IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Luigi Iannone <ggx@gigix.net> Sun, 11 December 2022 13:10 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 63939C14F723 for <routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 11 Dec 2022 05:10:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gigix-net.20210112.gappssmtp.com
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 2eEwYW5nLKOy for <routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 11 Dec 2022 05:10:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wm1-x32d.google.com (mail-wm1-x32d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::32d]) (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 9EFB8C14F720 for <routing-discussion@ietf.org>; Sun, 11 Dec 2022 05:10:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wm1-x32d.google.com with SMTP id bg10so3085749wmb.1 for <routing-discussion@ietf.org>; Sun, 11 Dec 2022 05:10:13 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gigix-net.20210112.gappssmtp.com; s=20210112; h=to:references:message-id:content-transfer-encoding:cc:date :in-reply-to:from:subject:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=3G0AG7E31LQQER9rl2xaAH/e8M2iWnk6sV2y03etdI0=; b=tyjjJRESYy3oJsBl4FEccifnrqd4Kn/0KcBI7wPVgaUybfvIIvuUiGr7u0vvG77cYP 8iMcnkEQaMRveB6YW1yeE+Z0GVHKtz+iGgTWNQH8yrd3qpOFAlG92FzfvhVD2y/hO20E s+GUothYvEBRzNUaLT00ShjOzQ9/KwSTVHKP2grzw9Yldz+U3D1scTcNmwgpBC2o9afH GczavDKgsA0aVYIdlR0GWV/PGEUzG/05BqVZmwyga4cukUZ7SSU4YBh4VCOn/0XTdAdL 5NGpX/xZJPLbB94oiWEUtT/Bl5wMC7qgSPYRfGM87xJaEdO0PMx3M7dV22vd9PpKWrYb DGMg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=to:references:message-id:content-transfer-encoding:cc:date :in-reply-to:from:subject:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=3G0AG7E31LQQER9rl2xaAH/e8M2iWnk6sV2y03etdI0=; b=jwhlebxF/RbPUzIRmYr85yq6OVpiyD6jZyGDnPqXG+EVct6lVG1u/WI3Pm/ibw/KDd wCMXOpuUHrWl7Atvm3l2asuMinwvCXgbT2VrCnbxUGHYA0eEl9d1vQdqmRGzrMIeIUT4 h28zLcrzYCMAZM0uxtZm3nJhqNK5VnU+/Q52WTmbg0n8x4KwnibZC741iCM3MEKmunJ+ bWjL8/WBT2YxaEQbMtUleptVn3qN3nhgwjrZ9TzwX0M2+5R5OH6VOn9a1nxNuVdy7QNv VwxTmwiNZxtTo802hSXdWTzUw3Ps2ELKcNq85aTPJHfMOsM+OKUcMv/5h+kKwmDfTsu1 ugIQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ANoB5plzl0YLoNgvDIPZ82qoZ3L+KLPnsDSkJN+WWmrey8g0xGGqbbKr uUSEhynGBf0WSncj0eStffP27w==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA0mqf69fkUGGfzBqp9n6X07+ExGophyN44vIgokZVZf+sswhLivCqpWqWRikXI+DxUHWDY7eqMr1w==
X-Received: by 2002:a1c:cc1a:0:b0:3cf:5e42:de64 with SMTP id h26-20020a1ccc1a000000b003cf5e42de64mr10012717wmb.39.1670764211655; Sun, 11 Dec 2022 05:10:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtpclient.apple ([2a01:e0a:1ec:470:e514:31d0:4af9:7398]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id i2-20020a1c5402000000b003c6c182bef9sm6969347wmb.36.2022.12.11.05.10.10 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 11 Dec 2022 05:10:10 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3731.200.110.1.12\))
Subject: Re: RRG thoughts (was [Bier] [pim] Q on the congestion awareness of routing protocols)
From: Luigi Iannone <ggx@gigix.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAOj+MMH524-GewjPbvHjUncqV1Q_VTEFf3SeSdaeeo-XGLUW9Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2022 14:10:00 +0100
Cc: Joel Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com>, Jon Crowcroft <Jon.Crowcroft@cl.cam.ac.uk>, routing-discussion@ietf.org, Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <117980CA-FA3E-414E-AC35-50E3752702F0@gigix.net>
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>
To: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3731.200.110.1.12)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/routing-discussion/gS92H0S23H1xAiLU4BgLGEbZ1Mc>
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 13:10:17 -0000

Hi,

> On 11 Dec 2022, at 00:56, 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. 

Indeed, the crucial part is the role of the “leaders”, let’s say 2 or 3 chairs (to use IETF terminology) that spend time looking around and trying to bring together these different communities on topics that span among all of them. Building an agenda, but also gathering the topics of interest.

Another point that I made in the draft I have mentioned is about increasing ties with academics from the different venues.
IETF 115 was in London, Jon Crowcroft showed up to the side meeting, which was good.
IETF 116 is in Japan, there are a few researcher there that is worth inviting.
And so on and so forth for the different places where the IETF  will be held.
Even in returning places would be nice to have updates “what did happen to that nice idea you presented last time…”

There is potential for a lot of things….  

I do believe this is possible and would love to have help to making this happen.

Ciao

L.



> 
> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> routing-discussion mailing list
> routing-discussion@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email