Hi, I was wondering if it make sense to use it in an IoT deployment. In that context IP addresses are often compressed, so instead of compression small sized references can be used. On the flip side, and in the general case, references reduce privacy w.r.t. other technologies like e.g. NAT. This should be discussed in the document.
Ciao L. > -----Original Message----- > From: Int-area <int-area-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Evan Pratten > Sent: Wednesday, 15 February 2023 20:04 > To: waldemar <walde...@wdmsys.com> > Cc: int-area@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Int-area] New -00 draft: draft-augustyn-intarea-ipref-00 > > Ya, I guess using non-ip-addresses for the refs is a good idea for networks > that involve non IP-based hops. > > Would it be possible to have a router do reference pass-through? I'm > thinking of a kind of double-NAT situation where I might want router 1 to > delegate the routing of refs to router 2. > > WAN <--> R1 <--> R2 <--> Clients > > > On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 10:08 PM waldemar <walde...@wdmsys.com> > wrote: > > > > I was not thinking of chaining, this sounds like source routing, I am > > not sure. Cascading is certainly possible. The destination may rewrite > > one IPREF address into another IPREF address. This could be done > > multiple times. > > > > I wanted to avoid any sort of negotiations, any kind of time > > dependency, and I was trying to minimize amount of information shared > between peers. > > The peers don't trust each other that much except to agree to > > communicate. Using real addresses leads to negotiations and requires > > knowledge of peers address spaces and protocols, so that was not a > > good option. I was thinking of peer networks (multiplayer games, NAT > > traversal), high delay networks (space networks), and highly secure > > networks (financial, military). I thought avoiding negotiations would > > be the key. I was also convinced we'll be dealing with more than one > > network protocol for a while, hence no dependency on a single protocol. > > IPREF might speed up unification, especially IPv6 in the Internet, but > > it could also make it easier to develop specialized network protocols. > > Maybe for high delay networks, maybe for highly secure networks, or > > maybe for simplified networks. > > > > On 2/14/23 12:25, Evan Pratten wrote: > > > I find this very interesting. > > > > > > Would it be possible to chain references? for example > > > 10.0.0.1+700+800? I can't think of a use case for this, but I'm sure > > > it would cross someone's mind to try. > > > > > > The way I see this, IPREF is essentially encoding some or all of the > > > route to the final host in the address. Why not use real IPs all the > > > way down? For example: 10.0.0.1+10.0.0.4. This wouldn't require any > > > translation of reference numbers. Although, would make things less > > > dynamic. > > > > > > --- > > > Evan Pratten (VA3ZZA) > > > https://ewpratten.com > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 11:10 AM waldemar <walde...@wdmsys.com> > wrote: > > >> Hello, > > >> > > >> I have submitted a new -00 draft, > > >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-augustyn-intarea-ipref/. I > > >> am new to this, although I worked on an RFC some 15 years ago. I > > >> have contacted ADs for the area who advised me to seek feedback on > > >> this list. Please, provide your thoughts. I will be also submitting > > >> proper declarations in compliance with BCP 79. I need more time for > this. > > >> > > >> Thank you > > >> Waldemar Augustyn > > >> > > >> _______________________________________________ > > >> 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 _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list Int-area@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
