Jumping into this late (due to a few days off), see inline. -----Original Message----- From: Int-area [mailto:int-area-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter Sent: 18 December 2021 20:51 To: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bry...@gmail.com>; Geoff Huston <g...@apnic.net> Cc: Int-area@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Int-area] Where/How is the features innovation happening?
On 18-Dec-21 23:00, Stewart Bryant wrote: ... > What is important is that we play the cards we are dealt not the ones we were > dealt in the last game. In other words we need to design for the Internet as > it will be, not the Internet we designed before and not the Internet that we > would wish for but which is not economically viable. I don't think that helps. We don't have an accurate crystal ball, any more than our predecessors did in the late 1970s. They designed a network that was peer-to-peer at the network layer *and* that was cheaper to implement and operate than various alternatives (such as X.25, ISDN, and ATM). Capitalism took that and ran with it, producing an Internet with increasingly concentrated services at the application layer but still peer-to-peer at the packet level; it's just that application services are peer-to-service-to-peer. I have no idea whether anybody predicted that in the 1970s, but most people didn't. [DOT] We may not have a crystal ball, indeed, but there are aspects that outline a desired path forward, termed 'principles'. To what end those principles will be used may be a different matter but they do provide a stake in the ground when moving ahead from them. Unless crystal ball technology has improved since the 1970s, I don't see how we will predict "the Internet as it will be". [DOT] So if we conclude (somehow) the discussions in previous contributions, the P2P nature of communication between hosts seemed to have been a crucial principle that was considered in the addressing (and routing) work?! Whether it is host->host or host->service->host (as we may see predominantly in today's communication) is somewhat irrelevant from that principle's perspective, is it not? [DOT] If we now observe an increase in host->service->host communication, we may wonder how to possibly better support this pattern, not just in the light of the economically driven centralization of that model but also keeping the more P2P-driven principle alive in realizing host->service->host communication? There is work providing answers to this question albeit more aligned with the predominant centralized service provisioning model (see https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3452296.3472922 for one such answer). [DOT] Key question here may be what 'service' is of importance, particularly to the end user? The draft below provides some answers BUT... If we think that services will continue to predominate, we could focus on that, but it might be a completely wrong guess. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-jiang-service-oriented-ip/ https://doi.org/10.1109/INFOCOMWKSHPS50562.2020.9162749 [DOT] from reading through the draft, the realization of the SAT seem (to me) to imply a rather significant semantic knowledge at the 'SOIP dispatcher' role - or am I missing something? Also referencing back to my question on what 'service' constitutes, the draft seems to span from 'network service' to higher layer services, which links back into the 'dispatcher complexity' question before. Can we have something simpler? Also, can there be a stronger combination of (existing) IPv6 routing and service routing (also for efficiency purposes), e.g., for supporting affinity of longer-running transactions? Regards Brian _______________________________________________ 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
