Skip to main content

Continuing to Evolve Internet Routing Beyond 'Mere' Reachability
draft-trossen-rtgwg-routing-beyond-reachability-00

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Authors Dirk Trossen , Zhe Lou , Sheng Jiang
Last updated 2022-02-08
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats
Stream Stream state (No stream defined)
Consensus boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Telechat date (None)
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
draft-trossen-rtgwg-routing-beyond-reachability-00
Network Working Group                                         D. Trossen
Internet-Draft                                                    D. Lou
Intended status: Informational                                  S. Jiang
Expires: 12 August 2022                              Huawei Technologies
                                                         8 February 2022

    Continuing to Evolve Internet Routing Beyond 'Mere' Reachability
           draft-trossen-rtgwg-routing-beyond-reachability-00

Abstract

   This document discusses the evolution of the Internet routing system
   beyond mere reachability.  We observe, through examples of past
   development, that such evolution has been taking place to improve on
   capabilities of the Internet, deal with more complicated network
   deployments and cater to changing requirements by end users as well
   as novel and emerging applications.

   For achieving a routing system that serves more than a singular
   reachability purpose, more information is taken into account when
   performing the purpose-specific functions.  Such extra information
   can be obtained by extending current routing protocols to exchange
   more information or by carrying that information within packets.

   This document is intended to seed discussions of how the observed
   evolution of the Internet's routing system can continue, what issues
   may occur when simply continuing the current approach for achieving
   routing beyond 'mere' reachability and what may be needed to address
   those issues.  Ultimately, however, this document recognizes the
   positive impact that moving beyond reachability has brought to the
   Internet and will continue to do so.

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."

Trossen, et al.          Expires 12 August 2022                 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft        Multi-Purpose Routing System         February 2022

   This Internet-Draft will expire on 12 August 2022.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2022 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 Revised BSD License text as
   described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
   provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Reachability - Original Purpose of the Routing System . . . .   4
   3.  Extension of the Routing System Beyond 'Mere' Reachability  .   5
   4.  Issues with Current Approaches  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     4.1.  Limiting Routing Semantics  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     4.2.  Complexity and Efficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       4.2.1.  Repetitive encapsulation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       4.2.2.  Introducing Path Stretch  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
       4.2.3.  Complicating Traffic Engineering  . . . . . . . . . .  10
     4.3.  Security  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     4.4.  Fragility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     4.5.  Interoperability  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   5.  Where to Go From Here?  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   7.  Privacy Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   8.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   9.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   10. Contributors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   11. Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24

1.  Introduction

   The current routing system was initially designed for a single
   purpose - reachability.  That is, it was built to find paths through
   the network so as to forward packets to their destinations.  The
   routing system has successfully supported the Internet as it grew
   from a very small scale network to a giant system that covers the
   whole world with billions attached devices and users.  This routing
   system has done a good job for global reachability, however, through

Trossen, et al.          Expires 12 August 2022                 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft        Multi-Purpose Routing System         February 2022

   the years, many other needs or purposes have arisen in the Internet,
   such as hostname/address mapping, destination selection, security,
   privacy, group isolation, various QoS requirements etc.  Many of
   these additional needs or purposes have resulted in the development
   of extended and distinct systems, such as DNS, patched firewall, DPI,
   and CDN, etc.  These systems have worked well but with costs in terms
   of quality of experience for the user, particularly with respect to
   time delay, but also with respect to costs of development, deployment
   and management throughout (parts of) the Internet.

   An alternative approach is the integration of extra capabilities and
   purposes into the routing system directly.  By exchanging necessary
   additional information or including such information in the packet
   header, purposes beyond just reachability have found entry into the
   routing system over the many years of the Internet's development.

   This document presents a brief survey of solutions that, when
   combined, represent a routing system beyond reachability that
   effectively forms today's Internet.  While this survey somewhat
   relates to that presented in [I-D.king-irtf-semantic-routing-survey],
   our focus here is on the identification of the underlying purpose for
   developing extensions, not on the body of work that represents an
   approach for doing so (named 'semantic routing' in the above draft).
   However, [I-D.king-irtf-semantic-routing-survey] may be useful for
   more information on the specific extensions.

   Some of these extensions are intended to be deployed in limited
   domains [RFC8799], while others are intended for use across the
   Internet.  The boundary of limited domains may also be the boundary
   of purposes and semantics of information defining those purposes.
   This survey is used to demonstrate the recognized need by those
   having developed existing solutions for the Internet's routing system
   to have multiple purposes beyond mere reachability.

   Building on the survey and our summary, we recognize that, in many
   parts, the Internet has already evolved into a 'multi-purpose
   routing' system.  However, we identify issues with the approach that
   has been taken so far, namely that of purpose-specific extensions.
   We assert that these issues will increasingly impede the Internet's
   ability to accommodate future purposes (represented in the form of
   new use cases), if we simply continue with a 'business as usual'
   attitude towards developing purpose-specific solutions for them.

   Instead, we position this document as the starting point for a
   discussion on how to evolve the Internet routing system in a coherent
   manner that will help us avoid the identified issues, while still
   allowing for integrating new purposes for Internet routing as they
   will emerge in the future.

Trossen, et al.          Expires 12 August 2022                 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft        Multi-Purpose Routing System         February 2022

   Note: This document does not discuss how routers may use policies,
   that are coded in, configured at, or signaled to it, to make routing
   decisions.  It does neither pass comment on the advisability or
   practicality of any of the proposals nor does it define any technical
   solutions.

2.  Reachability - Original Purpose of the Routing System

   Network routing protocols were initially designed to enable
   forwarding of IP packets through the network toward destination
   addresses.  Fundamental to this is the locator semantic of IP
   addresses, which has been assigned in the context of network
   topologies.  The original routing system was designed on a
   distributed basis.  Each router makes its own decision about the
   interface/link onto which it forwards a packet.  Each decision takes
   the packet one hop closer to the destination.  However, the choices
   made by distributed devices may not always work well if they are
   poorly coordinated between the routers, resulting in issues, such as
   forwarding loops, which may be transitory or permanent.  So it is
   normal to require the use of the same algorithm to decide the
   forwarding actions at each hop.

