On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 10:25:02AM +1200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> > From a background POV it is worth noting ISO 8473 which is in deployment
> > with multi-type variable length address.
>
> Pretty ugly and limited though, and as I understand it the major
> (unclassified) deployment, in the airline trade, is trying to migrate away. I
> have no idea if there are classified deployments, but if so, I expect they
> use the non-variable GOSIP format.
Maybe a side-thread better moved over to intenet-history ?
At least let me change the subject. But i am curious,
because before IPv6 came along i was very
much hoping to see benefits of CLNP to go into IP-NG.
I am specifically a fan of routing host-addresses within a domain
because i think its the mayor reason for Ethernet subnets to eat IP
for breakfast (displaying more and more L3 at the edge). Even back
in the beginning of the 90th i did do IP host routing with RIP for
multi-homed hosts. So i had hoped IPv6 to include this benefit
of CLNP. Or at least a decade later MIF.
No memory of the specific of variable length addressing in CLNP though
I know i had different length addresses in CLNP deployment in the 90th,
but within a university i did (of course?) not recognize any of the
extension/operational benefits that much.
Btw: Completely agree the administrative decision for IETF not to invest
into CLNP given the ownership of the protocol by a politicised SDO,
but re-using good idea instead of NIH would really be nice.
Cheers
Toerless
> I think ISO 8473 is a pretty good model of how not to do it.
>
> > It is also worth noting that SA is different from DA to the extent that
> it may not belong in the network layer header of the outgoing packet. The
> SA is arguably a function of the payload and the application. Indeed some
> MPLS OAM solutions do just that by making the return address implicit in the
> arrival LSP, or a parameter in a payload TLV. SA as in IP is arguably
> just a convenience for a simplified method of operating an application.
>
> My favourite article on that topic is
> https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/techreports/FUCAM-CL-TR-849.pdf
>
> Brian
>
> >
> > Stewart
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> >> On 13 Jul 2021, at 00:05, Toerless Eckert <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Dear Int-area
> >>
> >> As attached below, i have written up an idea about why and how
> >> variable-length
> >> addresses in the network layer would be useful for many limited domain
> internetworks,
> >> but also how they could provide a simple and easily extensible framework to
> >> add additional semantics (the likes of multicast, BIER, ICN), and also
> make it easier
> >> to express the programmability that SRv6 introduced.
> >>
> >> Would very much welcome discussion/feedback, and will be asking for a slot
> >> to present/discuss this int-area 111.
> >>
> >> Note that the -00 writeup is mostly inspirational for what i think the
> cool
> >> things one could do with it are and to explain the concepts.
> >>
> >> Obviously, if/when there is interest in this
> >> direction, the harder work of figuring out how to best introduce this
> >> incrementally, and ideally backward compatible into existing networks wold
> >> be the next big set of items to work out.
> >>
> >> Cheers
> >> Toerless
> >>
> >> On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 01:00:25PM -0700, [email protected] wrote:
> >>> A new version of I-D,
> >>> draft-eckert-intarea-functional-addr-internets-00.txt
> >>> has been successfully submitted by Toerless Eckert and posted to the
> >>> IETF repository.
> >>>
> >>> Name: draft-eckert-intarea-functional-addr-internets
> >>> Revision: 00
> >>> Title: Functional Addressing (FA) for internets with Independent
> >>> Network Address Spaces (IINAS)
> >>> Document date: 2021-07-12
> >>> Group: Individual Submission
> >>> Pages: 30
> >>> URL:
> >>> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-eckert-intarea-functional-addr-internets-00.txt
> >>> Status:
> >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-eckert-intarea-functional-addr-internets/
> >>> Htmlized:
> >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-eckert-intarea-functional-addr-internets
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Abstract:
> >>> Recent work has raised interest in exploring network layer addressing
> >>> that is more flexible than fixed-length addressing as used in IPv4
> >>> (32 bit) and IPv6 (128 bit).
> >>>
> >>> The reasons for the interest include both support for multiple and
> >>> potentially novel address semantics, but also optimizations of
> >>> addressing for existing semantics such as unicast tailored not for
> >>> the global Internet but to better support private networks / limited
> >>> domains.
> >>>
> >>> This memo explores in the view of the author yet little explored
> >>> reasons for more flexible addresses namely the problems and
> >>> opportunities for Internetworking with Independent Network Address
> >>> Spaces (IINAS).
> >>>
> >>> To better enable such internetworks, this memo proposes a framework
> >>> for a Functional Addressing model. This model also intends to
> >>> support several other addressing goals including programmability and
> >>> multiple semantics.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> The IETF Secretariat
> >>
> >> --
> >> ---
> >> [email protected]
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Int-area mailing list
> >> [email protected]
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Int-area mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Int-area mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
--
---
[email protected]
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
