IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> Fri, 02 April 2021 10:08 UTC

Return-Path: <robert@raszuk.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 260143A0B54 for <routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Apr 2021 03:08:41 -0700 (PDT)
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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=raszuk.net
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 YMymYF8DcmOC for <routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Apr 2021 03:08:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-x22c.google.com (mail-lj1-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::22c]) (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 9720F3A0B58 for <routing-discussion@ietf.org>; Fri, 2 Apr 2021 03:08:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x22c.google.com with SMTP id y1so5106324ljm.10 for <routing-discussion@ietf.org>; Fri, 02 Apr 2021 03:08:36 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=raszuk.net; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=/auKr4wQojBG1IAO2Xd2GAU0ErG5d0OxC5bWVB7u6RY=; b=AYRBoIaVO/NP1YEijqFWc6k31m+Mkfwh7A/3WlKvJMzB/1wa/OJHvD2gBiSHjNHZTl NL6E8nFW0VxEIe+Axw+dM1Iv7WWWDsonHTQibxT61uhjVbIbu/xzKm2WZSKqv9zwL9/1 xQAjH/M5wO1sSx0Qvc28qMEGieSEwT45UMj5eDc9eCio1d3xmgEJPG/f9duQFDoN3oj3 9cpdhjrdpNJY+FD6hNG1atZ1i+HB5Cs6IsN4bZEFW43vc+olROlWuuS35zNqO09TVXJ2 HdagEufrAy3Z8jZXZp6+BQ8YbO6ga/cpnfhXt1oFRREWA7+ITMp55PClwrfkvZJ32xjw wozA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=/auKr4wQojBG1IAO2Xd2GAU0ErG5d0OxC5bWVB7u6RY=; b=f4XY1PDrKrYkAxNwhy58NEsz388gWCjJxEAXPzAvJ46P8k2DUbJ8EetH9QD+4EtVGS tutehuqrIY+w1g7HgAH+abmVQNg9pPr3DToHebchHbUkOanGauCxMr87bTjDdNblMK8c oDWny29bRxknu3bzJ10FHmW8Ptm1uwhita3P7SD0oeRNKBwH4F/J2A7giCqd+U6g+WAp EIuHvMqYy68NGZBZh/Oser8AxO1NUtJjeBqRkH8xdkHCrV6S7+CtKz7c9ZRw3WGAj7p+ tXXBrGd7w6IeSUa6qfiLzoqK/BXV8R5WbUYGnDkhboEFrxpiOyo30WqkebUNH8oqqcb2 pVvA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532j7oR7mjwIOdISRqXiC3BbNEhMyNxccpQCBzKqJIHeCNSBykKe 2oBfqCJl/qwGD70+Vj1hTip4otLlTD38tdMnB7eeMg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx8ncYtwRTLPoGlxK0QXiB+/DHQvjN5RP34lRkpA8GfNuS1M/B2SYNmDkufYaf6ymvMySLgFXY1fj2dBnOoMMs=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:8e6e:: with SMTP id t14mr7745220ljk.23.1617358112825; Fri, 02 Apr 2021 03:08:32 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
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>
In-Reply-To: <79C06A8C-3998-4426-98A4-934C76F92A44@gigix.net>
From: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2021 12:08:23 +0200
Message-ID: <CAOj+MMGMBMWJhE9tuaXa5sKhrzYa0duuNJPx4bCRphFTYiLUCA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [External] Request for information - Challenges in routing related to semantic addressing
To: Luigi Iannone <ggx@gigix.net>
Cc: Geoff Huston <gih@apnic.net>, "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>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000ca299f05befa8720"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/routing-discussion/itwYRLISYpPURy85lPfVAn_2RnA>
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: Fri, 02 Apr 2021 10:08:41 -0000

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.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email