Subject: [arch-d] common synthesis

From: Michel Gauthier <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2007 00:41:42 +0100

I prepare for Telepresse an intelligence report on the problem that 
has been identified by the IAB, and that is discussed by this mailing 
list, the solutions that it investigates for the Internet's future 
architecture, and its consequences. I would like to check with you 
about the main ideas that we extracted from this debate (we analysed 
the _key_ ideas for decision makers emerging from your active 
brainstorming). I also hope that my questions might help a common 
synthesis at this stage.

1. there is an over-complexity problem resulting from the size of the 
network. It is reflected in the size of the IPv6 address, the 
increasing use of multihoming, the BGP protocol instability, and the 
level of intelligence required from routers. Fred Baker provided some 
stunning examples making the problem still more difficult in real 
life. The IAB released a Draft on the issue.

2. there are three proposed attitudes:

- a general attitude favouring band-aids for the 10 to 20 years to 
come, and a new architecture further on. Due to the urgency, it 
prefers delaying the analysis of the problem (as it takes too long), 
and prefers to start a rough consensus solution now.

- JFC Morfin thinks that over-complexity is a stable new situation, 
and that it must be analysed and addressed with dedicated 
architectural concepts (distributed autonomy and subsidiarity) in 
turn completing RFC 1958 by Brian Carpenter, and RFC 3439 by Randy 
Bush and David Meyer.

- Noel Chiappa, Pekka Nikander, Jim Bound, and John Day are looking 
at the longer term. John Day and JFC Morfin advocate a network 
operating system as cement for the possibly differing and time scaled 
solutions.

3. There are three possible options: one lead by Noel Chiappa/Pekka 
Nikander that is now at a near partial consensus, ad two other ones 
quoted by JFC Morfin.

- IPv8: nobody wants it. It consists in keeping IPv4 addresses for 
NATs only, and adding NAT managed subaddressing. This solution 
would/will self deploy due to the expected increase of the price of 
IPv4 addresses.

- IPv6: the IPv6 address space in IPv6 headers using IPv6 ITU /3 
would be understood as a container for four orthogonal elements: 
header, routing, global identification, local extension. In addition 
routing management could be removed from the network and supervised 
at the edge as a multi-value added service extension of the DNS, 
basedon situation reports from en-route switchers.

- Jack-up (?): it consists in adding a routing namespace with 
different possible solutions, which are not fully clarified yet. It 
is the most debated proposition. One of its main points is to address 
GNP issues. HIP and SHIM6 seem to be the experience behind that 
solution. Can it be qualified as an "MLPS6" approach? There is thus 
far no complete description of the proposed idea, but a Draft could 
be written soon by its promoters.

All this raises some questions:

A. what are the risks involved in the IPv8 solution developing - it 
seems that some organisations may already use variations of it? How 
to block it, or to make it acceptable if it is unavoidable? Could 
someone want to seriously document it and its cons/pros as a Draft?

B. what is the difference between the IPv6 and Jack-up proposition? 
Jack-up is about two structural name spaces (IPv6 + a totally new 
one?). IPv6 is about immediate support of three orthogonal namespaces 
at the edges without real change, where only one structured one is 
currently supported?

C. the "jack-up" approach seems too complex to introduce, unless a 
good transition strategy is adopted. What would that strategy be? Who 
would conduct it? Why would it be faster than the one used to promote 
IPv6 during the last 14 years?

D. The time scale is:
- IPv8 is actually here already, but just not documented,
- IPv6 is here, but would need the ITU to document its use of an IPv6 
/3 to support it.
No indication is given about a scenario for the jack-up proposition? 
It would require a WG to be created. It would produce different 
Drafts about the context, proposition, and transitioning. Then, 
industry should start developing applications, and test them. ISP and 
exchanges should subsequently start implementing them, and carrying 
out their own market tests. How many years would this represent?

E. Only JFC Morfin seems to insist on the routing path to be 
controlled by the sending end (upon receiving end data) and other 
routing added value services to users. It seems that the list only 
considers the network needs and not the user needs? He also seems the 
only one to call for a DDDS approach of the routing computation?

F. The US DoD has adopted IPv6 as per http://whitehouse.gov/pcipb. 
Several Telecos, including BT in England, are committed to MLPS for 
telephone services. China is expected to be rapidly a large user of 
IPv6 (or to study its own IPv10 hoax(?)/project(?)). The ITU 
development of NGN is supposed to be supported by IPv6. Moreover, the 
GENI test bed as well. Can these deployments, experimentations, and 
projects be affected by the problem that you are currently 
investigating? In particular, could the US Defense Department meet 
with congestion or technology follow-up problems? We therefore 
understand that this topic is vital for the e-economy of the USA, 
Europe, China, and India and will report it as such.

I thank you for your time, attention, and help.

