Hi Luigi,

a related question would also be:
how much addressing semantics/context is required for performing (a) the forwarding and/or (b) the routing decision inside a node?

Regards,
 Roland

On 30.09.22 at 10:36 Luigi Iannone 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


_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
Int-area@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area

Reply via email to