Challenging Scenarios and Problems in Internet Addressing
draft-jia-intarea-scenarios-problems-addressing-00

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Authors Yihao Jia  , Dirk Trossen  , Luigi Iannone  , Donald Eastlake  , Peng Liu 
Last updated 2021-02-22
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text xml pdf htmlized (tools) htmlized bibtex
Stream Stream state (No stream defined)
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
Internet Area Working Group                                       Y. Jia
Internet-Draft                                                D. Trossen
Intended status: Informational                                L. Iannone
Expires: August 26, 2021                                          Huawei
                                                         D. Eastlake 3rd
                                                               Futurewei
                                                                  P. Liu
                                                            China Mobile
                                                       February 22, 2021

       Challenging Scenarios and Problems in Internet Addressing
           draft-jia-intarea-scenarios-problems-addressing-00

Abstract

   The Internet Protocol (IP) has been the major technological success
   in information technology of the last half century.  As Internet
   become pervasive, IP start replacing communication technology for
   domain-specific solutions.  However, domains with specific
   requirements as well as communication behaviors and semantics still
   exists and represent what [RFC8799] recognizes as "limited domains".
   When communicating within limited domains, the address semantic and
   format may differ with respect to the IP address one.  As such, there
   is a need to adapt the domain-specific addressing to the Internet
   addressing paradigm.  In certain scenarios, such adaptation may raise
   challenges.

   This document describes well-recognized scenarios that showcase
   possibly different addressing requirements which are challenging to
   be accommodated in the IP addressing model.  These scenarios
   highlight issues related to the Internet addressing model and call
   for starting a discussion on a way to re-think/evolve the addressing
   model so to better accommodate different domain-specific
   requirements.

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

Jia, et al.              Expires August 26, 2021                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft    Scenarios and Problems in Addressing     February 2021

   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 August 26, 2021.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2021 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
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Communication Scenarios in Limited Domains  . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.1.  Communication in Constrained Environments . . . . . . . .   4
     2.2.  Communication within Dynamically Changing Topologies  . .   5
     2.3.  Communication among Moving Endpoints  . . . . . . . . . .   6
     2.4.  Communication Across Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     2.5.  Steering Communication Traffic  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     2.6.  Communication with built-in security  . . . . . . . . . .  10
     2.7.  Communication in Alternative Forwarding Architectures . .  11
   3.  Issues in Addressing  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     3.1.  Limiting Alternative Address Semantics  . . . . . . . . .  13
     3.2.  Hampering Security  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     3.3.  Complicating Traffic Engineering  . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     3.4.  Hampering Efficiency  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
       3.4.1.  Header proportion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
       3.4.2.  Introducing Path Stretch  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
       3.4.3.  Repetitive encapsulation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   4.  Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   7.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
Show full document text