   A way to avoid routing issues is to select an end-to-end path a
   priori and consistently execute forwarding on the intermediate
   routers accordingly.  This element of traffic engineering is known as
   "path steering" [I-D.ietf-teas-rfc3272bis] and relies on the routing
   to protocols collect and exchange the reachability within a domain,
   so that any routers can select an end-to-end path . However, the
   amount of information needed to support these decisions can become
   very large (e.g., in large networks, with many possible paths and
   route metrics), which might impede the scalability both in terms of
   the storage and the distribution of the information.  Although
   network topology filters are often applied to reduce the storage of
   the network data and the complexity of the computation algorithm, the
   path computation accuracy and optimality may be negatively impacted.

Trossen, et al.          Expires 12 August 2022                 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft        Multi-Purpose Routing System         February 2022

   The Internet is a very complicated system that is made up of many
   independently built networks with two types of routing protocols: an
   interior gateway protocol (IGP) that routes inside a network and an
   exterior gateway protocol (such as BGP) that routes between networks.
   For a communication that crosses more than one domain, there could be
   many possible paths for the given destination.  In principle, the
   more information that decision-making devices have, the better
   choices they can make.  However, it is often infeasible to have all
   information of all potential end-to-end paths, particularly for
   communications through several networks with different ownership.
   Consequently, the best choices made within each domain may not reach
   the best overall result.  A key challenge here is the tussle between
   abstraction, needed for scalability, and optimality, which
   abstraction may impede.

   When choosing the best paths or topology structures, the following
   may need to be considered:

   *  The method by which a path, or set of paths, is to be calculated.
      For example, a path may be selected automatically by the routing
      protocol or may be imposed (perhaps for traffic engineering
      reasons) by a central controller or management entity.

   *  The criteria used for selecting the best path.  For example,
      classic route preference, or administrative policies such as
      economic costs, resilience, security, and (if requested) applying
      geopolitical considerations.

3.  Extension of the Routing System Beyond 'Mere' Reachability

   In the following, we provide a brief overview of routing extensions
   with purposes beyond 'mere' reachability.  We align our overview with
   many of the solutions described in
   [I-D.king-irtf-semantic-routing-survey] and refer to this draft for
   more detail, in addition to the example references themselves.

   The following Table 1 focusses on three key aspects when considering
   routing extensions for our discussion in this draft:

   *  Purpose: What is the intended purpose of the proposed extension?
      This aspect may lead to a taxonomy for looking at the capabilities
      of a multi-purpose routing system.

   *  Approach: What is the underlying technical approach to achieve the
      intended purpose?  This aspect may lead to a taxonomy of
      approaches for achieving desired routing purposes.

Trossen, et al.          Expires 12 August 2022                 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft        Multi-Purpose Routing System         February 2022

   *  Examples: What are known examples that have employed the given
      approach to achieve the given routing purpose?  This aspect
      provides a possibly growing catalogue of explicit examples to
      study in more detail.

   +==============+===============+======================================+
   |   Purpose    |    Approach   |               Examples               |
   +==============+===============+======================================+
   |Path Selection|  Preferential |      IS-IS Extensions [RFC5305]      |
   | for Traffic  |    Routing    |                                      |
   | Engineering  |               |                                      |
   +--------------+---------------+--------------------------------------+
   |              |  Policy-based |  PBR models [RFC1104] Inter-domain   |
   |              |    Routing    |       policy routing [RFC1479]       |
   +--------------+---------------+--------------------------------------+
   |              | Flow Steering |                 TBD                  |
   +--------------+---------------+--------------------------------------+
   |              |      Path     |  PCE [RFC4655] PCEP [RFC5440] PCEP   |
   |              |  Computation  |         Extension [RFC8231]          |
   +--------------+---------------+--------------------------------------+
   |              |      IRTF     | Path-aware Networking RG [PANRGref]  |
   |              |               |           Path properties            |
   |              |               |[I-D.irtf-panrg-path-properties] Past |
   |              |               |          efforts evaluation          |
   |              |               |   [I-D.irtf-panrg-what-not-to-do]    |
   +--------------+---------------+--------------------------------------+
   |Path Selection|   Multicast   |IP multicast [RFC1112] IPv6 addressing|
   |for Multicast |               |  [RFC4291] MBone [MBONEref] MADCAP   |
   |              |               |   [RFC2730] MALLOC [RFC6308] MASC    |
   |              |               |    [RFC2909] MZAP [RFC2776] MSDP     |
   |              |               |       [RFC3618] SSM [RFC4607]        |
   +--------------+---------------+--------------------------------------+
   |              |   Automatic   |            AMT [RFC7450]             |
   |              |   Multicast   |                                      |
   |              |   Tunneling   |                                      |
   +--------------+---------------+--------------------------------------+
   |              |   Path-based  |  BIER [RFC8279] BIER encapsulation   |
   |              |   Forwarding  |        [RFC8296] IP-over-ICN         |
   |              |               |[I-D.trossen-icnrg-internet-icn-5glan]|
   +--------------+---------------+--------------------------------------+
   |   Routing    |     Future    |   [RESEARCHFIAref] [ITUNET2030ref]   |
   |Architectures | architectures |         [SCIONref] [RINAref]         |
   +--------------+---------------+--------------------------------------+
   |   Service    | L2/L3 Explicit|   SFC [RFC7665] NSH [RFC8300] MPLS   |
   |   Function   |Header Chaining|       encapsulation [RFC8596]        |
   |   Chaining   |               |                                      |
   +--------------+---------------+--------------------------------------+
   |              |   Name-based  |       Name-based SFF [RFC8677]       |

