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

["King, Daniel" <[e-mail]>]

Hi AB,

Thanks for scanning and commenting.

The I-D has bubbled for a while after seeing various discussions on contextual and semantic routing I-Ds, mostly clean-slate approaches. Although the initial literature review highlighted some common objectives across proposals and implementations, I struggled to find anything that defined "semantic routing" and goals that we could use/reference. I likely missed prior research that provides a useful definition. If not, then I agree that having the IRTF research community document a description for "semantic routing" and common goals, would be beneficial.

BR, Dan.

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[e-mail]>
Sent: 15 February 2021 06:37
To: adrian <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: [External] Re: Request for information - Challenges in routing related to semantic addressing


This email originated outside the University. Check before clicking links or attachments.
Hi Adrian,

Thanks for this informational draft, I also think it is important for this list, however, I think I need to have some primary definitions by the authors in this draft, to define meanings of the main objective items (addressing, semantic routing, etc), so then it will be easier to survey and overview.

Best Regards,
AB

On Sat, Feb 13, 2021 at 1:41 PM Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Hi,

We have just posted "Challenges for the Internet Routing Infrastructure Introduced by Changes in Address Semantics" (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-king-irtf-challenges-in-routing/<https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-king-irtf-challenges-in-routing%2F&data=04%7C01%7Cd.king%40lancaster.ac.uk%7C0789ec4da3bd49e47c8408d8d17c22c9%7C9c9bcd11977a4e9ca9a0bc734090164a%7C0%7C0%7C637489678393825383%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000&sdata=zmZnEd9jRMv%2BdH%2FcFlyz7yBK09JYQFDuHTBmoQnV4w8%3D&reserved=0>).

This IRTF draft is an attempt to survey the issues and existing research related to the impact on the routing system of the many and varied proposals to add semantics to IP (chiefly IPv6) addresses. Where we are unable to find existing research, we are trying to collect the research questions that we think need to be addressed [sic].

Obviously, this is just a -00 version of the draft and it has a long way to go both in terms of clarity and literature search.

We asked the IRTF to help us with comments and thoughts. In particular, if anyone is aware of any ongoing or published research in the area of semantic addressing or the consequences in routing, we would like to hear about it.

This document is deliberately NOT discussing:
-       Are these address semantic schemes wise or crazy?
-       Is it legal to place semantics in addresses?
-       Is it even possible to achieve overloading of addresses?
What we are doing is zooming in on any existing research of the impact on the routing system and, absent that, to list out the questions that should be answered by research.

Alvaro suggested that routing-discussion would be a good place to copy this request for help.

Response direct to the authors or on this list (until we're told it is not appropriate for this list 😉)

Best,
Adrian (for the authors)

_______________________________________________
routing-discussion mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion<https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Frouting-discussion&data=04%7C01%7Cd.king%40lancaster.ac.uk%7C0789ec4da3bd49e47c8408d8d17c22c9%7C9c9bcd11977a4e9ca9a0bc734090164a%7C0%7C0%7C637489678393835329%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000&sdata=3Hw%2B88OLxy6v9NQ5D4rAWyzS%2FAd9NC9gFKao3jGVce4%3D&reserved=0>