> On 16 Dec 2021, at 8:09 pm, Luigi Iannone <g...@gigix.net> wrote: > > Dear all, > > We have had a very nice discussion in the previous thread about what kind of > features we would want from the Internet. > > We wanted to come back on another interesting point that has been raised > during the side meeting held during IETF 112, namely is where the innovation > happening? > During the discussion in the side meeting, there was a short exchange between > Dino, arguing about “decentralization”, and Michael stating that we are > “rebuilding the edges”; the importance of the role of overlays was also > briefly mentioned. > > This is not a simple question, and may lead to an architectural argument, in > line with Dirk K.’s viewpoint that only such architecture discussion may lead > to possible changes to addressing, but also something that emerged in the > previous thread. However, let’s at least start from the addressing > perspective. > Rebuilding the edges and utilizing decentralization may point to some > approach to addressing that is not governed by a common addressing scheme. > For instance, could we instead see a diversity of limited domain specific > addressing schemes with most effort in ‘addressing’ being placed into the > context translation that will need to inevitably happen? Or shall we instead > follow the current path that forces the same context (IP semantics) to all > participating edges (which goes counter the ‘rebuilding the edges’ comment)? > > Hence the question we would like to discuss with you on: how/where > innovation, realizing the features discussed in the previous thread, should > happen?
This seems to me to be the central question of the current time. The formation of address markets is creating a whole new set of pressures on the IPv4 space which in turn is creating pressures for change in the IP architecture. Informally, I’d characterise these pressures as follows: We've been looking at the evolution of addressing architectures through a lens of IPv4 plus NATs versus IPv6. It is useful to question this assumption and see if there are other responses that are available for the Internet. IPv4 plus NATs and IPv6 are both used in packet switched networks as a means of sharing a common underlying network. But sharing is not a popular word anymore, particularly in terms of IP transit services. These days we are seeing the major content providers build and operate their own dedicated transmission infrastructure to interconnect their data centres. This cloud we are all using is not a shared cloud, but a collection of dedicated cloudlets that are not constructed on a sharing model at the packet level. If we don't want to share a common transmission resource, then why do we need globally unique addresses to use in IP packet headers? Locally unique addresses would do just as well. This question could be posed in the context of the evolution of NAT deployments in today's Internet. NATs were originally seen as a way for edge networks to share a single provider IP address across multiple devices own the home network. This is still the case, but address scarcity has also pushed the access ISP to deploy NATs at the external edge of the access network, using private addresses comprehensively within the internal network infrastructure. This provides greater address utilisation efficiencies, allowing the access network to stretch the public IPv4 addresses across a greater number of end clients. But if the bulk of all data delivered to customers is now sourced from a local data centre that houses the local points of presence from the content distribution networks, then what would happen to the pressure on the access network's IP address pool if the NAT was pushed inside the local data centre? Or to phrase it in the other direction, what would happen if every content network had a point presence on the "inside" of each access ISP's network? From the perspective of the content provider nothing changes. The client IP address is relative to the local point of presence, so the same local IP addresses can be used in multiple points of presence with no impact on this model. But from the perspective of the demand for globally unique IP addresses a lot has just happened. There is no residual need for them! This line of thought takes the edge innovation observation and just pushes it a but further! regards, Geoff _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list Int-area@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