Trossen, et al.          Expires 12 August 2022                 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft        Multi-Purpose Routing System         February 2022

   |              |    Chaining   |                                      |
   +--------------+---------------+--------------------------------------+
   |              | Source Routing|      Segment Routing [RFC8402]       |
   +--------------+---------------+--------------------------------------+
   | Application/ |  Application- |         Aalto [RFC7285] APN          |
   |service-aware |  server based |        [I-D.li-apn-framework]        |
   |   Routing    |               |                                      |
   +--------------+---------------+--------------------------------------+
   |              |    L3 based   |          Dyncast use cases           |
   |              |               |[I-D.liu-dyncast-ps-usecases] Dyncast |
   |              |               |           use architecture           |
   |              |               |    [I-D.li-dyncast-architecture]     |
   +--------------+---------------+--------------------------------------+
   |              |    Network    |      Segment routing [RFC8986]       |
   |              |  programming  |                                      |
   +--------------+---------------+--------------------------------------+
   |   Anycast    |   IP Anycast  | Architcture considerations[RFC7094]  |
   |   Routing    |               |    Operation of Anycast [RFC4786]    |
   +--------------+---------------+--------------------------------------+
   |              |  Metric-based |          Dyncast use cases           |
   |              |               |[I-D.liu-dyncast-ps-usecases] Dyncast |
   |              |               |             architecture             |
   |              |               | [I-D.li-dyncast-architecture] Load-  |
   |              |               |    balanced anycast [weightedRef]    |
   +--------------+---------------+--------------------------------------+
   |Privacy-aware | Crypto routing|  CGA [RFC3972] CGA Extension Field   |
   |   Routing    |               |              [RFC4581]               |
   +--------------+---------------+--------------------------------------+
   |              |  Obfuscation  |      ILNP-based [ILNP_PRIVACY]       |
   +--------------+---------------+--------------------------------------+
   |  Security-   |    Routing    |           SCION [SCIONref]           |
   |   enhanced   |  Architecture |                                      |
   |   Routing    |               |                                      |
   +--------------+---------------+--------------------------------------+
   |Identity Split|   Identity/   |       LISP [RFC6830]  LISPbis        |
   |   Routing    | Locator Split |  [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] LISPbis  |
   |              |               |      [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]      |
   |              |               |     HIP[RFC4423] ILNP [RFC6740]      |
   +--------------+---------------+--------------------------------------+
   |   Content    |  Routing over |    ICN [ICNref] NDN [NDNref] ICN     |
   |   Routing    | content names | deployment [RFC8763] HICN [HICNref]  |
   +--------------+---------------+--------------------------------------+
   |              |  Routing via  |          DNS DONA [DONAref]          |
   |              |  indirection  |                                      |
   |              |     points    |                                      |
   +--------------+---------------+--------------------------------------+
   |Differentiated|      QoS      | DiffServ [RFC2474] IntServ [RFC2210] |
   |   Routing    |Differentiation|                                      |

Trossen, et al.          Expires 12 August 2022                 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft        Multi-Purpose Routing System         February 2022

   +--------------+---------------+--------------------------------------+
   |              |      Path     |    Segment Routing [RFC8402] SFC     |
   |              |differentiation|              [RFC7665]               |
   +--------------+---------------+--------------------------------------+
   |   Extended   |    EH-based   |          IPv6 EH [RFC8200]           |
   |   Routing    |               |                                      |
   +--------------+---------------+--------------------------------------+

                   Table 1: Summary of Routing Extensions

4.  Issues with Current Approaches

   Developing routing purposes beyond the original 'mere' reachability
   does come with issues when considering their deployment and use in
   the Internet; we outline those issues in the following.

   We note that those issues are intrisincely linked to the ones
   stemming from the extension of addressing semantics that may be used
   to realize the various routing extensions, identified in
   [I-D.jia-intarea-internet-addressing-gap-analysis].  We therefore
   structure our presentation along the same lines.

4.1.  Limiting Routing Semantics

   Approaches that intend to change the purpose of communication, e.g.,
   by separating host from network node identification [RFC7401] or
   through identification of content directly [HICNref], are limited by
   the reachability purpose of IPv6, as defined by its source and
   destination address.

   This leads to approaches such as
   [I-D.trossen-icnrg-internet-icn-5glan] to override addressing
   semantics, namely replacing the IPv6 source and destination addresses
   with path information instead, in order to achieve the desired
   purpose of its routing solution.  This, in turn, requires to still
   carry address information as part of the payload in order to support
   clients unaware of the routing extension.  Furthermore, such approach
   may lead to 'information leakage'outside the boundaries of the system
   in which its changed purpose is being realized.  Introduction of
   dedicated gateways to 'translate' from one purpose (new routing) to
   another (IPv6 routing) is the consequence of this.

   But even such approach of 're-writing' packet information towards a
   new purpose limits the expressible (new) semantic information to the
   size of the original field, thereby limiting the support of content
   information in approaches such as [HICNref] or the size of supported
   networks in [I-D.trossen-icnrg-internet-icn-5glan] to the bit size
   afforded by IPv6 addresses.

Trossen, et al.          Expires 12 August 2022                 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft        Multi-Purpose Routing System         February 2022

4.2.  Complexity and Efficiency

   Introducing new routing purposes also bring additional complexity.
   This becomes an issue when new purposes are being introduced in
   particular parts of the overall Internet, such as the edge of the
   network, while relying on the existing reachability purpose of the
   Internet to interconnect those islands over the existing Internet.

   This additional complexity therefore often comes with a penalty in
   the form of efficiency and costs for realizing the novel routing
   purpose, which in turn may specifically pose an even bigger problem
   when the solution is introduced at the edge of the network, which is
   often constrained in resources and therefore costs that can be
   expensed.

   For instance, if the specific new purpose requires compression of
   packet fields, such as for header compression, additional processing
   as well as potentially required gateways that restore information
   towards the Internet may be prohibitive for introducing the desired
   new routing purpose in this part of the Internet.

   Conversely, performance requirements of core networks, in terms of
   packet processing speed, pose a problem when wanting to accommodate
   novel routing purposes.  Here, not only the possibly additional
   processing but also the required changes of often HW-based platforms
   makes adoption of novel routing purposes prohibitive.

4.2.1.  Repetitive encapsulation

   A routing solution targetting a different purposes often requires
   encapsulating the relevant information, thereby bloating packet sizes
   and lowering overall efficiency.  This can be seen in routing
   solutions such as [I-D.trossen-icnrg-internet-icn-5glan] (introducing
   an alternative forwarding solution), [I-D.ietf-lisp-mn] (handling
   mobility in LISP), [RFC8926] and [RFC7348] (DC networking), [RFC8986]
   (traffic engineering) as well as [TOR] (routing privacy), all of
   which introduce multiple encapsulations that in turn reduce the
   forwarding effiency.

