I think it does but leave it to others to comment if complete. Dino
> On Jan 18, 2022, at 3:27 AM, Luigi Iannone <g...@gigix.net> wrote: > > Hi All, > > Thank you all for the fruitful discussion in this thread. > I am trying to summarize a bit the discussion and here is what I see: > > · The ”where” is a 2-dimensional space: > o Horizontal: Internet edge vs core. The criticality, scale, investment on > the core of the Internet makes it more difficult to introduce innovation, > while at the edges there is more flexibility. At the edge of the Internet, > it easier to introduce innovation for several reasons: Economics, faster ROI > because of faster deployment; No need of large scale deployment (and hence > less standardization effort); less stakeholders involved (sometimes just > one, see following point). > o Vertical: at which layer of the protocol stack. The difficulty to > innovate varies as well depending at which layer the innovation takes place. > One thing is to innovate at application layer where the app developer has > large degree of freedom, another is to innovate at network layer, which is > more constrained because of its central point in the architecture. Innovation > at higher layer sometimes leads to walled gardens (aka limited domains > [RFC8799]). Indeed because of the centralization phenomena, an actor offering > a certain service may very well develop and deploy a custom technology that > does not need to be actually standardized because it is done for its own > internal usage. > > · Horizontal vs Vertical Innovation > o In the public Internet, core innovation at lower layer is harder, often > reduced to app-level innovation or building an overlay limited domain (aka a > walled garden). > o At the edges it is easier to innovate at lower layers (more vertical > flexibility) but some form of adaptation is needed if global reachability is > wanted. > > · How much unique and globally routable an address should be? > o With the effect of centralization, edges communicate with (rather) local > DCs, hence a unique address globally routable is not a requirement anymore. > Dino statement looks well summarizing this point: “We may not need globally > unique addresses. But I need a unique address for anyone I want to talk to > and I don't care what transmission networks my packets traverse.” > > · Flexibility in terms of address properties with respect to the > intended use > o Connection between my phone and my smart watch vs connection between my > laptop and a forum of sensitive topics. Having multiple addresses with > different properties and/or semantics, to be used depending on the purpose of > the communication seems desirable. > > · Address privacy > o This topic comes as a relevant question (also related to the previous > point). The use of IPv6 temporary addresses brings benefits that are hard to > quantify, and at the moment the best solution seems to be NAT-based. Privacy > seems important since has been mentioned in the previous thread. > > Do folks believe that the text above well summarizes the discussion we had? > > Let me know > > Ciao > > L. >> On 16 Dec 2021, at 10:09, 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 can help in strengthening the conclusion of the Problem Statement >> document >> (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-jia-intarea-scenarios-problems-addressing/), >> in order to provide input on which way to tackle the problem. >> >> Luigi >> >> (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
