IETF activities, and try
> to analyse the complexity in protocols. It seems to me that protocol
> complexity is significantly simpler to figure out than the complexity
> of a real network, with all its dependencies on hardware, human
> operators, etc. I'm thinking here of the complexity of the specs
> only, ignoring the implementation at this point.
> 
> So please share your thoughts here on how we could analyse the
> complexity of those protocols!

... before the fact.  That is: Analyzing the output of WGs when they are
finished, doesn't help much.  They need tools that predict and model.
Ideally, the NCRG should give protocol designers a clear understanding
of principles and heuristics that they can put to practical use in IETF
WGs.  These are more detailed and applied than just giving them general
principles of complexity theory.