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

Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com> Thu, 04 March 2021 11:24 UTC

Return-Path: <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>
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 B71F53A1961; Thu, 4 Mar 2021 03:24:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.597
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.597 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=1.5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 gZjpyDwzdVHf; Thu, 4 Mar 2021 03:24:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wr1-x431.google.com (mail-wr1-x431.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::431]) (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 63DC33A195E; Thu, 4 Mar 2021 03:24:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wr1-x431.google.com with SMTP id j2so14365454wrx.9; Thu, 04 Mar 2021 03:24:50 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=2s+x5++E+ed1/kWtQ4oPPHFBu8pn8wx9GWRVb4+bP1U=; b=Q36QZXSHLO7Wj7/qORjLZzyE+OtY5lo9d2/DJOiFqGK+Q3uwvV48TXZ3wYcjWLTvbb mI5B/rLWW3BCOANuTasFWtDSzrFpqaKySrts8D16OV2YB3d9UDSxaId2d45HGjRUV32e 6rhdL7D5lbZ9J3W3CrQ4wXp21JhfUC908BzBIKmCc9HUcATcYL9/cw9kcjDLyamyU/df 5rw4WDVCjlhROtp+CxwzFgT8iPs6eDxqR6Un2ktJE7ngK8b8RRBqN+gOMmVjL05Ko9XE 0hhDW+tEH1g83hHOFarbdAThJxZlsXgpguIptvSXqp0NmBpz1FH+j/TOrjs1FoXj41n+ qxXQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=2s+x5++E+ed1/kWtQ4oPPHFBu8pn8wx9GWRVb4+bP1U=; b=KsqZKwXrzlrSWr6UHBuR6YKYZIs3roNzR00+1jkMfQwWYwpNKEICycSgh5ZH1UUmtM XyXnHODzxKa262jGJ5GzKObuS655FwxzLXT9ibd53tvIYX4KLUlleQiXzL2dSaaotpJY jHqtQINTzm66QZh5nMS8ylabk5tOb/qzQNl6pffZeUJ+UUamOGc7R4RZCUn8EyhSPd8M szbnSkxzB5Zls9zR4BZ80pT/kE/3utgS5QyfgttNPl2oq79v5NDh7un4lA1YGkbQdI/Z YbCsLRMsm3nbXlsbJf4MXarEeVTz9oNcG3EhgkokI/8zKpJC/qT0VuBHjvPHgICy18oY CK2w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532Jh2e/17P6iwyZ45XF6HfVGVEszCmyi1/YqUW2R52EJDvSTbGx 7ngb8H6G2kk2F8eXQsEUR7o=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJy9lLJCUc1IaHuz7VD15GVfN+5t3FycX2REC/6IaFkOKui3nKRWJhJ4ZStME/YOg/RPpxX6zA==
X-Received: by 2002:adf:fd48:: with SMTP id h8mr3480890wrs.229.1614857087121; Thu, 04 Mar 2021 03:24:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.8.125] ([185.69.145.254]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id r10sm11526459wmh.45.2021.03.04.03.24.46 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 04 Mar 2021 03:24:46 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.4\))
Subject: Re: [External] Request for information - Challenges in routing related to semantic addressing
From: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <a304ab1735694bc99eb18c94f3db3f88@boeing.com>
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2021 11:24:44 +0000
Cc: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>, Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>, "draft-king-irtf-challenges-in-routing@ietf.org" <draft-king-irtf-challenges-in-routing@ietf.org>, "routing-discussion@ietf.org" <routing-discussion@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <0E4495D4-AD3B-4EED-879D-17D15E2E49A6@gmail.com>
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> <CAOj+MMGMi+9x2WwvRHd+L4LpmnNDt54=1Omq5idWeqZ+V7=42g@mail.gmail.com> <E2A2BE78-9570-4BF0-9BE3-4B5CE01EF0A1@gmail.com> <20210303123951.GA51568@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <a304ab1735694bc99eb18c94f3db3f88@boeing.com>
To: "Manfredi (US), Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.4)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/routing-discussion/DdMV7YzT9EIV2BgfPmq96avruf0>
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: Thu, 04 Mar 2021 11:24:52 -0000


> On 3 Mar 2021, at 21:20, Manfredi (US), Albert E <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com> wrote:
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: routing-discussion <routing-discussion-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Toerless Eckert
> 
>> I would very much hope that there will still be competition in the Internet access,
> even if i also believe this will require more and more regulation given how the
> economics of scale work against a competitive market, but i think more and more
> countries are awakening to that challenge, for example through models of
> non-provider owned access fibers.
>> 
>> So, when there are multiple access-provider and multiple edge-cloud providers,
> i hope there is enough inter-provider interop requirements to keep IETF relevant,
> but not enough to have the (IMHO) service-killing transit domain in the game.
>> 
>> Aka: IMHO, the non-profileration of anything but best-effort service into "Internet"
> is really because of transit. If the future dominant paths e.g.: in metro areas
> would become:
>> 
>> (subscriber/edge-cloudA) -- network-providerA -X- network -providerB -- (subscriber/edge-cloudB)
> 
> I don't know what the actual situation is in most countries. However, for essentially unmetered, cabled Internet access, in the US, it is mostly the case of only one "last mile" access ISP being available to a given household, two in many urban and suburban environments, and infrequently three. Which says to me, competition on the basis of "ATM-like class or quality of service" knobs, provided by your ISP, won't help much, unless everyone uses the same techniques?
> 
> Historically, what gave IP the edge over competing standards was, just throw cheaper bandwidth at the problem, available with IP's best effort model, and those tricky and expensive knobs become just an academic exercise. Are we saying that the situation has changed?
> 

There will be other last mile providers for a lot of people. 4G can provide acceptable bandwidth (in my case faster than FTTC), there will be 5G, Starlink is rolling out and there are others LEO offerings.

If DSL has to fight back it can offer enhanced services.

I have always thought that there might be a possibility of DSL offering service to multiple ISPs over the same path since all offerings are multipliable at the L2 they use. So you could have the FAANG group offer prioritised direct to the home in parallel with classic worst efforts service.

- Stewart