FW: Next steps discussing Routing Challenges of Semantic Addressing

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
9 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

FW: Next steps discussing Routing Challenges of Semantic Addressing

Manfredi (US), Albert E
This is something that ought to be of interest to organizations which want to use their own semantics, in the IPv6 prefixes. There was some discussion on 6man some time ago, in which the assumption appeared to be, such a thing is already viable.

Bert

-----Original Message-----
From: routing-discussion <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel
Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2021 05:49
To: [hidden email]; [hidden email]
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Next steps discussing Routing Challenges of Semantic Addressing

EXT email: be mindful of links/attachments.



Dear all,

Back in March we posted an initial draft to open the discussion of research
related to routing based on additional meaning assigned to IP addresses, and
to routing based on fields other than the destination address field of an IP
packet. That draft attracted some comments, and one thing was clear: we
needed to split the draft into a survey of work that has happened / is
happening, and a discussion of the challenges to routing together with the
research question.

So we have done this now (sorry it took so long) and have posted:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-king-irtf-semantic-routing-survey/ 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-king-irtf-challenges-in-routing/ 

These new drafts do not pick up all of the comments received (we focused on
the split), but we hope to address the comments in new revisions soon.

At the same time, we have set up a dedicated mailing list for discussion of
"Semantic Addressing Routing and Hardware" (SARAH) at [hidden email].
This is an academic, research-based community where we can discuss all
aspects of the drafts, introduce our research to each other, and advertise
related conference activity. You can subscribe at
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A0=SARAH.

We hope the new list will help to focus discussion and avoid spamming
existing mailing lists.

Looking forward to hearing your opinions.

Adrian and Dan

_______________________________________________
routing-discussion mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[hidden email]
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: FW: Next steps discussing Routing Challenges of Semantic Addressing

Robert Raszuk-3
All,

May I ask why this topic is being taken outside of IETF ? 

Is it so difficult to create a new list ? Or is this so off topic to say ipv6 or 6man lists that it can not be discussed there ? 

Thx,
Robert


On Thu, May 6, 2021 at 9:09 PM Manfredi (US), Albert E <[hidden email]> wrote:
This is something that ought to be of interest to organizations which want to use their own semantics, in the IPv6 prefixes. There was some discussion on 6man some time ago, in which the assumption appeared to be, such a thing is already viable.

Bert

-----Original Message-----
From: routing-discussion <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel
Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2021 05:49
To: [hidden email]; [hidden email]
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Next steps discussing Routing Challenges of Semantic Addressing

EXT email: be mindful of links/attachments.

Dear all,

Back in March we posted an initial draft to open the discussion of research
related to routing based on additional meaning assigned to IP addresses, and
to routing based on fields other than the destination address field of an IP
packet. That draft attracted some comments, and one thing was clear: we
needed to split the draft into a survey of work that has happened / is
happening, and a discussion of the challenges to routing together with the
research question.

So we have done this now (sorry it took so long) and have posted:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-king-irtf-semantic-routing-survey/
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-king-irtf-challenges-in-routing/

These new drafts do not pick up all of the comments received (we focused on
the split), but we hope to address the comments in new revisions soon.

At the same time, we have set up a dedicated mailing list for discussion of
"Semantic Addressing Routing and Hardware" (SARAH) at [hidden email].
This is an academic, research-based community where we can discuss all
aspects of the drafts, introduce our research to each other, and advertise
related conference activity. You can subscribe at
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A0=SARAH.

We hope the new list will help to focus discussion and avoid spamming
existing mailing lists.

Looking forward to hearing your opinions.

Adrian and Dan

_______________________________________________
routing-discussion mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[hidden email]
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[hidden email]
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: FW: Next steps discussing Routing Challenges of Semantic Addressing

Alexandre Petrescu
Le 06/05/2021 à 22:04, Robert Raszuk a écrit :
> All,
>
> May I ask why this topic is being taken outside of IETF ?

Maybe because https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A0=SARAH is
not on IPv6?

> Is it so difficult to create a new list ?

