Internet Area Working Group                                   L. Iannone
Internet-Draft                                                D. Trossen
Intended status: Informational                                    Huawei
Expires: 9 March 2023                                          N. Shenoy
                                                               P. Mendes
                                                         D. Eastlake 3rd
                                                                  P. Liu
                                                            China Mobile
                                                            D. Farinacci
                                                          J. Finkhaeuser
                                                                  Y. Jia
                                                        5 September 2022

       Challenging Scenarios and Problems in Internet Addressing


   The Internet Protocol (IP) has been the major technological success
   in information technology of the last half century.  As the Internet
   becomes pervasive, IP has been replacing communication technology for
   many domain-specific solutions.  However, domains with specific
   requirements as well as communication behaviors and semantics still
   exist and represent what [RFC8799] recognizes as "limited domains".

   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

   The limitations identified in this document are complemented and
   deepened by a detailed analysis in a separate companion document

Status of This Memo

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

Iannone, et al.           Expires 9 March 2023                  [Page 1]

Internet-Draft    Scenarios and Problems in Addressing    September 2022

   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

   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 9 March 2023.

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 (
   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 . . . . . . . .   5
     2.2.  Communication within Dynamically Changing Topologies  . .   6
     2.3.  Communication among Moving Endpoints  . . . . . . . . . .  10
     2.4.  Communication Across Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     2.5.  Communication Traffic Steering  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     2.6.  Communication with built-in security  . . . . . . . . . .  17
     2.7.  Communication protecting user privacy . . . . . . . . . .  18
     2.8.  Communication in Alternative Forwarding Architectures . .  18
   3.  Desired Network Features  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
   4.  Issues in Addressing  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
   5.  Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
   7.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
   8.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
     8.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
     8.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
   Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  36
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  36

Iannone, et al.           Expires 9 March 2023                  [Page 2]

Internet-Draft    Scenarios and Problems in Addressing    September 2022

1.  Introduction

   The Internet Protocol (IP), positioned as the unified protocol at the
   (Internet) network layer, is seen by many as key to the innovation
   stemming from Internet-based applications and services.  Even more
   so, with the success of TCP/IP protocol stack, IP has been gradually
   replacing existing domain-specific protocols, evolving into the core
   protocol of the entire communication eco-system.  At its inception,
   roughly 40 years ago [RFC0791], the Internet addressing system,
   represented in the form of the IP address and its locator-based
   (topological) semantics, has brought the notion of a 'common
   namespace for all communication'.  Compared to proprietary
   technology-specific solutions, such 'common namespace for all
   communication' advance ensures end-to-end communication from any
   device connected to the Internet to another.

   However, use cases, associated services, node behaviors, and
   requirements on packet delivery have since been significantly
   extended, with the Internet technology being developed to accommodate
   them in the framework of addressing that stood at the beginning of
   the Internet's development.  This evolution is reflected in the
   concept of "Limited Domains", first introduced in [RFC8799].  It
   refers to a single physical network, attached to or running in
   parallel with the Internet, or is defined by a set of users and nodes
   distributed over a much wider area, but drawn together by a single
   virtual network over the Internet.  Key to a limited domain is that
   requirements, behaviors, and semantics could be noticeable local and,
   more importantly, specific to the limited domain.  Very often, the
   realization of a limited domain is defined by specific communication
   scenario(s) and/or use case(s) that exhibit the domain-specific
   behaviors and pose the requirements that lead to the establishment of
   the limited domain.  Identifying limited domains may sometime be not
   obvious because of blurry boundaries depending on the point of view.
   For instance, from an end user perspective there is no vision at all
   on limited domains, hence for end users the dichotomy Internet vs
   limited domains more transparent.  In such cases, it is harder to
   ensure (and detect) that no limited domain specific semantics leak in
   the Internet or other limited domains.

   One key architectural aspect, when communicating within limited
   domains, is that of addressing and, therefore, the address structure,
   as well as the semantic that is being used for packet forwarding
   (e.g., service identification, content location, device type).  The
   topological location centrality of IP is fundamental when reconciling
   the often differing semantics for 'addressing' that can be found in
   those limited domains.  The result of this fundamental role of the
   single IP addressing is that limited domains have to adopt specific
   solutions, e.g., translating/mapping/converting concepts, semantics,

Iannone, et al.           Expires 9 March 2023                  [Page 3]

Internet-Draft    Scenarios and Problems in Addressing    September 2022

   and ultimately, domain-specific addressing, into the common IP
   addressing used across limited domains.

