On 03-Dec-21 11:17, Dino Farinacci wrote:
You missed the point maybe. Common functions should be performed at the
waist so applications don’t have to duplicate functionality.
Hmm. Logic compels me to offer an alternative:
Common functions should be performed by a shared library so applications don’t
have to duplicate functionality.
I think both statements are true, and need to be read in conjunction with:
"The function in question can completely and correctly be implemented only with the
knowledge and help of the application standing at the endpoints of the communication
system. Therefore, providing that questioned function as a feature of the communication
system itself is not possible. (Sometimes an incomplete version of the function provided
by the communication system may be useful as a performance enhancement.)"
[Saltzer et al, doi.org/10.1145/357401.357402]
The user doesn't care whether the common functions are provided in the network
or in the end hosts. We don't need to artificially force common functions into
the network.
Restoration of connectivity is a common function, often provided by host
software.
Brian
Dino
On Dec 2, 2021, at 2:08 PM, Templin (US), Fred L <fred.l.temp...@boeing.com>
wrote:
Your diagram is missing a critical layer – the adaptation layer.
*From:*Int-area [mailto:int-area-boun...@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Dino
Farinacci
*Sent:* Thursday, December 02, 2021 1:05 PM
*To:* Stewart Bryant <stewart.bry...@gmail.com>
*Cc:* int-area@ietf.org; Dirk Trossen <dirk.trossen=40huawei....@dmarc.ietf.org>
*Subject:* Re: [Int-area] Side meeting follow-up: What exact features do we
want from the Internet?
The key question that I would ask Dino is whether these need to be
addressed at the network layer?
Yes, because of this architectural principle:
On 1 Dec 2021, at 22:18, Dino Farinacci <farina...@gmail.com
<mailto:farina...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Here's my single feature request the network layer should provide:
(1) I want to be connected ALL THE TIME, I want my computer to
use all its links, either cabled or radio, ALL THE TIME.
It can do this by treating these as independent links with different
addresses and bind them in the application or through some OS service.
Its too much complexity for the app. The app is talking to one place and
shouldn't know where it is. Hence the network layer should do this.
(2) I do not want to turn on and off wifi to get my device/computer to
connect when it is currently not connected. The network layer should do all
this for me.
Is that a network layer problem or an OS problem?
Yes, its a network layer problem. The OS is just an implmentation of a
network stack.
(3) I want it easy for people to find me (my IP address), so I
don't want multiple addresses from the user level. I want one device
ID, EID, host address, whatever you want to call it. I want you to "ping <dino's-computer>".
It is important that people can find you/your device, but I am not
convinced they need to find you by historic IP address.
I used this example (at the network layer) due to the audience of the list.
What I really want to know is Stewart's crypto wallet address because I want to
send you a donation. That is addressing at a specific app level.
“Pinging” Dino’s computer does not have to
happen directly at the network layer to find out that it is alive. To test
Right but if I want to debug where my crypto transaction is going (I want it to
go from my computer to your computer) then I have to go down a level (to the
network layer), that is as an engineer (not high-level user) to determine an
issue or understand performance.
*a* path to Dino’s computer sure you need the address that
that path responds to, but I am not convinced that it is simpler if the address
on that network is the same as the address on all of the other networks to
which it is attached.
There is one network. You are one human being with 2 names. I can call
you Stewart or Mr Bryant. It doesn't matter you will respond but wouldn't
it be better if I called you "my-friend" and packets can go to either Steward or Mr Bryant?
I can tell you could react that this is a stretch, but you get what I'm trying
to get across. The physical connection should not matter to the app. And don't
forget the physical connection goes up and down, it gets fast and slow, it gets
address (i.e. locator) changes. That should be damped out from the app.
Yes, I want host multi-homing and mobility. And I want it to work
seamlessly.
Yes, I agree but I am not convinced we need to solve this by adding the
complexity in L3 and hence through out the whole of the Internet rather than
further up the protocol stack.
You always have to add something to get something. And what you add can be
simple. Just have to make choices very very carefully.
Dino
Stewart
Speaking as a user,
Dino
On Dec 1, 2021, at 12:52 AM, Dirk Trossen
<dirk.trossen=40huawei....@dmarc.ietf.org
<mailto:dirk.trossen=40huawei....@dmarc.ietf.org>> wrote:
Dear all,
Many thanks for those participating in the side meeting on
Internet addressing during the IETF 112 week. As suggested during the meeting, we want to take various points of discussion during the meeting onto the mailing list to continue discussion here on possible ways
forward.
Specifically, we wanted to come back on the issue that a larger
architectural discussion may be needed, a point that we make towards the end of the
GA draft (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-jia-intarea-internet-
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-jia-intarea-internet->addressing-gap-analysis/),
but which was also core to Dirk K’s main point that only such architecture
discussion may lead to possibly needed changes to addressing. We will be looking into
such possibly larger discussion along different possible avenues.
For our discussion here on the INT area list, we found Dino’s related suggestion particularly useful in that we may need a discussion on what we (as users) may want from a network. We feel that our current GA draft may contribute to this question by observing
that the many extensions to Internet addressing that we have gathered so far
may be seen as an expression of a desired feature that those proposing the
extension may want to see from the network. Hence, in addition to positioning
those extensions as identified gaps to Internet addressing, we may want to
formulate those extensions as desired features towards an extended Internet
system, not just addressing; this can be done through suitably extending the GA
draft with another section.
Why is this useful? We think that such view provides an observational input into the question that Dino suggests to answer, which in turn links to the larger architectural discussion that Dirk K suggests to have. While the overall architectural discussion may (and likely will) touch on more than ‘just’ addressing, we as a community may contribute to the discussion by rationalizing the work
that has been done in this space.
We would like to solicit thoughts on this proposed way forward as
concrete steps for the community here on the list. Also, anybody wanting to
provide concrete input and contribution to this proposed revision of the draft
is more than welcome.
Best,
Dirk
(on behalf of the co-authors)
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
Int-area@ietf.org <mailto:Int-area@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area>
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
Int-area@ietf.org <mailto:Int-area@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area>
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
Int-area@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
Int-area@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
