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

Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com> Wed, 03 March 2021 10:00 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 9783C3A0A9F; Wed, 3 Mar 2021 02:00:58 -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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 n3-Mp2MknL7K; Wed, 3 Mar 2021 02:00:56 -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 8693D3A0AA1; Wed, 3 Mar 2021 02:00:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wr1-x431.google.com with SMTP id w11so22943947wrr.10; Wed, 03 Mar 2021 02:00:56 -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=zHQee+KbNJOuzY67wy4XLBmnsiu8sItwn1aHuz+asL0=; b=AkR/UEJfQQKyAf1IRrXZV9RXfrBdeQAs8QcCE6OCFgz7RZQ/fMEkJUv7EDNyQQKj/Q knlAsBacjSiCvRYOhdXenimmta6ik329G4CGsI5loDby5BasL9ADk+GTDankCf5hpI9C i2GDg/YrY0yFNZlmwN/5pkhfP0sgUcI46QpW5NVp5SsJ3+nKpQzVmsTHRGpURtKOxg6G vVH+UJ7HlggOduAqDVGkgQtPq3hdB5RKRwok6d7YpvRgcmUWxYYkwrUZWZQkIbRJnF8/ mEQc/Ha1Sqcs56nbdewkN8pg5ckzhCEl+7Qd/aFxugd98hnTAZV5WdlEjmNU+83YuH+u Ga0A==
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=zHQee+KbNJOuzY67wy4XLBmnsiu8sItwn1aHuz+asL0=; b=sejja6c/VglaJK65PD6FnwGPeuDHLFfrxOjlCljU0mC8mYVGpwfi+ebOxqfKUAc4I2 dlDcsPWIRPkGRpTzp1BS7gTgS0/eNPOnjeXvb5K5TGAih7Jo6ZKJ6M7tPi4NPTFO91bk GWVhuSNFiErJN0kZB5yZKfOR+/QiIxs9NSRByD6esghnGYpVuqsBUkOjCqrvgyP/Xcjy 4gi5R39TNI6JxiTAOlHTILuBjxg10dvBG9zyZ5GXjhCA+l1927U+OXM8/4TyRk2Y8Ybd 2XHgi7FGHGVt0EXRRMlctAit+UjNCBBRhcQwMTECpFE+6chAZPIkCjIgtMNVdGQnINix kbnQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530Rmsi/V5O1I6SgnDIIzZUjsb0rANYkBIdXxzmf5prOvZco8rNX 1ay03yIl4VrLcjlMTHSECTY=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyQQoiHrUIV2J2mf9B+WiVFP78BK93fgT2AlDYciHqmdOg5kAoljL02CPSrvS1FT/UbXOwMnw==
X-Received: by 2002:adf:f3c2:: with SMTP id g2mr20208757wrp.300.1614765651841; Wed, 03 Mar 2021 02:00:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from broadband.bt.com ([2a00:23c5:3395:c901:509c:c49d:e999:d998]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id j20sm4934905wmp.30.2021.03.03.02.00.49 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 03 Mar 2021 02:00:51 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
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: <35A099CF-D39B-41A6-9C45-149ECDF26546@tony.li>
Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2021 10:00:48 +0000
Cc: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>, Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>, "King, Daniel" <d.king@lancaster.ac.uk>, Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, "draft-king-irtf-challenges-in-routing@ietf.org" <draft-king-irtf-challenges-in-routing@ietf.org>, Joel Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com>, "routing-discussion@ietf.org" <routing-discussion@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <949022DF-A527-4EAE-A2D4-D1743EA1E9A5@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>
To: Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.4)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/routing-discussion/FS7JkEai8xqM-LgYuggD9fbmIZQ>
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 10:00:59 -0000


> 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