On Fri, Dec 3, 2021 at 3:19 AM Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petre...@gmail.com> wrote: > > - make sure the Internet does no harm. > > - use shorter paths and not artificially-long paths like with VPN > gateways, video session rdv points. Use more direct communications > > - accommodate more bandwidth: 10petabit/s for a link. > > - reduce the number of overlays. Reduce the encapsulations, like IPv6- > in-IPv4 and others. > > - make it easier to avoid address waste. > > - promote Internet to space and inter-planetary. >
Security/privacy for users is not on your list? IMO that is the #1 priority and the other two in the top three requirements are ease-of-use and quality of experience (performance, reliability, availability, etc.). Tom > Le 01/12/2021 à 09:52, Dirk Trossen a écrit : > > 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-addressing-gap-analysis/ > > <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 > > 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