   The introduction of dedicated points of encapsulation also introduce
   complexity and costs at the points of the network where they are
   required, which may often be at the network edge, while also
   establishing failure points and therefore increasing the overall
   fragility of the system; a point we discuss in more detail in
   Section 4.4.

Trossen, et al.          Expires 12 August 2022                 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft        Multi-Purpose Routing System         February 2022

4.2.2.  Introducing Path Stretch

   Path stretch is an issue when moving from direct reachability
   purposes to additional ones, such as dealing with mobility of
   endpoints, as done in MobileIP [RFC6275].  In this case, following
   the typical triangular route affects transmission effiency as well as
   overall latency of the communication, instead of communicating
   directly towards the (new) network location.

   Additionally, the realization of novel purposes, such as privacy-
   compliant routing in systems like TOR [TOR], often introduce path
   stretch due to the additional relays being introduced for fulfilling
   the intended purpose, here the obfuscation of traffic for privacy
   reasons.

4.2.3.  Complicating Traffic Engineering

   As outlined in Section 3, many solutions to extend the original
   reachability purpose of Internet routing aim to introduce or improve
   on traffic engineering capabilities, e.g., by enabling decisions
   based on QoS metrics, mobility, chaining and others aspects.

   However, realizing each novel purpose as a separate solution in
   itself likely hampers the goal for which they are developed, namely
   to improve on traffic engineering, whenever individual solutions are
   being used in combination.  This 'feature interaction' aspect may
   even prevent combined uses, while at a minimum requiring an
   understanding if combined uses are possible in the first place or
   instead incompatible with each other.  This is not just an issue that
   routing purposes may be incompatible at a functional level, e.g.,
   through conflicting policies, but may also utilize conflicting
   realizations for their purposes.

4.3.  Security

   Security issues, outside the security considerations of the specific
   design, often arise from the integration of the specific solution
   into the existing routing system.  For instance, HIP [RFC7401] limits
   its host identity to 128bit in an effort to be backward compatible,
   but possibly resulting in weak cryptographical strength.  A similar
   issue can be observed in CGA [RFC3972], where only 59bits of the
   128bit limit may be used for what could be packet signatures not
   sufficiently robust enough against attacks.

Trossen, et al.          Expires 12 August 2022                [Page 10]
Internet-Draft        Multi-Purpose Routing System         February 2022

   Attempts to introduce privacy purposes into the routing system, e.g.,
   by utilizing ephemeral addresses
   [I-D.gont-v6ops-ipv6-addressing-considerations], may in turn pose
   significant challenges on the routing system through its required
   renewal rate of addresses.

4.4.  Fragility

   From the overview of novel routing purposes in Section 3, we can
   observe that the existence of those additional routing purpose adds
   many purpose-specific translation/adaptation points, responsible for
   mapping formats from one meaningful context into another.  This is in
   turn creates dependency on this additional functionality to exist for
   endpoints to communicate with the context of the intended purpose.

   While translation/adaptation between purposes and their defining
   contexts is often not avoidable when going beyond 'mere'
   reachabiulity, it is the solution-specific nature of those components
   (required for many if not each extended purpose) that is likely to
   increase the fragility of the resulting system.

   The key problem here is the interaction with other extended purposes
   that may exist in specific deployments.  While needing to operate in
   the presence of those other purpose-specific components, their design
   has often not taken into account the specific interaction in
   question.  Given the diversity of extension realizations, utilizing
   many, almost any packet field, even beyond and entirely different to
   its intentded purpose, conflicting behaviour as well as diverging
   interpretatin of the utilized packet information is clearly an issue.
   Only careful testing of combinations with possible delineation (of
   purposes) as well as networks may be required, all of which further
   increases the costs for utilizing the extended purposes.

4.5.  Interoperability

   Although routing extensions are developed with their specific
   purposes in mind, reflected in requirements and behaviours, they are
   often realized in conjunction with other extensions when it comes to
   real-world deployments.

   This poses an Interoperability challenge, both in terms of backward
   as well as forward compability.  Feature interactions need
   investigations, often left to operational deployment.

Trossen, et al.          Expires 12 August 2022                [Page 11]
Internet-Draft        Multi-Purpose Routing System         February 2022

   Building extensions on the basis of agreed packet field semantics is
   one way to achieve the desired interoperability, unless approaches
   use extensions to packet fields beyond their original intention.  As
   a consequence, translation/adaptation points may be needed to ensure
   interoperability with other parts of the network, increasing the
   fragility of the system, as discussed in Section 4.4.

   Forward compability aims at ensuring that future extensions will
   continue to be possible, aiming at an overall extensibility of the
   system beyond its purpose at the time of developing a specific
   solution.  IPv6 extension headers are one example of enabling future
   extensions, although not without their own problems in real-world
   deployments [SHIMv6ref].

5.  Where to Go From Here?

   This document outlined the original starting point of the Internet's
   routing system, namely providing 'mere' reachability, and showed
   through its survey of existing solutions that have since been
   developed that Internet routing has, in fact, evolved into a system
   that serves many purposes beyond its original 'mere' reachability
   goal.

   However, the issues we outlined in Section 4 pose the question on how
   to move forward in the (future) evolution of Internet routing.  We
   assert that continuing with a 'business as usual' attitude will
   ultimately compound the identified issues, thereby hampering
   innovation in novel routing purposes and solutions, and therefore the
   Internet overall.

   As a way forward, we ask the wider RTG WG community to recognize the
   following cornerstones for an evolution path for Internet routing:

   1.  Further evolution of the Internet's routing system MUST take a
       wider architectural approach in order to break with the point
       solution approach that has led to the identified issues in
       Section 4.

   2.  With research and development on routing solutions continuing, as
       also illustrated in [I-D.king-irtf-semantic-routing-survey],
       these works MUST be brought into the process of IETF engagement
       and standardization to increase the understanding of what novel
       trends, works, and possible developments may be just around the
       corner but also to inform ongoing research and development on
       paths taken in the IETF.

Trossen, et al.          Expires 12 August 2022                [Page 12]
Internet-Draft        Multi-Purpose Routing System         February 2022

   3.  The RTG WG SHOULD play a role in the engagement with research and
       development since the 'Future of Internet Routing' (FIR) is at
       the heart of its charter ("The Routing Area working group (RTGWG)
       is chartered to provide a venue to discuss, evaluate, support and
       develop proposals for new work in the Routing Area" [RTGWGref]),
       a role that goes beyond the "specific small topics that do not
       fit with an existing working group" [RTGWGref].

