Re: [External] Request for information - Challenges in routing related to semantic addressing

Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> Wed, 03 March 2021 10:05 UTC

Return-Path: <robert@raszuk.net>
X-Original-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 985B23A0B01 for <routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Mar 2021 02:05:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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=raszuk.net
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 JxlXJ6jp9D75 for <routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Mar 2021 02:05:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lj1-x230.google.com (mail-lj1-x230.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::230]) (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 B55473A0B0E for <routing-discussion@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Mar 2021 02:05:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lj1-x230.google.com with SMTP id r23so27862282ljh.1 for <routing-discussion@ietf.org>; Wed, 03 Mar 2021 02:05:34 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=raszuk.net; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=y9akRj4t9O5EwOdK4rUcQ+iYkyRxJac6nHal04Ij318=; b=Qj1dsznud25uN5+eiecI3+dw8NnDkwAsfSukdrv/CMxR+ggjJzPeeUZCQRU4zRCR+T VQKP8QkzoE+NuYktU32tvGS3yral9kQNskMyqx/Tt3PJk7V0VWe2yD8jSxIWyu/zDAQh tEl2/KplUSYKcztjin9ompAXR0HfoV7TOmPMDVgJChDPR5s/e4xpYuQp6Cul6w9Bucqp 8ZsF3opynBhhgKyPRU7oODjPhMcXCqo1xrJOeY8LY2SqlPoZU8W3u+bvq37ccQ+5Djz/ RbhK07+kSNcYA7RK0TxLmzSKVOEYjS+8z3JLnT6lQ1Zy1dSJshqjqAN6uvsru5YP+VbA ZZdQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=y9akRj4t9O5EwOdK4rUcQ+iYkyRxJac6nHal04Ij318=; b=NoU4BulomMInp1d5Y0TW08JUEf5lpx4CXYg0hkrepQoWiHPB0RaxUqspbWXMgNcek0 cdED4hZywE9D6nuumcRS75Zfo6nyU/meYSJUufWEYdoVc4zpVaIh69I55CrZAkfM5RUw qI/TSSeHwSu4SYHH7tPNSziYAVwvln8Ul0KUWlwMRQiufFl6CMKOkDhBjGIPe/EwypUe Qfpm0oBGGEfrMKnlYAMgw8xiymxeZ0MfY4WMB277g3D+0VbmbSWeLpRfSgt+NozjgrU8 rLnI8IIkFzsl1G5lp5W1lll5CwKwwXzXCp5yBWQ2zoqMtCr20SQtUfMa1cnE789ro+ND GxUA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531etzUCDNXViVDue1mYztFLqsH1cZpbg9M5TZgQl1XvnENW+9xW 3/pF6qdgEuyOQMmgjtpK3Q2okzNOG5ksI238tWd7pg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJytXwATMVjbIOrtuVQSqk7z5hBtOuC1sowt2NS2C4xKk3fBIQgs236IIbXD7SKXXvMXJDVXzcddUixN99xm3IU=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:330d:: with SMTP id d13mr14483941ljc.361.1614765929722; Wed, 03 Mar 2021 02:05:29 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <02d401d701fd$25905a90$70b10fb0$@olddog.co.uk> <CADnDZ88mA7B_a1MUYnXSviD5wjNL3sbqaqrbK0u3NXi6OqeNAA@mail.gmail.com> <CWXP265MB2087CD3D4A4B7EB370EBD534D6889@CWXP265MB2087.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <f040717b-f099-92fb-be48-bce59a587b5b@joelhalpern.com> <B0694CCA-EADE-4EC7-BEFE-0A8E0AF3898B@tony.li> <20210302125740.GA8568@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <35A099CF-D39B-41A6-9C45-149ECDF26546@tony.li> <949022DF-A527-4EAE-A2D4-D1743EA1E9A5@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <949022DF-A527-4EAE-A2D4-D1743EA1E9A5@gmail.com>
From: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2021 11:05:19 +0100
Message-ID: <CAOj+MMGMi+9x2WwvRHd+L4LpmnNDt54=1Omq5idWeqZ+V7=42g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [External] Request for information - Challenges in routing related to semantic addressing
To: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>
Cc: Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li>, "draft-king-irtf-challenges-in-routing@ietf.org" <draft-king-irtf-challenges-in-routing@ietf.org>, "routing-discussion@ietf.org" <routing-discussion@ietf.org>, Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, "King, Daniel" <d.king@lancaster.ac.uk>, Joel Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000a3072b05bc9efddc"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/routing-discussion/DVfcKvIfMCfCY5bNlzU6BQi26DU>
X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list <routing-discussion.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/routing-discussion>, <mailto:routing-discussion-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/routing-discussion/>
List-Post: <mailto:routing-discussion@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:routing-discussion-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion>, <mailto:routing-discussion-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2021 10:05:37 -0000