   This document advocates flexibility in addressing in order to
   accommodate limited domain specific semantics, while, if possible,
   ensuring a single holistic addressing scheme able to reduce, or even
   entirely remove, the need for aligning the address semantics of
   different limited domains, such as the current topological location
   semantic of the Internet.  Ultimately, such holistic addressing could
   be beneficial to those communication scenarios realized within
   limited domains by improving efficiency, removing of constraints
   imposed by needing to utilize the limited semantics of IP addressing,
   and/or in other ways.

   In other words, this document revolves around the following question:

      "Should interconnected limited domains purely rely on IP addresses
      and therefore deal with the complexity of translating any semantic
      mismatch themselves, or should flexibility for supporting those
      limited domains be a key focus for an evolved Internet

   To that end, this document describes well-recognized scenarios in
   limited domains that could benefit from greater flexibility in
   addressing and overviews the problems encountered throughout these
   scenarios due to the lack of that flexibility.  A detailed analysis
   can be found in {I-D.iannone-internet-addressing-considerations}},
   which elaborates on the issues identified in this memo in reference
   to extensions to Internet addressing that have attempted to address
   those issues.  The purpose of this memo is rather to stimulate
   discussion on the emerging needs for addressing at large with the
   possibility to fundamentally re-think the addressing in the Internet
   beyond the current objectives of IPv6 [RFC8200].

   It is important to remark that any change in the addressing, hence at
   the data plane level, leads to changes and challenges at the control
   plane level, i.e., routing.  The latter is an even harder problem
   than just addressing and might need more research efforts that are
   beyond the objective of this document, which focuses solely on the
   data plane.

2.  Communication Scenarios in Limited Domains

   The following sub-sections outline a number of scenarios, all of
   which belong to the concept of "limited domains" [RFC8799].  While
   the list of scenarios may look long, this document focuses on
   scenarios with a number of aspects that can be observed in those
   limited domains, captured in the sub-section titles.  For each

Iannone, et al.           Expires 9 March 2023                  [Page 4]

Internet-Draft    Scenarios and Problems in Addressing    September 2022

   scenario, possible challenges are highlighted, which are then picked
   upon in Section 4, when describing more formally the existing
   shortcomings in current Internet addressing.

2.1.  Communication in Constrained Environments

   In a number of communication scenarios, such as those encountered in
   the Internet of Things (IoT), a simple, communication network
   demanding minimal resources is required, allowing for a group of IoT
   network devices to form a network of constrained nodes, with the
   participating network and end nodes requiring as little computational
   power as possible and having small memory requirements in order to
   reduce the total cost of ownership of the network.  Furthermore, in
   the context of industrial IoT, real-time requirements and scalability
   make IP technology not naturally suitable as communication technology

   In addition to IEEE 802.15.4, i.e., Low-Rate Wireless Personal Area
   Network [LR-WPAN], several limited domains exist through utilizing
   link layer technologies such as Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) [BLE],
   Digital European Cordless Telecommunications (DECT) - Ultra Low
   Energy (ULE) [DECT-ULE], Master-Slave/Token-Passing (MS/TP) [BACnet],
   Near-Field-Communication (NFC) [ECMA-340], and Power Line
   Communication (PLC) [IEEE_1901.1].

   The end-to-end principle (detailed in [RFC2775]) requires IP
   addresses (e.g., IPv6 [RFC8200]) to be used on such constrained nodes
   networks, allowing IoT devices using multiple communication
   technologies to talk on the Internet.  Often, devices located at the
   edge of constrained networks act as gateway devices, usually
   performing header compression ([RFC4919]).  To ensure security and
   reliability, multiple gateways must be deployed.  IoT devices on the
   network must select one of those gateways for traffic passthrough by
   the devices on the (limited domain) network.

   Given the constraints imposed on the computational and possibly also
   communication technology, the usage of a single addressing semantic
   in the form of a 128-bit endpoint identifier, i.e., IPv6 address, may
   pose a challenge when operating such networks.