Michel Gauthier.
[email-masked]
-----
All advice, leads, and clarifications are welcome. If you have any 
information or private comments, please do not hesitate to send them 
directly to Telepresse. Telepresse Intelligence Reports are 
tailor-made and strictly confidential. Sources are never disclosed. 
They are commissioned and intended for participating freelancers, 
press agencies, corporate documentalists, and political analysts. 
They are constantly updated. They may be written in French, Spanish, 
English, or Japanese. Telepresse is a closed group of coopted 
managers and journalists that practise mutual information and 
documentation sharing. Telepresse does not offer external commercial 
or private service.
-----

_______________________________________________
Architecture-discuss mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss

---

From: "tom.petch" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 10:41:00 +0100

I disagree that this is a fair summary; I think that there are other points that
have been referred to along the way that may turn out to be more significant in
the long term.

a) Most of the network developments in the past have been driven by domestic
voice (not data, not business).  Statistics show that data traffic has/is/is
about to exceed voice but I still believe that the network of ten years hence
will be shaped by a billion or two mobile phone users in India/China/Japan ...
and that this will be based on IPvn (n GE 6).  I do not understand the nature of
the latest voice technology to understand where this is taking us.

b) voice more than other applications needs QOS (COS/TOS a generic term for
prioritisation of delay/availability/loss/etc sensitive traffic) which is
happening, but slowly, with IPv4 etc.

c) the current Internet suits the ISP who often give their customers a bad
service but to whom the technology locks them in.  Voice mobile users chop and
change contracts to match requirements.  With IPv4 routing this is difficult or
impossible since the ISP (mostly) controls the PA addressing and PI addressing
will blow the capacity of some key routers.  Note that DNS does work in giving
users who want it the choice to escape the control of ISP where names are
concerned; a better directory service, mapping name to current locator, is
another option in this area.  Locator/identifier split has of course loomed
large on a number of ietf lists.

d) A related need is for multiple parallel links/paths, to the same or different
ISP to provide incremental increases in capacity/resilience in contrast to the
IPvn approach which focusses on providing one best path (where best is not good
enough:-(  This must be transparent to the application.

Tom Petch

----- Original Message -----
From: "Michel Gauthier" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, January 08, 2007 12:41 AM
Subject: [arch-d] common synthesis

> documentation sharing. Telepresse does not offer external commercial

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Pekka Nikander <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 21:15:43 +0200

Dear Michael,

Unfortunately, I find your summary quite confused.  I don't even know  
where to start from when trying to read it.  From my very personal  
point of view, you seem to use some key terms in a way that make it  
pretty hard for me even to imagine what you really try to mean with  
them.  As an example, I have never heard that there would be any  
established meaning for the tentative term IPv8; in fact, I have seen  
various independent people used it in very different ways and to  
denote very different architectural and even nonsensical concepts.

--Pekka Nikander

On 8 Jan 2007, at 01:41, Michel Gauthier wrote:

> has been identified by the IAB, and that is discussed by this  
> mailing list, the solutions that it investigates for the Internet’s  
> future architecture, and its consequences. I would like to check  
> with you about the main ideas that we extracted from this debate  
> (we analysed the _key_ ideas for decision makers emerging from your  
> active brainstorming). I also hope that my questions might help a  
> common synthesis at this stage.
>
> 1. there is an over-complexity problem resulting from the size of  
> the network. It is reflected in the size of the IPv6 address, the  
> increasing use of multihoming, the BGP protocol instability, and  
> the level of intelligence required from routers. Fred Baker  
> provided some stunning examples making the problem still more  
> difficult in real life. The IAB released a Draft on the issue.
>
> prefers delaying the analysis of the problem (as it takes too  
> long), and prefers to start a rough consensus solution now.
>
> operating system as cement for the possibly differing and time  
> scaled solutions.
>
> header, routing, global identification, local extension. In  
> addition routing management could be removed from the network and  
> supervised at the edge as a multi-value added service extension of  
> the DNS, basedon situation reports from en-route switchers.
>
> is the most debated proposition. One of its main points is to  
> address GNP issues. HIP and SHIM6 seem to be the experience behind  
> that solution. Can it be qualified as an "MLPS6" approach? There is  
> thus far no complete description of the proposed idea, but a Draft  
> could be written soon by its promoters.
>
> one?). IPv6 is about immediate support of three orthogonal  
> namespaces at the edges without real change, where only one  
> structured one is currently supported?
>
> good transition strategy is adopted. What would that strategy be?  
> Who would conduct it? Why would it be faster than the one used to  
> promote IPv6 during the last 14 years?
>
> D. The time scale is:
> - IPv6 is here, but would need the ITU to document its use of an  
> IPv6 /3 to support it.
> No indication is given about a scenario for the jack-up  
> proposition? It would require a WG to be created. It would produce  
> different Drafts about the context, proposition, and transitioning.  
> Then, industry should start developing applications, and test them.  
> ISP and exchanges should subsequently start implementing them, and  
> carrying out their own market tests. How many years would this  
> represent?
>
> considers the network needs and not the user needs? He also seems  
> the only one to call for a DDDS approach of the routing computation?
>
> F. The US DoD has adopted IPv6 as per http://whitehouse.gov/pcipb .  
> development of NGN is supposed to be supported by IPv6. Moreover,  
> the GENI test bed as well. Can these deployments, experimentations,  
> and projects be affected by the problem that you are currently  
> information or private comments, please do not hesitate to send  
> them directly to Telepresse. Telepresse Intelligence Reports are  
> They are constantly updated. They may be written in French,  
> Spanish, English, or Japanese. Telepresse is a closed group of  
> coopted managers and journalists that practise mutual information  
> and documentation sharing. Telepresse does not offer external  
> commercial or private service.
> -----
>

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 14:55:34 +0100

On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 12:41:42AM +0100,
 Michel Gauthier <[email-masked]> wrote 
 a message of 261 lines which said:

> I prepare for Telepresse an intelligence report

As it is today, it could do a lot of damage to your own credibility
and I suggest to do more research before publishing that.

Mentioning JFC Morfin (apart for a bit of relaxation and humour) and
the non-existent IPv8 is a seriously wrong start.

> - IPv8 is actually here already, but just not documented,

Thank you for the ROTFL of the day :-)