IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: RRG thoughts (was [Bier] [pim] Q on the congestion awareness of routing protocols)

Jon Crowcroft <jon.crowcroft@cl.cam.ac.uk> Sun, 11 December 2022 13:42 UTC

Return-Path: <crowcroft@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 D5B3FC14F747 for <routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 11 Dec 2022 05:42:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.395
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.395 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.249, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Txnd1csRd_xG for <routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 11 Dec 2022 05:42:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ej1-f49.google.com (mail-ej1-f49.google.com [209.85.218.49]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8EBBBC14F746 for <routing-discussion@ietf.org>; Sun, 11 Dec 2022 05:42:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ej1-f49.google.com with SMTP id kw15so21881624ejc.10 for <routing-discussion@ietf.org>; Sun, 11 Dec 2022 05:42:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=tk2kapChpy7ngd9nJNZnEi6cKGCOpziGXo/Jij9qS3Y=; b=JpHZdjEBrcTHHvv5Muoyrn/13sipJEFZGGAOFlm65HKUTtOnhtuhkVxiDSqnftPY2+ h3kzHhMu12z75L9d5zZ7FftnYAxD02+xyUyuUL85k3M+dObGa5eKte73Pq/x+IZihDuO PeWFwmuMbP7uadgK/IKy2VqqEPmd5f5k019HPvQQrT65Z+JBH+XMXV6Vsso72xJs3IHB su8Dt+tmdSFGQ+gepJocUhWZEVjDpVMqXUwLcHErBZZ+nLyELPvpRjzRKjknXtC1WS1V 7jPFR5L/LCWOjDEIEZRIEQH/UEQdNS9FJykmdskyVQlM+6fDijMl73P7BvCBBoBAjyTz 6H5w==
X-Gm-Message-State: ANoB5pkj0zbiQ3QFyzXra0z8+wEQZ4wSPiAqVNfRnc4nPVrC+hJpsYvO WfXJkfO7wj88r+LecXk+791ZkVvaGR4Ovqbr7XQ=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA0mqf6KHWv6qwj9+VhhkXYCuH9Ic0/5/7D9eyojj4H9uHPEoOEydmUUt84J56UjS++orLGRFRYEqgYjHYDkEAN/zwQ=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:5dcd:b0:7bf:707a:7247 with SMTP id p13-20020a1709065dcd00b007bf707a7247mr40510615ejv.196.1670766125816; Sun, 11 Dec 2022 05:42:05 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAH56bmBnqi4peTWUXOVy0KRRXRc1L7TP+atFfVF6qb_OKBMBwg@mail.gmail.com> <C303F9BF-F96A-4710-A4B5-4228807C07F7@gmail.com> <52907137-CA5A-4042-AB2C-23FD9B032210@gmail.com> <E1p2SAw-006HQa-3s@mta0.cl.cam.ac.uk> <2D989E7C-EBFB-42C4-9D55-F934A1437B19@gmail.com> <Y5M5PNT6PV/YsG/V@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <6299b96a-7f0f-2785-c945-80ca0d4404cc@joelhalpern.com> <CAOj+MMH524-GewjPbvHjUncqV1Q_VTEFf3SeSdaeeo-XGLUW9Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAOj+MMH524-GewjPbvHjUncqV1Q_VTEFf3SeSdaeeo-XGLUW9Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jon Crowcroft <jon.crowcroft@cl.cam.ac.uk>
Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2022 13:41:55 +0000
Message-ID: <CAEeTejJhB_gMR4rfB88c+QE0C7EyfNSjMSnxwowcCekb=o6Srg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: RRG thoughts (was [Bier] [pim] Q on the congestion awareness of routing protocols)
To: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Cc: Joel Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com>, Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>, Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com>, routing-discussion@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000006ea14305ef8d8d46"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/routing-discussion/LRJRD0d6OJy5MfIASYAgkgmiCXU>
X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area General Discussion 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: Sun, 11 Dec 2022 13:42:08 -0000

100%

On Sat, 10 Dec 2022, 23:54 Robert Raszuk, <robert@raszuk.net> wrote:

> Joel at all,
>
> > The idea of a suitable forum for informal conversation between
> > researchers, vendors, and operators, seems useful.
>
> The crux of the matter is that researchers stay around SIGCOMM, vendors
> stick to IETF to push RFCs and real operators prefer to go to local NOGs or
> Apricot/RIPE/NANOG or IXP centric meetings. Then we have a zoo of those
> "OPEN" everything venues.
>
> As an industry we have an issue - we no longer communicate on the tech
> level unless you have folks attending and participating in all of
> the above. And I am not guessing here ... I am (trying) to be part of
> all of the above. It is no longer how IETF started in the early days.
>
> Just take a look at SCION enthusiasts. Observe their struggle to
> educate/sell the idea. I am not yet convinced that what they cooked is
> solid, but the effort they are taking gives you a good view on the present
> situation.
>
> Cheers,
> R.
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email