   Following on the cornerstones outlined above, we specifically suggest
   to the RTG WG, aligned with its charter to consider the following
   actions:

   1.  Establish suitable efforts within the RTG WG (e.g., as a sub-
       group) OR

   2.  Support the establishment of suitable efforts as a standalone FIR
       WG OR

   3.  Support the establishment of suitable efforts within the IRTF,
       where those efforts directly liaise with the RTG WG through
       regular updates in its meetings.

6.  Security Considerations

   Section 4.3 outlines a number of security issues that may occur
   outside the solution-specific security considerations, such as
   interactions between protocol behaviours that were previously
   untested as a combination.  With that in mind, security
   considerations for a wider architectural approach to routing must
   have the security of the overall routing system as the main goal, not
   merely the security of a single solution.

7.  Privacy Considerations

   Protecting user privacy is very important.  This extends beyond
   ensuring that user data cannot be examined in transit, and also
   requires that a process that inspects the network traffic should not
   be able to determine which applications or what types of application
   a user is running.

   This makes it critically important to minimize or entirely avoid user
   and/or application information to be directly used for routing
   purposes.  Instead, applications (or users) should express
   requirements for traffic delivery in a manner that does not reveal
   information about the user.

Trossen, et al.          Expires 12 August 2022                [Page 13]
Internet-Draft        Multi-Purpose Routing System         February 2022

   Encryption of user data, which is a common technique to protect user
   privacy, may obscure information that has previously been used to
   perform enhanced routing (such as by inspecting or hashing on payload
   fields), demonstrating that new requirements (here on privacy) may
   negatively impact previously accepted solutions.

8.  IANA Considerations

   This draft does not request any IANA action.

9.  Acknowledgements

   TBD.

10.  Contributors

               Adrian Farrel
               Email: adrian@olddog.co.uk

11.  Informative References

   [CLNPref]  "Protocol for providing the connectionless-mode network
              service: Protocol specification - Part 1",
              standard ISO/IEC 8473-1:1998, 1998,
              <https://www.iso.org/standard/30931.html>.

   [CONTENTref]
              Choi, J., Han, J., and E. Cho, "A survey on content-
              oriented networking for efficient content delivery",
              Paper IEEE Communications Magazine, 49(3): 121-127, May
              2011., 2011, <https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/
              iel5/35/5723785/05723809.pdf>.

   [DONAref]  Koponen, T., Chawla, M., Chun, B.-G., Ermolinskiy, A.,
              Kim, K. H., Shenker, S., and I. Stoica, "A data-oriented
              (and beyond) network architecture", Paper Proceedings of
              the 2007 conference on Applications, technologies,
              architectures, and protocols for computer communications,
              August 2007, 2007,
              <https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/1282380.1282402>.

   [HICNref]  Carofiglio, G., Muscariello, L., Auge, J., Papalini, M.,
              Sardara, M., and A. Compagno, "Enabling ICN in the
              Internet Protocol: Analysis and Evaluation of the Hybrid-
              ICN Architecture", Paper Proceedings of the 6th ACM
              Conference on Information-Centric Networking, 2019., 2019,

Trossen, et al.          Expires 12 August 2022                [Page 14]
Internet-Draft        Multi-Purpose Routing System         February 2022

              <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/336344520_Enabli
              ng_ICN_in_the_Internet_Protocol_Analysis_and_Evaluation_of
              _the_Hybrid-ICN_Architecture>.

   [I-D.bonica-6man-ext-hdr-update]
              Bonica, R. and T. Jinmei, "Inserting, Processing And
              Deleting IPv6 Extension Headers", Work in Progress,
              Internet-Draft, draft-bonica-6man-ext-hdr-update-06, 30
              August 2021, <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-
              bonica-6man-ext-hdr-update-06.txt>.

   [I-D.bryant-arch-fwd-layer-ps]
              Bryant, S., Chunduri, U., Eckert, T., and A. Clemm,
              "Forwarding Layer Problem Statement", Work in Progress,
              Internet-Draft, draft-bryant-arch-fwd-layer-ps-04, 24
              January 2022, <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-
              bryant-arch-fwd-layer-ps-04.txt>.

   [I-D.chunduri-lsr-isis-preferred-path-routing]
              Chunduri, U., Li, R., White, R., Contreras, L. M.,
              Tantsura, J., and Y. Qu, "Preferred Path Routing (PPR) in
              IS-IS", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-chunduri-
              lsr-isis-preferred-path-routing-07, 12 November 2021,
              <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-chunduri-lsr-isis-
              preferred-path-routing-07.txt>.

   [I-D.farrel-irtf-introduction-to-semantic-routing]
              Farrel, A. and D. King, "An Introduction to Semantic
              Routing", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-farrel-
              irtf-introduction-to-semantic-routing-03, 22 January 2022,
              <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-farrel-irtf-
              introduction-to-semantic-routing-03.txt>.

   [I-D.gont-v6ops-ipv6-addressing-considerations]
              Gont, F. and G. Gont, "IPv6 Addressing Considerations",
              Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-gont-v6ops-ipv6-
              addressing-considerations-01, 21 February 2021,
              <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-gont-v6ops-ipv6-
              addressing-considerations-01.txt>.

   [I-D.ietf-lisp-mn]
              Farinacci, D., Lewis, D., Meyer, D., and C. White, "LISP
              Mobile Node", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
              ietf-lisp-mn-11, 30 January 2022,
              <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-lisp-mn-
              11.txt>.

Trossen, et al.          Expires 12 August 2022                [Page 15]
Internet-Draft        Multi-Purpose Routing System         February 2022

   [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis]
              Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., Lewis, D., and A.
              Cabellos, "The Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)",
              Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-lisp-
              rfc6830bis-36, 18 November 2020,
              <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-lisp-
              rfc6830bis-36.txt>.

   [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]
              Farinacci, D., Maino, F., Fuller, V., and A. Cabellos,
              "Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Control-Plane",
              Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-lisp-
              rfc6833bis-30, 18 November 2020,
              <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-lisp-
              rfc6833bis-30.txt>.

