Hi All, Hope you are having a great IETF week. Just a small reminder for those that are interested in talking about addressing, let’s meet 18h30 this evening @ registration desk.
Ciao L. From: Luigi IANNONE Sent: Wednesday, 19 October 2022 16:24 To: 'Luigi Iannone' <g...@gigix.net>; int-area <int-area@ietf.org> Subject: RE: [Int-area] Rebooting Addressing Discussion Hi All, I think that we are all a bit busy before the cut-off date next Monday. Let’s have a chat on the addressing and the framework mentioned in the email thread during 115 IETF in London. We need to understand what is feasible and, more importantly, if we have the energy to do it. Let’s meet Thursday November 10Th at 18:30 (London Time) at the registration desk and find a place to seat and discuss a bit. If you plan to come consider drop me a private email, just to have a sense of the size of the place we need. See you in London Ciao L. From: Int-area <int-area-boun...@ietf.org<mailto:int-area-boun...@ietf.org>> On Behalf Of Luigi Iannone Sent: Friday, 30 September 2022 10:36 To: int-area <int-area@ietf.org<mailto:int-area@ietf.org>> Subject: [Int-area] Rebooting Addressing Discussion 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
