IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Luigi Iannone <ggx@gigix.net> Tue, 06 April 2021 08:06 UTC

Return-Path: <ggx@gigix.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 C91943A1587 for <routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Apr 2021 01:06:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=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=gigix-net.20150623.gappssmtp.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 Th8HO2Q_lM1G for <routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Apr 2021 01:06:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wr1-x434.google.com (mail-wr1-x434.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::434]) (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 17F7F3A1589 for <routing-discussion@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Apr 2021 01:05:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wr1-x434.google.com with SMTP id a12so3376292wrq.13 for <routing-discussion@ietf.org>; Tue, 06 Apr 2021 01:05:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gigix-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=nqL4UE/DQsyrp+1EGdlp0OhTe+tdoeAVlDPiRuSUGoQ=; b=bM8ujzmKlxD/nKta76U3qjNOi+EOMgHFusXhuyuLcU0SzZUEw/CZvY1uTeisuNv+Vw ym1p7PXvov2QJ5KYK9JaCRzocLevJqmso+OgwQdcTTZOh9vLPemYYUVI9YMxpivxynxc lLolh4YOqkuUxGS7GXzz8uRariiHUaY0wm0AAi1yZOJ2qudaYB0L2Gtlg0RqI4J8+/6v Eoc5jMlPlxyTy5Ctp2u2EnwKZaUkdk88n8D8W/Y7PwHnKWOa0EGTt8Ya87PSK8ygDaoJ 9c+8/Ed7pDSXODFVYQOST8EEKFwBXEpatPdF55jZEsP+Y0ATi27QKI8D4AB2o1eDVvHA IKQg==
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=nqL4UE/DQsyrp+1EGdlp0OhTe+tdoeAVlDPiRuSUGoQ=; b=tACMI0PRzcqr9Xzs4QodugCDAN00wtZwm7LXW4MwOSnv/YJ4UZyH/n2ulQke1Vt69+ 3A+lYK0md9aKU4Mecz/LvLg+dm4prMPe4Jmyj0nq4z5KcqXkWGsyrq4iI0aK6aG5Pp6Z I3hejghipXAHbQFXX30bVYbrKpbSznQ2dVgYYPD1/CklAgyg0mQ9V+Fy3Pc+xcWYX9eE /CzOfHbgOHAYCoJSbl51xY2eJyEoon5qrF8iY26lhdd8ed05I0qhl6e8m7TIjPaxjZdx zpHQ72gGhOmHnR3BWCrTqXhOpC7hp1yKutd4cbZeRLMLtQgn23s6O1ogNxU7IJALZR+3 p6ZA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531V0FBZ+DvYgFIpmsEXD4MdYqJcmevESj37MDDNqBXZPNAQmN9k BzSJ32VYG8IHKHim6KA6C9HXuQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyRr3HeUQpGTeork0a4ChRnDChJtJPtRKlpVu4nA8r3A5rzoJOhknys+ieyV/0AXK46zyHWdA==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6000:18cd:: with SMTP id w13mr33180396wrq.20.1617696357022; Tue, 06 Apr 2021 01:05:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2a01:e0a:1ec:470:e9cd:f8bf:b1c0:f07c? ([2a01:e0a:1ec:470:e9cd:f8bf:b1c0:f07c]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id e10sm14491002wrw.14.2021.04.06.01.05.55 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 06 Apr 2021 01:05:56 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.60.0.2.21\))
Subject: Re: [External] Request for information - Challenges in routing related to semantic addressing
From: Luigi Iannone <ggx@gigix.net>
In-Reply-To: <AB96DD0C-6213-4C6C-B5BC-8DC450301553@apnic.net>
Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2021 10:05:55 +0200
Cc: "King, Daniel" <d.king@lancaster.ac.uk>, adrian <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, "draft-king-irtf-challenges-in-routing@ietf.org" <draft-king-irtf-challenges-in-routing@ietf.org>, "routing-discussion@ietf.org" <routing-discussion@ietf.org>, Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <A58A8501-EE10-42E5-ADDA-FEA57E7F34BA@gigix.net>
References: <02d401d701fd$25905a90$70b10fb0$@olddog.co.uk> <CADnDZ88mA7B_a1MUYnXSviD5wjNL3sbqaqrbK0u3NXi6OqeNAA@mail.gmail.com> <CWXP265MB2087CD3D4A4B7EB370EBD534D6889@CWXP265MB2087.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <006800FC-8628-4F09-92DB-745E75B6DB4F@apnic.net> <79C06A8C-3998-4426-98A4-934C76F92A44@gigix.net> <CAOj+MMGMBMWJhE9tuaXa5sKhrzYa0duuNJPx4bCRphFTYiLUCA@mail.gmail.com> <AB96DD0C-6213-4C6C-B5BC-8DC450301553@apnic.net>
To: Geoff Huston <gih@apnic.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.60.0.2.21)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/routing-discussion/e_r7nIKxR7y8L1gWd7WvzPd7Kr4>
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: Tue, 06 Apr 2021 08:06:05 -0000


> On 2 Apr 2021, at 22:29, Geoff Huston <gih@apnic.net> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On 2 Apr 2021, at 9:08 pm, Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> wrote:
>> 
>> Luigi,
>> 
>> Are you saying that the operator can give whatever semantic they wish to their addresses? We do not care?
>> 
>> That shipped has already left the harbour ... about 30 years ago. The moment policy routing was introduced which allowed match on IP address or recently its portion means that operator can apply whatever semantics to the addresses as it seems to fit his needs. 
>> 
>> The gap between router itself applying such semantics vs need to explicitly configure it is IMO irrelevant.. Modern OS have so much flexibility in defining packet processing pipelines that spending time on what network elements can or can not (should or should not) be doing is frankly a waste of time :) 
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> R.
>> 
>> 
> 
> I agree with Robert - that ship left the harbour decades ago!

That is fine… it means that is time to look for another ship ;-)

On a more serious tone….  The fact that one problem has solved (or ignored) decades ago does not represent an argument not to revisit the very same problem trying to find a better solution now.

We should not underestimate our capacity to innovate ;-)

L.


> 
> 
> Geoff
> 
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email