   [I-D.ietf-teas-rfc3272bis]
              Farrel, A., "Overview and Principles of Internet Traffic
              Engineering", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
              ietf-teas-rfc3272bis-13, 8 November 2021,
              <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-teas-
              rfc3272bis-13.txt>.

   [I-D.ietf-v6ops-ipv6-ehs-packet-drops]
              Gont, F., Hilliard, N., Doering, G., Kumari, W., Huston,
              G., and W. (. Liu, "Operational Implications of IPv6
              Packets with Extension Headers", Work in Progress,
              Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-ehs-packet-drops-08,
              11 June 2021, <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-
              v6ops-ipv6-ehs-packet-drops-08.txt>.

   [I-D.irtf-panrg-path-properties]
              Enghardt, T. and C. Kraehenbuehl, "A Vocabulary of Path
              Properties", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-irtf-
              panrg-path-properties-04, 25 October 2021,
              <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-irtf-panrg-path-
              properties-04.txt>.

   [I-D.irtf-panrg-what-not-to-do]
              Dawkins, S., "Path Aware Networking: Obstacles to
              Deployment (A Bestiary of Roads Not Taken)", Work in
              Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-irtf-panrg-what-not-to-do-
              19, 26 March 2021, <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-
              irtf-panrg-what-not-to-do-19.txt>.

   [I-D.jia-intarea-internet-addressing-gap-analysis]
              Jia, Y., Trossen, D., Iannone, L., Shenoy, N., and P.
              Mendes, "Gap Analysis in Internet Addressing", Work in

Trossen, et al.          Expires 12 August 2022                [Page 16]
Internet-Draft        Multi-Purpose Routing System         February 2022

              Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-jia-intarea-internet-
              addressing-gap-analysis-01, 23 October 2021,
              <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-jia-intarea-
              internet-addressing-gap-analysis-01.txt>.

   [I-D.king-irtf-semantic-routing-survey]
              King, D. and A. Farrel, "A Survey of Semantic Internet
              Routing Techniques", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
              draft-king-irtf-semantic-routing-survey-03, 26 November
              2021, <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-king-irtf-
              semantic-routing-survey-03.txt>.

   [I-D.li-apn-framework]
              Li, Z., Peng, S., Voyer, D., Li, C., Liu, P., Cao, C.,
              Mishra, G., Ebisawa, K., Previdi, S., and J. N. Guichard,
              "Application-aware Networking (APN) Framework", Work in
              Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-li-apn-framework-04, 25
              October 2021, <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-li-
              apn-framework-04.txt>.

   [I-D.li-dyncast-architecture]
              Li, Y., Iannone, L., Trossen, D., Liu, P., and C. Li,
              "Dynamic-Anycast Architecture", Work in Progress,
              Internet-Draft, draft-li-dyncast-architecture-01, 20
              January 2022, <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-li-
              dyncast-architecture-01.txt>.

   [I-D.liu-dyncast-ps-usecases]
              Liu, P., Willis, P., Trossen, D., and C. Li, "Dynamic-
              Anycast (Dyncast) Use Cases & Problem Statement", Work in
              Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-liu-dyncast-ps-usecases-
              02, 17 January 2022, <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/
              draft-liu-dyncast-ps-usecases-02.txt>.

   [I-D.muscariello-intarea-hicn]
              Muscariello, L., Carofiglio, G., Augé, J., Papalini, M.,
              and M. Sardara, "Hybrid Information-Centric Networking",
              Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-muscariello-
              intarea-hicn-04, 20 May 2020,
              <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-muscariello-
              intarea-hicn-04.txt>.

Trossen, et al.          Expires 12 August 2022                [Page 17]
Internet-Draft        Multi-Purpose Routing System         February 2022

   [I-D.trossen-icnrg-internet-icn-5glan]
              Trossen, D., Robitzsch, S., Reed, M., Al-Naday, M., and J.
              Riihijarvi, "Internet Services over ICN in 5G LAN
              Environments", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
              trossen-icnrg-internet-icn-5glan-04, 1 October 2020,
              <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-trossen-icnrg-
              internet-icn-5glan-04.txt>.

   [ICNref]   Barbera, D., Xylomenos, G., Ververidis, C., Siris, V., and
              N. Fotiou, "A Survey of information-centric networking
              research", Paper IEEE Communications Surveys and
              Tutorials, vol. 16, Iss. 2, Q2 2014, 2014,
              <https://www.scopus.com/record/
              display.uri?eid=2-s2.0-84901242669>.

   [ILNP_PRIVACY]
              Bhatti, S., Haywood, G., and R. Yanagida, "End-to-end
              privacy for identity and location with IP", Paper 2nd
              Workshop on New Internetworking Protocols, Architecture
              and Algorithms, 29th IEEE International Conference on
              Network Protocols, 2021.

   [ISISref]  "Intermediate System to Intermediate System intra-domain
              routeing information exchange protocol for use in
              conjunction with the protocol for providing the
              connectionless-mode network service", standard ISO/IEC
              10589, 2002, <https://standards.iso.org/ittf/
              PubliclyAvailableStandards/
              c030932_ISO_IEC_10589_2002(E).zip>.

   [ITUNET2030ref]
              "Network 2030 Architecture Framework", Technical
              Specification ITU-T Focus Group on Technologies for
              Network 2030, 2020, <https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-
              T/focusgroups/net2030/Documents/Network_2030_Architecture-
              framework.pdf>.

   [MBONEref] Savetz, K., Randall, N., and Y. Lepage, "MBONE:
              Multicasting Tomorrow's Internet", Book IDG, 1996,
              <https://www.savetz.com/mbone/>.

   [NDNref]   Zhang, L., Afanasyev, A., and J. Burke, "Named Data
              Networking", Paper ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication,
              Review 44(3): 66-73, 2014, 2014.

   [PANRGref] "Path Aware Networking Research Group", RG Path Aware
              Networking Research Group,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/rg/panrg/about>.

Trossen, et al.          Expires 12 August 2022                [Page 18]
Internet-Draft        Multi-Purpose Routing System         February 2022

   [RESEARCHFIAref]
              Pan, J., Paul, S., and R. Jain, "A Survey of the Research
              on Future Internet Architectures", Paper IEEE
              Communications Magazine, vol. 49, no. 7, July 2011, 2014,
              <https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/5936152>.