Hey Stewart,

If by structural changes you mean that the Internet is shifting to
Google's, FB's, MS's etc private backbones ? Of course this will provide
path out of this. There is no rough consensus there.

Ideas are turned into code, being tested and deployed.

Best,
R.


On Wed, Mar 3, 2021 at 11:01 AM Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> > On 2 Mar 2021, at 18:21, Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Hi Toerless,
> >
> >
> >> You meantion locator and identifiers as unresolved. Do you think this
> should be subject to
> >> more work in IETF and/or IRTF (routing) ? If so, how ?
> >
> >
> > Not at this point, no.
> >
> > We are not yet wise enough.
> >
> > We looked carefully at this. One option was fixing the architecture. The
> other was a band-aid. We recommended fixing the architecture. The community
> decided that the band-aid deserved all the effort.
> >
> > The band-aid has yet to deliver anything meaningful and the architecture
> is not fixed.  Pretty clearly, the pain level has not reached the threshold
> where we will act wisely and in our own best interests. If only there was
> some group that was responsible for the architectural oversight of the
> network. But alas, there isn’t.
> >
> >
> >> You mention architecture fundamentals and routing / addressing ties. Do
> you think there
> >> such fundamentals that would transcend what i would call different
> "address semantics",
> >> e.g.: unicast, multicast, ICN ? I am asking because if there where such
> fundamenals of
> >> interest, maybe working on them would ease the ability to operate
> multiple semantics,
> >> add and/or extend them.
> >
> >
> > Yes, an architecture has to define all of the uses of the addressing
> field and explain how routing will make use of the address in each and
> every case.
> >
> >
> >> You mention protocol field / address overload. I completely agree, but
> why then have we
> >> not attempted to work to easier extend instead of overload packet
> header / addresses ?
> >
> >
> > Because extensibility at the network layer is seen as Evil.  We decided
> long ago that it was impossible to have extensible addresses, despite the
> fact that we had working hardware. Instead, we kludge to add more fields
> onto the network header, requiring MORE bits to be sucked into hardware,
> and much more complexity than if we had just made the address field
> flexible. And we do so in a way that is wholly incompatible with existing
> hardware AND wastes gigantic amounts of bandwidth.  Good job guys!
> >
> >
> >> E.g.: I look at TSVWG L4S carving out even more semantic out of 2 ECN
> bits and grumble
> >> about printing a t-shirt "40 years of IP and all we have for QoS is
> still 8 bit".
> >> (alas, corona times are no fun for t-shirt junkies).
> >
> >
> > And it’s still more than is truly needed. ;-)
> >
> >
> >> Personally, i wish we would never ned to overload semantics of
> addresses, because we are a) not
> >> wasting address space (as you point out) and can b) amend adress space,
> when needed for new semantics.
> >> Now: Why do we not amend our protocols to allow for that ?
> >
> >
> > Because touching the architecture is the third rail.  It is our sacred
> cow. Pitchforks and torches come out as soon as you talk about fixing IPv6.
> >
> > Our grandchildren will hate us because we cannot get past our own
> myopia.  We ossified the inferior and declared it inviolate.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Tony
>
>
> Spot on Tony.
>
> The question that I have in the back of my mind is whether the de-facto
> structural changes that are taking place in the Internet will provide a
> path out of this stranglehold.
>
> - Stewart
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> routing-discussion mailing list
> routing-discussion@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion
>