Hi Jens, A few comments inline.
From: Int-area <int-area-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Jens Finkhaeuser Sent: Friday, 30 September 2022 11:21 To: Luigi Iannone <g...@gigix.net> Cc: int-area <int-area@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [Int-area] Rebooting Addressing Discussion Hi all, since I found myself contributing to the draft, it should be obvious that I'm interested in continuing. I think the proposed steps make a lot of sense. It should be fairly obvious that the distinction between identifiers and locators alone helps distinguish between what and how, but there is a large range of "whats" identified already in these drafts. [LI] IMO locator and identifier are just “semantics” we give to certain addresses. But as you say there is a large range of “what” and I add a large range of “how”. From my work at AnyWi with drones (which ties indirectly to the drip WG), it is clear that the "what" most often should be the drone (i.e. a multi-homed device), but it also should sometimes be the specific link - which is still different from the locator of its current network attachment. [LI] If we generalize, you are using addresses to identify an end device (the drone) or a specific link, so the use is different from the original IPv6 addressing model since links and drones are not “interfaces”. Yes, in devices with a single interface and not multi-homed you can simplify and use the interface address to identify the end device, but as soon as go beyond this simple scenario addresses are used in a different way. DRIP WG is concerned with drone identification, and provides a host identifier via an ORCHID - but is not specifically solving the multi-homing problem that drones have, nor does it currently care about link specific identifiers. (Some of that is considered, but out of scope in RFC7401). The reason I raise DRIP and RFC7401 here is as an example of ongoing work that is already finding partial answers to these questions. In the interest of not ending up with too many and too different solutions, it would IMHO be beneficial to find a common reference framework. [LI] This is nicely phrased: “common reference framework”. Can we define a “framework” that allows us to not re-invent solution from scratch each time we make a different use of addresses? Ciao L. Hope that helps, Jens ------- Original Message ------- On Friday, September 30th, 2022 at 10:36, Luigi Iannone <g...@gigix.net<mailto:g...@gigix.net>> wrote: Hi All, During the last INTArea meeting the discussion on the two drafts related to Internet addressing had three the clear outcomes: 1. The issue seems to go beyond what the INTArea has been chartered for. 2. The pain points (aka the problem) have to be scoped in a better way. In the current form, the scope is so broad that we risk ending up trying to boil the ocean without achieving any relevant result. 3. Incremental deployability remains a MUST. No revolution. Evolution is the only option. Concerning point 1. The documents have been taken out from INTArea (new naming). We still continue the discussion on the INTArea mailing list, at least temporarily with the option to have a dedicated mailing list in the future. I would like to restart discuss on point 2: the scope. The considerations draft (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-iannone-internet-addressing-considerations/) highlighted three properties, namely: Property 1: Fixed Address Length Property 2: Ambiguous Address Semantic Property 3: Limited Address Semantic Support But before going to the discussion of which property we should/want change the first question the comes up is: what does an address identify exactly? A simple answer would be: an Interface. But we all know that reality is far more complex, as pointed out with the many existing examples in the considerations draft. What is even more complex is how to provide a wealth of answers to the above question within a framework for evolved addressing that does not rely on the continued point-wise approach we see in the Internet today. In order to start specifying what this evolved addressing framework could be, the first steps are: - paraphrasing Lixia Zhang’s question from the recent RTG WG interim meeting as “What should we identify through an address?” - scope the work around those answers we believe are most desirable to avoid the boiling the ocean issue Do you believe this is a reasonable approach to move forward? Luigi
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list Int-area@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