   Another type of (differently) constrained environment is an aircraft,
   which encompasses not only passenger communication but also the
   integration of real-time data exchange to ensure that processes and
   functions in the cabin are automatically monitored or actuated.  The
   goal for any aircraft network is to be able to send and receive
   information reliably and seamlessly.  From this perspective, the
   medium with which these packets of information are sent is of little
   consequence so long as there is a level of determinism to it.

Iannone, et al.           Expires 9 March 2023                  [Page 5]

Internet-Draft    Scenarios and Problems in Addressing    September 2022

   However, there is currently no effective method in implementing
   wireless inter- and intra-communications between all subsystems.  The
   emerging wireless sensor network technology in commercial
   applications such as smart thermostat systems, and smart washer/dryer
   units could be transposed onto aircraft and fleet operations.  The
   proposal for having an Wireless Avionics Intra-Communications (WAIC)
   system promises reduction in the complexity of electrical wiring
   harness design and fabrication, reduction in wiring weight, increased
   configuration, and potential monitoring of otherwise inaccessible
   moving or rotating aircraft parts.  Similar to the IoT concept, WAIC
   systems consist of short-range communications and are a potential
   candidate for passenger entertainment systems, smoke detectors,
   engine health monitors, tire pressure monitoring systems, and other
   kinds of aircraft maintenance systems.

   While there are still many obstacles in terms of network security,
   traffic control, and technical challenges, future WAIC can enable
   real-time seamless communications between aircraft and between ground
   teams and aircraft as opposed to the discrete points of data
   leveraged today in aircraft communications.  For that, WAIC
   infrastructure should also be connected to outside IP based networks
   in order to access edge/cloud facilities for data storage and mining.
   However, the restricted capacity (energy, communication) of most
   aircraft devices (e.g. sensors) and the nature of the transmitted
   data -- periodic transmission of small packets -- may pose some
   challenges for the usage of a single addressing semantic in the form
   of a 128-bit endpoint identifier, i.e., an IPv6 address.  Moreover,
   most of the aircraft applications and services are focused on the
   data (e.g. temperature of gas tank on left wing) and not on the
   topological location of the data source.  This means that the current
   topological location semantic of IP addresses is not beneficial for
   aircraft applications and services.

   Greater flexibility in Internet addressing may avoid complex and
   energy hungry operations, like header compression and fragmentation,
   necessary to translate protocol headers from one limited domain to
   another, while enabling semantics different from locator-based
   addressing may better support the communication that occurs in those

2.2.  Communication within Dynamically Changing Topologies

   Communication may occur over networks that exhibit dynamically
   changing topologies.  One such example is that of satellite networks,
   providing global Internet connections through a combination of inter-
   satellite and ground station communication.  With the convergence of
   space-based and terrestrial networks, users can experience seamless
   broadband access, e.g., on cruise ships, flights, and within cars,

Iannone, et al.           Expires 9 March 2023                  [Page 6]

Internet-Draft    Scenarios and Problems in Addressing    September 2022

   often complemented by and seamlessly switching between Wi-Fi,
   cellular, or satellite based networks at any time [WANG19].

   The satellite network service provider will plan the transmission
   path of user traffic based on the network coverage, satellite orbit,
   route, and link load, providing potentially high-quality Internet
   connections for users in areas that are not, or hard to be, covered
   by terrestrial networks.  With large scale LEO (Low Earth Orbit)
   satellites, the involved topologies of the satellite network will be
   changing constantly while observing a regular flight pattern in
   relation to other satellites and predictable overflight patterns to
   ground users [CHEN21].

   Although satellite bearer services are capable of transporting IPv4
   and IPv6 [CCSDS-702.1-B-1], as well as associated protocols such as
   IP Multicast, DNS services and routing information, no IP
   functionality is implemented on-board the spacecraft limiting the
   capability of leveraging for instance large scale satellite

   One of the major constraints of deploying routing capability on board
   of a satellite is power consumption.  Due to this, space routers may
   end up being intermittently powered up during a daytime sunlit pass.
   Another limitation of the first generation of IP routers in space was
   the lack of capability to remotely manage and upgrade software while
   in operation.

   The limitations faced in early development of IP based satellite
   communication payloads, showed the need to develop a flexible
   networking solution that would enable delay tolerant communications
   in the presence of intermittent connectivity.  Further, in order to
   reduce latency, which is the major impairment of satellite networks,
   there was a need of a networking solution able to perform in a
   scenario encompassing mobile devices with the capability of storing
   data, leading to a significant reduction of latency.

