Hi Robert, A couple of comments inline.
From: Int-area <int-area-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Robert Moskowitz Sent: Thursday, 6 October 2022 17:37 To: Jens Finkhaeuser <j...@interpeer.io>; Luigi Iannone <g...@gigix.net> Cc: int-area <int-area@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [Int-area] Rebooting Addressing Discussion On 9/30/22 05:20, Jens Finkhaeuser wrote: 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. 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. 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. rfc7401 definitely addresses the multi-homed challenge. And AXEnterprize has demostrated this over 2 years ago of WiFi, to LTE, back to WiFi in test flights in the NY UAS test corridor. Plus there were plenty of uses of 7401 way back with multi-homing. DRIP only adds more refinement to the actual HITs used. I have looked into various aspects variable length addressing when I was under contract with Huawei and their FlexIP work. So I do have some other experiences to draw on. [LI] You have a long experience that is certainly very useful :-) The IETF is rich in debates on Location/Identity collisions and separation. I wonder what we can bring to these debates at this time? Can we actually produce some wider ranging solutions than HIP/LISP/etal? [LI] Yes, debates about location/identity and related arguments have gone on for a while in the IETF, and as Jens’s email shows different WG may have different ways to use addresses and different semantics given to addresses. So having a general way to express such different usage and the additional context information may be something really useful that we should look at. Ciao L. I am available to contribute. Bob 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<mailto: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
