Path Aware Networking: Obstacles to Deployment (A Bestiary of Roads Not Taken)
draft-irtf-panrg-what-not-to-do-00

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (panrg RG)
Last updated 2018-10-15
Replaces draft-dawkins-panrg-what-not-to-do
Stream IRTF
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text xml pdf html bibtex
Stream IRTF state (None)
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
Document shepherd No shepherd assigned
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
PANRG                                                    S. Dawkins, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                       Huawei Technologies
Intended status: Informational                          October 15, 2018
Expires: April 18, 2019

Path Aware Networking: Obstacles to Deployment (A Bestiary of Roads Not
                                 Taken)
                   draft-irtf-panrg-what-not-to-do-00

Abstract

   At the first meeting of the Path Aware Networking Research Group,
   Oliver Bonaventure led a discussion of mostly-unsuccessful attempts
   to exploit Path Awareness to achieve a variety of goals, for a
   variety of reasons, over the past decade.  At the end of that
   discussion, the research group agreed to catalog and analyze these
   ideas, in order to extract insights and lessons for path-aware
   networking researchers.

   This document contains that catalog and analysis.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on April 18, 2019.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents

Dawkins                  Expires April 18, 2019                 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft               What Not To Do                 October 2018

   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.1.  About this Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.2.  A Note for the Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.3.  Architectural Guidance  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   2.  Summary of Lessons Learned  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  Template for Contributions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   4.  Contributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     4.1.  Integrated Services (IntServ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       4.1.1.  Reasons for Non-deployment  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
       4.1.2.  Lessons Learned.  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     4.2.  Quick-Start TCP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
       4.2.1.  Reasons for Non-deployment  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
       4.2.2.  Lessons Learned . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     4.3.  Triggers for Transport (TRIGTRAN) . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       4.3.1.  Reasons for Non-deployment  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
       4.3.2.  Lessons Learned.  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     4.4.  Shim6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
       4.4.1.  Reasons for Non-deployment  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
       4.4.2.  Lessons Learned . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     4.5.  Next Steps in Signaling (NSIS)  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
       4.5.1.  Reasons for Non-deployment  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
       4.5.2.  Lessons Learned . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   7.  Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   8.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20

1.  Introduction

   At IETF 99, the Path Aware Networking Research Group [PANRG] held its
   first meeting [PANRG-99], and the first presentation in that session
   was "A Decade of Path Awareness" [PATH-Decade].  At the end of this
   discussion, two things were abundantly clear.

   o  The Internet community has accumulated considerable experience
      with many Path Awareness ideas over a long period of time, and

   o  Although some Path Awareness ideas have been successfully deployed
      (for example, Differentiated Services, or DiffServ [RFC2475]),
      most of these ideas haven't seen widespread adoption.  The reasons
      for non-adoption are many, and are worthy of study.

Dawkins                  Expires April 18, 2019                 [Page 2]
Show full document text