Thanks, Roland
It would actually be interesting to see a presentation and feedback in Roll
because that is where the RPL experts could chime in with opinion.
try to present a m
But please put in a request for ANIMA as well, and we will see if it can fit the
agenda. I think it should
Cheers
Toerless
On Wed, Oct 12, 2022 at 01:47:21PM +0200, Bless, Roland (TM) wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'd just like to bring KIRA to your attention that was recently published
> at IFIP Networking 2022: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9829816
> or if you don't have access, you can also use the preprint version here:
> https://publikationen.bibliothek.kit.edu/1000148953
> [sorry for similar cross-posting from rtgwg, but this time with focus on
> ANIMA use].
>
> KIRA was designed to provide an extremely robust control plane connectivity,
> also for in-band control, so it is a "connectivity first" protocol that
> tries to
> uphold the connectivity between all its resources. In the ANIMA context, it
> could
> be seen as being an alternative to RPL in the ACP. In comparison to
> RPL it does not create traffic concentrations and is very robust even
> in drastic failure scenarios. Moreover, it can provide a built-in
> DHT which could ease the discovery of ASAs and provide lightweight
> lookup services.
>
> Some features:
>
> * It consists of a highly scalable ID-based routing protocol R²/Kad in
> the routing tier
> o highly scalable means 100,000s of nodes in a single domain
> o "ID-based" means that it works on flat identifiers that have no
> topological meaning, e.g., they could be hashes of public keys
> or just random numbers
> * it is a partially reactive path-vector protocol, i.e., a node
> maintains a set of routes to some destinations, whereas it needs to
> discover routes to other destinations on demand.
> * It is completely self-organized (esp. zero-touch, zero-config)
> * It is loop-free, even during convergence
> * It shows good performance in various topologies (which we call
> topological versatility), e.g., also in denser structures like data
> center topologies.
> * It achieves a good average stretch although its routing tables are
> growing with O(log n) only (n=number of existing nodes in the network)
> o Entries in the routing tables are shortest path routes
> o Stretch is configurable by a node individual adaptation
> mechanism, i.e., a node may achieve less stretch by providing
> more memory for routing table entries. For example, an ASA may
> put other ASAs it communicates frequently with into its routing
> table.
> * KIRA also provides a fast-forwarding scheme using PathIDs in the
> forwarding tier
> * R²/Kad routing protocol messages use source routing, whereas control
> packets (i.e., ACP packets) forwarded by KIRA should use less
> per-packet overhead and thus use a label-based forwarding scheme
> that also supports multi-path forwarding.
> o Currently, we use GRE encapsulation, but other methods could be
> used, e.g., IPv6 SRH.
> * The scheme currently uses IPv6 packets and ULA addresses, so it
> would fit nicely into the ANIMA work.
>
> We think that these features would make it a great choice as an ACP routing
> protocol, however, it is clear that KIRA is nothing that has been
> standardized yet.
> Besides the simulation that was used to investigate KIRA's scalability, we
> have a prototypical implementation as node-local SDN app that provides IPv6
> connectivity between the nodes (using OpenvSwitch), a Linux-based native
> implementation is currently being developed. If there is interest and
> agenda time available, I could try to give a brief overview presentation at
> IETF 115, however, I understand that ANIMA charter items have priority.
>
> Regards,
> Roland
>
> _______________________________________________
> Anima mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
--
---
[email protected]
_______________________________________________
Anima mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