I think it is very easy for IETF Secretariat to create email lists, but
it is very difficult for me to create a new local filter for each new
mailing list, and since some time now.  To address that problem, there
is a need of a new communications protocol feature to be used by the
IETF Secretariat in a trustful manner, such that it automatically
creates an email filter in my email reader and a new folder, upon the
creation of a new email list.

Creating a list first outside the IETF, and then potentially moving it
to IETF or IRTF, poses a significant challenge in automatically updating
these filters.  Because there would be no single entity (like the IETF
Secretariat) that could trigger this.  The Secretariat would have to
have a close relationship with that organisation outside of IETF.

> Or is this so off topic to say ipv6 or 6man lists that it can not be
>  discussed there ?

I think it does make sense to discuss it at IETF.

I doubt though that routing on more bits than a dst address can be
qualified as semantics.  Semantics would be if the packets could smell
something and routing would happen on that smell.  Or be coloured
something, or have a spin, or similar.

Addressing something with something else than an address also poses a
challenge.  On another hand, the semantics of an address could be
augmented with port numbers, and then routing could be done based on
address+portnumbers, maybe traffic engineering.

Just some simple thoughts...  I have to read the description first.

Alex

>
> Thx, Robert
>
>
> On Thu, May 6, 2021 at 9:09 PM Manfredi (US), Albert E
> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>
>  wrote:
>
> This is something that ought to be of interest to organizations which
> want to use their own semantics, in the IPv6 prefixes. There was some
> discussion on 6man some time ago, in which the assumption appeared to
> be, such a thing is already viable.
>
> Bert
>
> -----Original Message----- From: routing-discussion
> <[hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]>> On Behalf Of Adrian
> Farrel Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2021 05:49 To: [hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]>; [hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Next steps
> discussing Routing Challenges of Semantic Addressing
>
> EXT email: be mindful of links/attachments.
>
> Dear all,
>
> Back in March we posted an initial draft to open the discussion of
> research related to routing based on additional meaning assigned to
> IP addresses, and to routing based on fields other than the
> destination address field of an IP packet. That draft attracted some
>  comments, and one thing was clear: we needed to split the draft into
>  a survey of work that has happened / is happening, and a discussion
>  of the challenges to routing together with the research question.
>
> So we have done this now (sorry it took so long) and have posted:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-king-irtf-semantic-routing-survey/
>
>
>
>
>
>
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-king-irtf-semantic-routing-survey/>
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-king-irtf-challenges-in-routing/
>
>
>
>
>
>
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-king-irtf-challenges-in-routing/>

>
>
> These new drafts do not pick up all of the comments received (we
> focused on the split), but we hope to address the comments in new
> revisions soon.
>
> At the same time, we have set up a dedicated mailing list for
> discussion of "Semantic Addressing Routing and Hardware" (SARAH) at
> [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>. This is an
> academic, research-based community where we can discuss all aspects
> of the drafts, introduce our research to each other, and advertise
> related conference activity. You can subscribe at
> https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A0=SARAH 
> <https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A0=SARAH>.
>
> We hope the new list will help to focus discussion and avoid
> spamming existing mailing lists.
>
> Looking forward to hearing your opinions.
>
> Adrian and Dan
>
> _______________________________________________ routing-discussion
> mailing list [hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion 
> <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]> Administrative Requests:
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 
> <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [hidden email] Administrative
> Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[hidden email]
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: FW: Next steps discussing Routing Challenges of Semantic Addressing

Nick Hilliard
In reply to this post by Robert Raszuk-3
Robert Raszuk wrote on 06/05/2021 21:04:
> May I ask why this topic is being taken outside of IETF ?
>
> Is it so difficult to create a new list ? Or is this so off topic to say
> ipv6 or 6man lists that it can not be discussed there ?

briefly:

1. yes
2. no
3. yes

Nick


--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[hidden email]
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: FW: Next steps discussing Routing Challenges of Semantic Addressing

Brian E Carpenter-2
On 07-May-21 08:34, Nick Hilliard wrote:

> Robert Raszuk wrote on 06/05/2021 21:04:
>> May I ask why this topic is being taken outside of IETF ?
>>
>> Is it so difficult to create a new list ? Or is this so off topic to say
>> ipv6 or 6man lists that it can not be discussed there ?
>
> briefly:
>
> 1. yes
> 2. no
> 3. yes

4. It's an IRTF topic anyway.

    Brian

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[hidden email]
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: FW: Next steps discussing Routing Challenges of Semantic Addressing

Dirk Trossen
In reply to this post by Alexandre Petrescu
Hi Alex,

Please see inline.