   [RFC1069]  Callon, R. and H. Braun, "Guidelines for the use of
              Internet-IP addresses in the ISO Connectionless-Mode
              Network Protocol", RFC 1069, DOI 10.17487/RFC1069,
              February 1989, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1069>.

   [RFC1104]  Braun, H., "Models of policy based routing", RFC 1104,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC1104, June 1989,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1104>.

   [RFC1112]  Deering, S., "Host extensions for IP multicasting", STD 5,
              RFC 1112, DOI 10.17487/RFC1112, August 1989,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1112>.

   [RFC1195]  Callon, R., "Use of OSI IS-IS for routing in TCP/IP and
              dual environments", RFC 1195, DOI 10.17487/RFC1195,
              December 1990, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1195>.

   [RFC1479]  Steenstrup, M., "Inter-Domain Policy Routing Protocol
              Specification: Version 1", RFC 1479, DOI 10.17487/RFC1479,
              July 1993, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1479>.

   [RFC2210]  Wroclawski, J., "The Use of RSVP with IETF Integrated
              Services", RFC 2210, DOI 10.17487/RFC2210, September 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2210>.

   [RFC2474]  Nichols, K., Blake, S., Baker, F., and D. Black,
              "Definition of the Differentiated Services Field (DS
              Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers", RFC 2474,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2474, December 1998,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2474>.

   [RFC2730]  Hanna, S., Patel, B., and M. Shah, "Multicast Address
              Dynamic Client Allocation Protocol (MADCAP)", RFC 2730,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2730, December 1999,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2730>.

   [RFC2776]  Handley, M., Thaler, D., and R. Kermode, "Multicast-Scope
              Zone Announcement Protocol (MZAP)", RFC 2776,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2776, February 2000,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2776>.

Trossen, et al.          Expires 12 August 2022                [Page 19]
Internet-Draft        Multi-Purpose Routing System         February 2022

   [RFC2909]  Radoslavov, P., Estrin, D., Govindan, R., Handley, M.,
              Kumar, S., and D. Thaler, "The Multicast Address-Set Claim
              (MASC) Protocol", RFC 2909, DOI 10.17487/RFC2909,
              September 2000, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2909>.

   [RFC2992]  Hopps, C., "Analysis of an Equal-Cost Multi-Path
              Algorithm", RFC 2992, DOI 10.17487/RFC2992, November 2000,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2992>.

   [RFC3618]  Fenner, B., Ed. and D. Meyer, Ed., "Multicast Source
              Discovery Protocol (MSDP)", RFC 3618,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3618, October 2003,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3618>.

   [RFC3972]  Aura, T., "Cryptographically Generated Addresses (CGA)",
              RFC 3972, DOI 10.17487/RFC3972, March 2005,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3972>.

   [RFC4291]  Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
              Architecture", RFC 4291, DOI 10.17487/RFC4291, February
              2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4291>.

   [RFC4423]  Moskowitz, R. and P. Nikander, "Host Identity Protocol
              (HIP) Architecture", RFC 4423, DOI 10.17487/RFC4423, May
              2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4423>.

   [RFC4581]  Bagnulo, M. and J. Arkko, "Cryptographically Generated
              Addresses (CGA) Extension Field Format", RFC 4581,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4581, October 2006,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4581>.

   [RFC4607]  Holbrook, H. and B. Cain, "Source-Specific Multicast for
              IP", RFC 4607, DOI 10.17487/RFC4607, August 2006,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4607>.

   [RFC4655]  Farrel, A., Vasseur, J.-P., and J. Ash, "A Path
              Computation Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4655, August 2006,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4655>.

   [RFC4786]  Abley, J. and K. Lindqvist, "Operation of Anycast
              Services", BCP 126, RFC 4786, DOI 10.17487/RFC4786,
              December 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4786>.

   [RFC5305]  Li, T. and H. Smit, "IS-IS Extensions for Traffic
              Engineering", RFC 5305, DOI 10.17487/RFC5305, October
              2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5305>.

Trossen, et al.          Expires 12 August 2022                [Page 20]
Internet-Draft        Multi-Purpose Routing System         February 2022

   [RFC5440]  Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation
              Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, March 2009,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5440>.

   [RFC6275]  Perkins, C., Ed., Johnson, D., and J. Arkko, "Mobility
              Support in IPv6", RFC 6275, DOI 10.17487/RFC6275, July
              2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6275>.

   [RFC6308]  Savola, P., "Overview of the Internet Multicast Addressing
              Architecture", RFC 6308, DOI 10.17487/RFC6308, June 2011,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6308>.

   [RFC6740]  Atkinson, RJ. and SN. Bhatti, "Identifier-Locator Network
              Protocol (ILNP) Architectural Description", RFC 6740,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6740, November 2012,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6740>.

   [RFC6830]  Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, "The
              Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)", RFC 6830,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6830, January 2013,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6830>.

   [RFC7094]  McPherson, D., Oran, D., Thaler, D., and E. Osterweil,
              "Architectural Considerations of IP Anycast", RFC 7094,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7094, January 2014,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7094>.

   [RFC7285]  Alimi, R., Ed., Penno, R., Ed., Yang, Y., Ed., Kiesel, S.,
              Previdi, S., Roome, W., Shalunov, S., and R. Woundy,
              "Application-Layer Traffic Optimization (ALTO) Protocol",
              RFC 7285, DOI 10.17487/RFC7285, September 2014,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7285>.

   [RFC7348]  Mahalingam, M., Dutt, D., Duda, K., Agarwal, P., Kreeger,
              L., Sridhar, T., Bursell, M., and C. Wright, "Virtual
              eXtensible Local Area Network (VXLAN): A Framework for
              Overlaying Virtualized Layer 2 Networks over Layer 3
              Networks", RFC 7348, DOI 10.17487/RFC7348, August 2014,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7348>.

   [RFC7401]  Moskowitz, R., Ed., Heer, T., Jokela, P., and T.
              Henderson, "Host Identity Protocol Version 2 (HIPv2)",
              RFC 7401, DOI 10.17487/RFC7401, April 2015,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7401>.

