Got dinner plans. :(
Only one kosher restaraunt in the area.
On 11/10/22 03:17, Luigi IANNONE wrote:
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 10^Th 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> *On Behalf Of *Luigi Iannone
*Sent:* Friday, 30 September 2022 10:36
*To:* int-area <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
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
Int-area@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
