IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: KRP ID Discussion.

Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com> Thu, 06 August 2020 10:02 UTC

Return-Path: <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B4203A10BF for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Aug 2020 03:02:44 -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, FREEMAIL_FROM=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=gmail.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 9dmRhGUKjj3C for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Aug 2020 03:02:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wr1-x430.google.com (mail-wr1-x430.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::430]) (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 9E3FA3A10BE for <rtgwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Aug 2020 03:02:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wr1-x430.google.com with SMTP id f1so42862500wro.2 for <rtgwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 06 Aug 2020 03:02:42 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=S6zjYl6xkiAu++HcXjeDUVGijjSVPQhz0/QU7YqOhjw=; b=DVmhQ46rEItGavmLYUdczblXL80mNMMdTj04iHz6IvAsA6G37JamdV2kZS0rOC5fqZ lZg1ULGt1NoRe1AnUIs3K6TSmse5XpGIG7V5UUPugAjrN106uY5AkXfYPo3yasu5r+Mi TH9GnKQ1DD4modtOjYDTmveAKSRH5MHil4BgRo8316+JPGMS07tOQKNCq4aa/YQ5C95p 1RahxlWjMdET8udGdNAyHxkaGQ7NZ5WkGXpbgPh6v1qSKSEC9/Hz4V9ca5C+5vMhsPLO 7hy7L4qQ/rVd8rhbDpZebK7RGjk8OoqcktMLON3SsbhXnR6+rZA9kP8DLd0x8odtpYcU dZNw==
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=S6zjYl6xkiAu++HcXjeDUVGijjSVPQhz0/QU7YqOhjw=; b=ArUmxZEtA/0SeAx2FEeNlpW9zS+zpGRWF6qjfDAo3rNxf4RKvKt99Sj3TfM4ddJulc 0nauVLhQ/Oh0zne5wtWwPsQItukaAJzFNMB8h0oEbt65POC6rK0RfzbWGCMLfrb5kcpX koYkvUHuNTz9dL99Nf6vU3WTMsjzll1Q63SF7p/rCxrhmO/gRGt9J00rOM73j1dkvbmu enhKZlfVmMXoJhO+mD4yFZwNGxNmvUUsfD8UzFVfW6VpAB5tF+yR6rE0QqtNPsp+j+bJ /BvScseOdDTAPgVTPDXrlMuihWpPlPR2ZYqlDu4X+hxtiO/mw4DbOkmG4J1t8bVcxEeU Ph2w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531wfsiXaBRi5lzxkjO9OiU3RjMcPYVT3aqohZuPLBHQ3qFaGts5 mLUrjLcKV6tVvmrTgoAjLss=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyA/c2LbVqfutG2pH073ZKJEYCmHPTwbVJJOVZDRUv88dotq+a8pZkB+ofLBsLNVMeNN6AaGQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a5d:6806:: with SMTP id w6mr6632471wru.244.1596708161091; Thu, 06 Aug 2020 03:02:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from appleton.fritz.box ([62.3.64.16]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id z10sm5896066wmg.13.2020.08.06.03.02.39 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 06 Aug 2020 03:02:40 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.80.23.2.2\))
Subject: Re: KRP ID Discussion.
From: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAOj+MMFhVAAX1Y767tGw9jL7nfdPyoPmPNJDuLA6cME7VNN5fg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2020 11:02:38 +0100
Cc: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>, Khaled Omar <eng.khaled.omar@outlook.com>, rtgwg <rtgwg@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <74D363BB-A26C-49DA-9FA3-E450C5A14A8C@gmail.com>
References: <AM7P194MB0723C0A04F5BDAC8BF9FF59EAE4D0@AM7P194MB0723.EURP194.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <CABY-gOOd2T7zJ4586NQsPTt0=r+7Ky1Wie1NpUyKBNVCc1xKpw@mail.gmail.com> <AM7P194MB07231036E6266340E07C7DF5AE4B0@AM7P194MB0723.EURP194.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <CAOj+MMFhVAAX1Y767tGw9jL7nfdPyoPmPNJDuLA6cME7VNN5fg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.80.23.2.2)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/GZ9vCy0nwQPUbOhEOFmIiZvOoVw>
X-BeenThere: rtgwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area Working Group <rtgwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtgwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtgwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2020 10:02:44 -0000

Robert

I make no comment on the draft, but whilst what you say is currently true, the state of world politics seem to make the current decoupling of the various topologies that we enjoy at the moment less likely to continue than was the case a few years back.

The political actions of governments trumps (if you excuse the unfortunate pun) the preferences of the engineers and accountants.

ITU-T SG2 (numbering) has a list of Middle East cases of traffic routing issues based on politics, the EU GDPR rules, the developing countries' concern over traffic patterns, the actions of the current US administration, all take us in the direction of the application of geo and political considerations to traffic routing.

Regrettably, the writing is on the wall for restrictions to become normalised and built into the traffic planning rules, and that will push them into the routing system.

Stewart

> On 6 Aug 2020, at 10:15, Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> wrote:
> 
> Khaled,
> 
> Physical network topologies do not follow geo nor political boundaries. Any solution based on the above is simply not practical. 
> 
> Best,
> R.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email