Best,

Dirk

-----Original Message-----
From: ipv6 [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Alexandre Petrescu
Sent: 06 May 2021 22:22
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: FW: Next steps discussing Routing Challenges of Semantic Addressing

[SNIP]

> Or is this so off topic to say ipv6 or 6man lists that it can not be  
> discussed there ?

I think it does make sense to discuss it at IETF.

I doubt though that routing on more bits than a dst address can be qualified as semantics.  Semantics would be if the packets could smell something and routing would happen on that smell.  Or be coloured something, or have a spin, or similar.
[DOT] Semantic is about 'meaning of words'; if you equate 'words' with the (packet) fields taken as input for routing decisions, the meaning of those words/fields matters obviously. Point of the draft is the observation that semantic routing in that sense has been ongoing for a long time; it's a fact of life but worthwhile stating as an observation. Even the routing on IP addresses is semantic routing since the meaning of those addresses matters for many (all?) IP routing solutions. More importantly, the meaning of the IP address field can be changed, particularly in limited domains. Semantic prefixes are one example but also simply using the field to convey an entirely different semantic to route over is possible and has been done. Why is this worth observing now? Maybe it's the ease with which one can 'rummage' around in a packet and use various fields to make routing decisions. If you look at the progression from SDN to P4, for instance, the limitations of SDN to only allow action
 s on a limited set of fields is all but gone now in P4; the packet is your oyster now, so to speak!


Addressing something with something else than an address also poses a challenge.  On another hand, the semantics of an address could be augmented with port numbers, and then routing could be done based on
address+portnumbers, maybe traffic engineering.

[DOT] This relates to your comment before, i.e., that it makes sense to discuss it at the IETF: I do agree but also agree with Brian that it is eventually the IRTF that may be the target here. The emergence and possibility of semantic routing to be done so easily (see my previous reference to SDN->P4) poses indeed a number of challenges, particularly from an interoperability perspective (which is of particular interest to a standards forum and audience). The insights of the larger (IETF) community are important here as input, while the IRTF may provide the forum to bring together researchers (academic and industrial alike) who develop such semantic routing solutions to exchange views with the wider IETF community on how those solutions all come together and work 'friendly' with each other. This fruitful exchange is something that the IRTF can facilitate. An outcome may be recommendations (to developers of solutions and the IETF) on how semantic routing can/should be done sustainably,
  i.e., without the challenges that the draft also observes.  

Just some simple thoughts...  I have to read the description first.

Alex

>
> Thx, Robert
>
>
> On Thu, May 6, 2021 at 9:09 PM Manfredi (US), Albert E
> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>
>  wrote:
>
> This is something that ought to be of interest to organizations which
> want to use their own semantics, in the IPv6 prefixes. There was some
> discussion on 6man some time ago, in which the assumption appeared to
> be, such a thing is already viable.
>
> Bert
>
> -----Original Message----- From: routing-discussion
> <[hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]>> On Behalf Of Adrian
> Farrel Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2021 05:49 To: [hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]>; [hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Next steps
> discussing Routing Challenges of Semantic Addressing
>
> EXT email: be mindful of links/attachments.
>
> Dear all,
>
> Back in March we posted an initial draft to open the discussion of
> research related to routing based on additional meaning assigned to IP
> addresses, and to routing based on fields other than the destination
> address field of an IP packet. That draft attracted some  comments,
> and one thing was clear: we needed to split the draft into  a survey
> of work that has happened / is happening, and a discussion  of the
> challenges to routing together with the research question.
>
> So we have done this now (sorry it took so long) and have posted:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-king-irtf-semantic-routing-surv
> ey/
>
>
>
>
>
>
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-king-irtf-semantic-routing-survey/>
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-king-irtf-challenges-in-routing
> /
>
>
>
>
>
>
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-king-irtf-challenges-in-routing/>