   Moreover, due to the current IP addressing scheme and its focus on IP
   unicast addressing with extended deployment of IP multicast and some
   IP anycast, current deployments do not take advantage of the
   broadcast nature of satellite networks.

   As a result of these constraints, the Consultative Committee for
   Space Data Systems (CCSDS) has produced its own commuication
   standards distinct from those of the IETF.  The conceptual model
   shares many similarities with the Open Systems Interconnection model,
   and individual CCSDS protocols often address comparable concerns to
   those standardized by IETF, but always under the distinct concerns

Iannone, et al.           Expires 9 March 2023                  [Page 7]

Internet-Draft    Scenarios and Problems in Addressing    September 2022

   that connectivity may be intermittent, and while throughput rates may
   be high, so is latency.

   Furthermore, the aerospace industry necessarily distinguishes
   strictly between "system" and "payload", largely for reasons of
   operational safety.  The "system" here consists of aerospace and
   ground segments that together ensure the reliable operation of a
   craft within its designated space.  At the same time, the "payload"
   describes any sensor or tool carried by a vehicle that is unrelated
   to craft operations, even if it may constitute a vital part of the
   overall mission.

   The common practice today is to address system connectivity with the
   CCSDS protocol stack, while treating payload connecitvity
   increasingly as an IP problem.  It was to this end, [CCSDS-702.1-B-1]
   was developed.  By layering IP within the CCSDS stack, it becomes
   just an opaque payload which may or may not be transmitted depending
   on current mission parameters.  The distinct downside of this
   approach from a payload deployment perspective is that it is next to
   impossible in practice to route between an IP-based payload endpoints
   located on different satellites.  The typical deployment scenarios
   treat each craft's payload and associated ground services as a
   private network, with no routing between them.

   Networking platforms based on a name (data or service) based
   addressing scheme would bring several potential benefits to satellite
   network payloads aiming to tackle some of their major challenges,
   including high propagation delay.

   Another example is that of vehicular communication, where services
   may be accessed across vehicles, such as self-driving cars, for the
   purpose of collaborative objection recognition (e.g., for collision
   avoidance), road status conveyance (e.g., for pre-warning of road-
   ahead conditions), and other purposes.  Communication may include
   Road Side Units (RSU) with the possibility to create ephemeral
   connections to those RSUs for the purpose of workload offloading,
   joint computation over multiple (vehicular) inputs, and other
   purposes [I-D.ietf-lisp-nexagon].  Communication here may exhibit a
   multi-hop nature, not just involving the vehicle and the RSU over a
   direct link.  Those topologies are naturally changing constantly due
   to the dynamic nature of the involved communication nodes.

   The advent of Flying Ad-hoc NETworks (FANETs) has opened up an
   opportunity to create new added-value services [CHRIKI19].  Although
   these networks share common features with vehicular ad hoc networks,
   they present several unique characteristics such as energy
   efficiency, mobility degree, the capability of swarming, and the
   potential large scale of swarm networks.  Due to high mobility of

Iannone, et al.           Expires 9 March 2023                  [Page 8]

Internet-Draft    Scenarios and Problems in Addressing    September 2022

   FANET nodes, the network topology changes more frequently than in a
   typical vehicular ad hoc network.  From a routing point of view,
   although ad-hoc reactive and proactive routing approaches can be
   used, there are other type of routing protocols that have been
   developed for FANETS, such as hybrid routing protocols and position
   based routing protocols, aiming to increase efficiency in large scale
   networks with dynamic topologies.

   Both type of protocols challenge the current Internet addressing
   semantic: in the case of hybrid protocols, two different routing
   strategies are used inside and outside a network zone.  While inside
   a zone packets are routed to a specific destination IP address,
   between zones, query packets are routed to a subset of neighbors as
   determined by a broadcast algorithm.  In the case of position based
   routing protocol, the IP addressing scheme is not used at all, since
   packets are routed to a different identifier, corresponding to the
   geographic location of the destination and not its topological
   location.  Hence, what is needed is to consolidate the geo-spatial
   addressing with that of a locator-based addressing in order to
   optimize routing policies across the zones.

