Dear Dirk There may be some material that you can use from
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bryant-arch-fwd-layer-uc-01 And https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bryant-arch-fwd-layer-ps/ - Stewart > On 5 Feb 2021, at 15:12, Dirk Trossen <[email protected]> wrote: > > Stewart, all, > > As Yihao pointed out, we are working on an update to the draft to focus the > discussion on the communication scenarios and problems arising in those > scenarios. In that sense, we agree with your desire for a holistic discussion > and see this upcoming update as one of the next towards that. > > With that in mind, I suggest that we continue the discussions after this > upcoming update since it is not the intention at this stage to propose any > solutions or constrain any thinking about solutions but to agree that > problems may exist that will need to be addressed. > > Best regards, > > Dirk > > From: Int-area [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Stewart Bryant > Sent: 05 February 2021 15:59 > To: Jiayihao <[email protected]> > Cc: Lin Han <[email protected]>; > [email protected]; int-area <[email protected]>; > [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Int-area] The small address use case in FlexIP > > > > > On 5 Feb 2021, at 12:06, Jiayihao <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > - Indeed, the network scale of limited domain is supposed to be less that > IPv6, but it doesn't mean the address space should be strictly less than > 128-bit. If the space of the address is abundant enough, the public key could > be embedded without truncation (compare to CGA in IPv6) for certain security > purpose. > > Interesting, what are the advantages in adding the signature of the address > in the address as opposed to carrying it in a different field? > > The disadvantage is that you bind the address to the signature algorithm > which you would not want to do since you would expect to change the signature > algorithm during the lifetime of the protocol. > > Also would you really want to feed the signature into the longest match > engine? Of course you could and there are some advantages in that you look up > both the address and it signature, but I think you loose longest match > capability and you significantly increase the size of the TCAM or other FIB > design memory, and that memory is very expensive as it determines the line > rate of the forwarder. > > So this points back to the need for a holistic discussion of what we are > trying to achieve, the extent to which modifying existing protocols satisfies > that need, and whether (given the presupposed need for a gateway) we should > be looking for a single protocol, a family of protocols, or an adaptable > protocol. > > I don’t think we can design the addressing system in the absence of a > discussion on those points. > > Best regards > > Stewart > >
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