>
>
> These new drafts do not pick up all of the comments received (we
> focused on the split), but we hope to address the comments in new
> revisions soon.
>
> At the same time, we have set up a dedicated mailing list for
> discussion of "Semantic Addressing Routing and Hardware" (SARAH) at
> [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>. This is an
> academic, research-based community where we can discuss all aspects of
> the drafts, introduce our research to each other, and advertise
> related conference activity. You can subscribe at
> https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A0=SARAH
> <https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A0=SARAH>.
>
> We hope the new list will help to focus discussion and avoid spamming
> existing mailing lists.
>
> Looking forward to hearing your opinions.
>
> Adrian and Dan
>
> _______________________________________________ routing-discussion
> mailing list [hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion
> <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]> Administrative Requests:
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [hidden email] Administrative
> Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[hidden email]
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[hidden email]
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: FW: Next steps discussing Routing Challenges of Semantic Addressing

Nick Hilliard
In reply to this post by Brian E Carpenter-2
Brian E Carpenter wrote on 06/05/2021 23:21:

> On 07-May-21 08:34, Nick Hilliard wrote:
>> Robert Raszuk wrote on 06/05/2021 21:04:
>>> May I ask why this topic is being taken outside of IETF ?
>>>
>>> Is it so difficult to create a new list ? Or is this so off topic to say
>>> ipv6 or 6man lists that it can not be discussed there ?
>>
>> briefly:
>>
>> 1. yes
>> 2. no
>> 3. yes
>
> 4. It's an IRTF topic anyway.

On the separate mailing list thing, these are ideas which need a bit of
blue-sky thinking, so there really isn't an issue using a separate mail
server for it. The most productive discussions often happen with wild
ideas thrown around over a coffee with notes written on the back of a
paper napkin, so neither the IRTF nor the IETF need to feel insecure
that any initial discussions are happening elsewhere.  If there's an
outcome which is worth pursuing, that'll be the time when people will
naturally move it over to I*TF.

Nick

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[hidden email]
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: FW: Next steps discussing Routing Challenges of Semantic Addressing

Robert Raszuk-3
Nick,

Please observe that those ideas have been shipping for years and are deployed in SP networks.


On Fri, May 7, 2021 at 1:56 PM Nick Hilliard <[hidden email]> wrote:
Brian E Carpenter wrote on 06/05/2021 23:21:
> On 07-May-21 08:34, Nick Hilliard wrote:
>> Robert Raszuk wrote on 06/05/2021 21:04:
>>> May I ask why this topic is being taken outside of IETF ?
>>>
>>> Is it so difficult to create a new list ? Or is this so off topic to say
>>> ipv6 or 6man lists that it can not be discussed there ?
>>
>> briefly:
>>
>> 1. yes
>> 2. no
>> 3. yes
>
> 4. It's an IRTF topic anyway.

On the separate mailing list thing, these are ideas which need a bit of
blue-sky thinking, so there really isn't an issue using a separate mail
server for it. The most productive discussions often happen with wild
ideas thrown around over a coffee with notes written on the back of a
paper napkin, so neither the IRTF nor the IETF need to feel insecure
that any initial discussions are happening elsewhere.  If there's an
outcome which is worth pursuing, that'll be the time when people will
naturally move it over to I*TF.

Nick


--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[hidden email]
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: FW: Next steps discussing Routing Challenges of Semantic Addressing

Nick Hilliard
Robert Raszuk wrote on 07/05/2021 13:00:
> Please observe that those ideas have been shipping for years and are
> deployed in SP networks.

the proposals presented in terastream were, iirc, deployed to some
degree in some networks but didn't end up with the wider rollout that
was originally anticipated.  Some of the people involved with terastream
are on v6ops/6man, so they may (or may not) want to provide more
information.

Nick

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[hidden email]
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------