Trossen, et al.          Expires 12 August 2022                [Page 21]
Internet-Draft        Multi-Purpose Routing System         February 2022

   [RFC7450]  Bumgardner, G., "Automatic Multicast Tunneling", RFC 7450,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7450, February 2015,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7450>.

   [RFC7665]  Halpern, J., Ed. and C. Pignataro, Ed., "Service Function
              Chaining (SFC) Architecture", RFC 7665,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7665, October 2015,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7665>.

   [RFC7872]  Gont, F., Linkova, J., Chown, T., and W. Liu,
              "Observations on the Dropping of Packets with IPv6
              Extension Headers in the Real World", RFC 7872,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7872, June 2016,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7872>.

   [RFC8200]  Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
              (IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8200>.

   [RFC8231]  Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Medved, J., and R. Varga, "Path
              Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
              Extensions for Stateful PCE", RFC 8231,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8231, September 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8231>.

   [RFC8279]  Wijnands, IJ., Ed., Rosen, E., Ed., Dolganow, A.,
              Przygienda, T., and S. Aldrin, "Multicast Using Bit Index
              Explicit Replication (BIER)", RFC 8279,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8279, November 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8279>.

   [RFC8296]  Wijnands, IJ., Ed., Rosen, E., Ed., Dolganow, A.,
              Tantsura, J., Aldrin, S., and I. Meilik, "Encapsulation
              for Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER) in MPLS and Non-
              MPLS Networks", RFC 8296, DOI 10.17487/RFC8296, January
              2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8296>.

   [RFC8300]  Quinn, P., Ed., Elzur, U., Ed., and C. Pignataro, Ed.,
              "Network Service Header (NSH)", RFC 8300,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8300, January 2018,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8300>.

   [RFC8402]  Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L.,
              Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment
              Routing Architecture", RFC 8402, DOI 10.17487/RFC8402,
              July 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8402>.

Trossen, et al.          Expires 12 August 2022                [Page 22]
Internet-Draft        Multi-Purpose Routing System         February 2022

   [RFC8596]  Malis, A., Bryant, S., Halpern, J., and W. Henderickx,
              "MPLS Transport Encapsulation for the Service Function
              Chaining (SFC) Network Service Header (NSH)", RFC 8596,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8596, June 2019,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8596>.

   [RFC8677]  Trossen, D., Purkayastha, D., and A. Rahman, "Name-Based
              Service Function Forwarder (nSFF) Component within a
              Service Function Chaining (SFC) Framework", RFC 8677,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8677, November 2019,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8677>.

   [RFC8684]  Ford, A., Raiciu, C., Handley, M., Bonaventure, O., and C.
              Paasch, "TCP Extensions for Multipath Operation with
              Multiple Addresses", RFC 8684, DOI 10.17487/RFC8684, March
              2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8684>.

   [RFC8736]  Venaas, S. and A. Retana, "PIM Message Type Space
              Extension and Reserved Bits", RFC 8736,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8736, February 2020,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8736>.

   [RFC8754]  Filsfils, C., Ed., Dukes, D., Ed., Previdi, S., Leddy, J.,
              Matsushima, S., and D. Voyer, "IPv6 Segment Routing Header
              (SRH)", RFC 8754, DOI 10.17487/RFC8754, March 2020,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8754>.

   [RFC8763]  Rahman, A., Trossen, D., Kutscher, D., and R. Ravindran,
              "Deployment Considerations for Information-Centric
              Networking (ICN)", RFC 8763, DOI 10.17487/RFC8763, April
              2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8763>.

   [RFC8799]  Carpenter, B. and B. Liu, "Limited Domains and Internet
              Protocols", RFC 8799, DOI 10.17487/RFC8799, July 2020,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8799>.

   [RFC8926]  Gross, J., Ed., Ganga, I., Ed., and T. Sridhar, Ed.,
              "Geneve: Generic Network Virtualization Encapsulation",
              RFC 8926, DOI 10.17487/RFC8926, November 2020,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8926>.

   [RFC8986]  Filsfils, C., Ed., Camarillo, P., Ed., Leddy, J., Voyer,
              D., Matsushima, S., and Z. Li, "Segment Routing over IPv6
              (SRv6) Network Programming", RFC 8986,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8986, February 2021,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8986>.

Trossen, et al.          Expires 12 August 2022                [Page 23]
Internet-Draft        Multi-Purpose Routing System         February 2022

   [RINAref]  Day, J., "Patterns in Network Architecture: A Return to
              Fundamentals", Book Prentice Hall, 2008.

   [RTGWGref] "Routing Working Group Charter", WG Routing Working Group,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/rtgwg/charter/>.

   [SCIONref] Barbera, D., Chaut, L., Perrig, A., Reischuk, R., and P.
              Szalachowski, "Patterns in Network Architecture: A Return
              to Fundamentals", Paper The ACM, vol. 60, no. 6, June
              2017, 2017,
              <https://icnp20.cs.ucr.edu/Slides/NIPAA/D-3_invited.pptx>.

   [SHIMv6ref]
              Naderi, H. and B. E. Carpenter, "Putting SHIM6 into
              practice", Paper 2014 Australasian Telecommunication
              Networks and Applications Conference (ATNAC), 2014,
              <https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/1282380.1282402>.

   [TOR]      "The Tor Project", Website Tor Project, 2022,
              <https://www.torproject.org/>.

   [weightedRef]
              Lin, C-Y., Lo, J-H., and S-Y. Kuo, "Load-balanced anycast
              routing", Paper Proceedings of the Tenth International
              Conference on Parallel and Distributed Systems, 2004.,
              2004, <https://www.researchgate.net/
              publication/4083002_Load-balanced_anycast_routing>.

Authors' Addresses

   Dirk Trossen
   Huawei Technologies
   Munich
   Germany

   Email: dirk.trossen@huawei.com

   David Lou
   Huawei Technologies
   Munich
   Germany

   Email: zhe.lou@huawei.com

Trossen, et al.          Expires 12 August 2022                [Page 24]
Internet-Draft        Multi-Purpose Routing System         February 2022

   Sheng Jiang
   Huawei Technologies
   China

   Email: jiangsheng@huawei.com

Trossen, et al.          Expires 12 August 2022                [Page 25]