   Moreover most of the application/services deployed in FANETs tend to
   be agnostic of the topological location of nodes, rather focusing on
   the location of data or services.  This distinction is even more
   important because is dynamic network such as FANET robust networking
   solutions may rely on the redundancy of data and services, meaning
   that they may be found in more than one device in the network.  This
   in turn may bring into play a possible service-centric semantic for
   addressing the packets that need routing in the dynamic network
   towards a node providing said service (or content).

   In the aforementioned network technologies, there is a significant
   difference between the high dynamics of the underlying network
   topologies, compared to the relative static nature of terrestrial
   network topology, as reported in [HANDLEY].  As a consequence, the
   notion of a topological network location becomes restrictive in the
   sense that not only the relation between network nodes and user
   endpoint may change, but also the relation between the nodes that
   form the network itself.  This may lead to the challenge of
   maintaining and updating the topological addresses in this constantly
   changing network topology.

   In attempts to utilize entirely different semantics for the
   addressing itself, geographic-based routing, such as in [CARTISEAN],
   has been proposed for MANETs (Mobile Ad-hoc NETworks) through
   providing geographic coordinates based addresses to achieve better
   routing performance, lower overhead, and lower latency [MANET1].

Iannone, et al.           Expires 9 March 2023                  [Page 9]

Internet-Draft    Scenarios and Problems in Addressing    September 2022

   Flexibility in Internet addressing here would allow for accommodating
   such geographic address semantics into the overall Internet
   addressing, while also enabling name/content-based addressing,
   utilizing the redundancy of many network locations providing the
   possible data.

2.3.  Communication among Moving Endpoints

   When packet switching was first introduced, back in the 60s/70s, it
   was intended to replace the rigid circuit switching with a
   communication infrastructure that was more resilient to failures.  As
   such, the design never really considered communication endpoints as
   mobile.  Even in the pioneering ALOHA [ALOHA] system, despite
   considering wireless and satellite links, the network was considered
   static (with the exception of failures and satellites, which fall in
   what is discussed in Section 2.2).  Ever since, a lot of efforts have
   been devoted to overcome such limitations once it became clear that
   endpoint mobility will become a main (if not THE main) characteristic
   of ubiquitous communication systems.

   The IETF has for a long time worked on solutions that would allow
   extending the IP layer with mobility support.  Because of the
   topological semantic of IP addresses, endpoints need to change
   addresses each time they visit a different network.  However, because
   routing and endpoint identification is also IP address based, this
   leads to a communication disruption.

   To cope with such a situation, sometimes, the transport layer gets
   involved in mobility solutions, either by introducing explicit in-
   band signaling to allow for communicating IP address changes (e.g.,
   in SCTP [RFC5061] and MPTCP [RFC6182]), or by introducing some form
   of connection ID that allows for identifying a communication
   independently from IP addresses (e.g., the connection ID used in QUIC

   Concerning network layer only solutions, anchor-based Mobile IP
   mechanisms have been introduced ([RFC5177], [RFC6626] [RFC5944],
   [RFC5275]).  Mobile IP is based on a relatively complex and heavy
   mechanism that makes it hard to deploy and it is not very efficient.
   Furthermore, it is even less suitable than native IP in constrained
   environments like the ones discussed in Section 2.1.

   Alternative approaches to Mobile IP often leverage the introduction
   of some form of overlay.  LISP [I-D.ietf-lisp-introduction], by
   separating the topological semantic from the identification semantic
   of IP addresses, is able to cope with endpoint mobility by
   dynamically mapping endpoint identifiers with routing locators

Iannone, et al.           Expires 9 March 2023                 [Page 10]

Internet-Draft    Scenarios and Problems in Addressing    September 2022

   [I-D.ietf-lisp-mn].  This comes at the price of an overlay that needs
   its own additional control plane [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis].

   Similarly, the NVO3 (Network Virtualization Overlays) Working Group,
   while focusing on Data Center environments, also explored an overlay-
   based solution for multi-tenancy purposes, but also resilient to
   mobility since relocating Virtual Machines (VMs) is common practice.
   NVO3 considered for a long time several data planes that implement
   slightly different flavors of overlays ([RFC8926], [RFC7348],
   [I-D.ietf-intarea-gue]), but lacks an efficient control plane
   specifically tailored for DCs.

