Subject: Re: [rrg] Next pass

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2010 17:31:44 -0400 (EDT)

> From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>

    > I don't know of anyone.

Good, then it shouldn't be controversial! :-)

(Seriously, though, I am reliably informed, by someone who's currently out
trying to 'sell' a location/identity split scheme, that they do exist.)

    >> 'The RRG did reach a rough consensus that it is both desirable to
    >> separate location and identity, and also technically feasible to do
    >> so.'

    > As long as you don't try to define identity. 

Which is part of why I stuck with the generic concept terms 'location' and
'identity', and didn't use any specific examplars of either.

But seriously, if anyone disagrees with that concept, let's hear it,
otherwise I would like to ask Tony to include it as a 'group endorsed
high-level recommendation'.

	Noel

---

From: Tony Li <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2010 18:50:31 -0700

> high-level recommendation'.

I would welcome this, but would ask that someone _else_ draft the specific
wording and initiate the consensus poll.

Between the current 'discussion' and my day job, I'm more than a bit
stretched.

Tony

---

From: Ross Callon <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2010 00:37:52 -0400

Suppose hypothetically that we do all agree that it is desirable to separate location and identity, and that it is feasible to do so. It seems highly likely that we don't agree on the feasibility of any one specific scheme that separates location and identity. Thus what does it mean if we say that each person who has participated in the RRG discussions separately feels that there is *some* feasible way to do so? 

Also, of course there are some people in the world who would feel that "all other things being equal, it would be nice to separate identity and location", but who don't feel that they have yet noticed any feasible method to do so, or perhaps that they haven't noticed any way to do so that is likely to gain enough traction that it would be feasible to actually get the world to deploy it. Such folks are likely to have not participated heavily in the RRG discussions for the simple reason that they don't have an approach to push. 

Also, of course the discussion is naturally slanted towards people who feel that the work is worthwhile. 

seems to be somewhere on the boundary between meaningless and misleading. Perhaps a better sentence might be: 
    >> 'The RRG did reach a rough consensus that it would be desirable to
    >> separate location and identity, should we agree on a way to do so.'

To me the value in the report (which is considerable) comes from the knowledge gained in the effort to create it; in the good description of multiple possible approaches; and in the fact that the chairs (as individuals) have picked a specific small set of approaches which to me as an individual looking at the chair's endorsement look to be worth studying. 

Ross

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Noel Chiappa
Sent: 23 April 2010 17:32
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [rrg] Next pass

	Noel
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email-masked]
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg

---

From: Robin Whittle <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2010 20:50:22 +1000

> high-level recommendation'.

But what does "separate location and identity" mean?  If we can't
agree on what it means and which architectures implement it and which
don't, there doesn't seem to be any point in agreeing on it as a concept.

HIP, GSE, ILNP, RANGI, GLI-Split and Name Based Sockets all implement
"Locator / Identifier Separation".   Hosts have both an Identifier
(or perhaps multiple Identifiers) and one or more Locators.  This
requires stack and perhaps application changes from the current stack
and app arrangement where the IP address of the host functions as
both its "Locator" and its "Identifier".

If that is what it means, then I do NOT believe it is the way forward
to solve the routing scaling problem.

My main objections are that it places too much extra work, extra
packets etc. on individual hosts - and that it typically introduces
extra delays in establishing communications.  I think this is a bad
deal in return for keeping the network simpler.

I think the network should gain a new layer of complexity along the
lines of a Core-Edge Elimination architecture (Ivip, IRON-RANGER or
LISP), and that hosts should not gain any extra complexity or
responsibilities.  Comprehensive arguments and references are here:

  http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg06219.html

I am concerned that the phrase "separate location and identity" is
believed by some people to apply to LISP - and LISP, Ivip and
IRON-RANGER share many major architectural features.

LISP, Ivip and IRON-RANGER does not involve hosts in any changes, so
they do not involve hosts at all in "Locator / Identifier
Separation".   Some argue that within LISP, there are Locators and
Identifiers - but I think this is contorting the meaning of these
terms.  See the thread:

  LISP does not implement Locator / Identity Separation
  http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg06190.html

So if we can all agree that "separating locator from identity" refers
to doing so at the hosts, then this phrase does not cover Ivip, LISP
or IRON-RANGER.  Then I would NOT be an RRG participant which was

> separate location and identity, and also technically feasible to do

Nor would anyone who favors LISP, Ivip or IRON-RANGER.  Then, I
expect, we would not have consensus support for this concept.

If there is consensus that LISP is also an instance of "separating
locator and identity", then I won't cast a vote against this concept
having consensus support.  However, I think it is a meaningless
concept if it doesn't clearly define that this separation occurs at,
and directly effects, hosts (GSE, ILNP etc.) or whether it also
applies to architectures which do not alter host responsibilities,
stacks, apps, communications etc (LISP, Ivip etc.) but which are
argued by some to include "separating location from identity" inside
the new things they add to the network.

  - Robin