   Alternative mobility architectures have also been proposed in order
   to cope with endpoint mobility outside the IP layer itself.  The Host
   Identity Protocol (HIP) [RFC7401] introduced a new namespace in order
   to identify endpoints, namely the Host Identity (HI), while
   leveraging the IP layer for topological location.  On the one hand,
   such an approach needs to revise the way applications interact with
   the network layer, by modifying the DNS (now returning an HI instead
   of an IP address) and applications to use the HIP socket extension.
   On the other hand, early adopters do not necessarily gain any benefit
   unless all communicating endpoints upgrade to use HIP.  In spite of
   this, such a solution may work in the context of a limited domain.

   Another alternative approach is adopted by Information-Centric
   Networking (ICN) [RFC7476].  By making content a first class citizen
   of the communication architecture, the "what" rather than the "where"
   becomes the real focus of the communication.  However, as explained
   in the next sub-section, ICN can run either over the IP layer or
   completely replace it, which in turn can be seen as running the
   Internet and ICN as logically completely separated limited domains.

   Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) are examples of moving devices that
   require a stable mobility management scheme since they consist of a
   number of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV; or drones) subordinated to a
   Ground Control Station (GCS) [MAROJEVIC20].  The information produced
   by the different sensors and electronic devices available at each UAV
   is collected and processed by a software or hardware data acquisition
   unit, being transmitted towards the GCS, where it is inspected and/or
   analyzed.  Analogously, control information transmitted from the GCS
   to the UAV enables the execution of control operations over the
   aircraft, such as changing the route planning or the direction
   pointed by a camera.

   Drones may be classified into several distinct categories, with
   implications on regulatory requirements.  Vehicles carrying people
   generally fall under manned aircraft regulations whether they

Iannone, et al.           Expires 9 March 2023                 [Page 11]

Internet-Draft    Scenarios and Problems in Addressing    September 2022

   manually or automatically piloted.  At the opposite end of the
   spectrum, toy drones require Line-of-Sight operations.

   In the middle there are a variety of specialized UAVs that, although
   may have redundant links to maintain communications in long-range
   missions (e.g., satellite), perform most of the communications with
   the GCS over wireless data links, e.g., based on a radio line-of-
   sight technology such as Wi-Fi or 3G/4G/5G.  While in some scenarios,
   UAVs will operate always under the range of the same cellular base
   station, in missions with large range, UAVs will move between
   different cellular or wireless ground infrastructure, meaning that
   the UAV needs to upload its topological locator and re-start the
   ongoing communication sessions.

   In particular, in Beyond Visual Line of Sight (BVLOS) operations,
   legal requirements may include the use of multiple redundant radio
   links (even employing different radio bands), but still require
   unique identification of the vehicle.  This implies that some
   resolution mechanism is required that securely resolves drone
   identifiers to link locators.

   To this end, Drone Remote Identification Protocol
   [I-D.ietf-drip-arch] uses hierarchical DRIP Entity Tags, which are
   hierarchical versions of Host Identity Tags, and thus compatible with
   HIP [RFC7401].  DRIP does not mandate the use of HIP, but suggests
   its use in several places.  Using the mobility extensions of HIP
   provides for one way to ensure secure identifier resolution.

   In addition to such connectivity considerations, data-centric
   communication plays an increasing role, where information is named
   and decoupled from its location, and applications/services operate
   over these named data rather than on host-to-host communications.

   In this context, the Data Distribution Service ([DDS]) has emerged as
   an industry-oriented open standard that follows this approach.  The
   space and time decoupling allowed by DDS is very relevant in any
   dynamic and distributed system, since interacting entities are not
   forced to know each other and are not forced to be simultaneously
   present to exchange data.  Time decoupling can significantly simplify
   the management of intermittent data-links, in particular for wireless
   connectivity between UAS.  This model of communication, in turn,
   questions the locator-based addressing used in IP and instead
   utilizes a data-centric naming.

   In order to clarify and contrast these distinct approaches, it is
   worth highlighting that in the aerospace industry, it is common
   practice to distinguish between "system" and "payload" considerations
   (see above).  In principle, command, control (and communications)

Iannone, et al.           Expires 9 March 2023                 [Page 12]

Internet-Draft    Scenarios and Problems in Addressing    September 2022

   (C2/C3) link connectivity is limited to system operations, while
   payload communications is largely out of scope of regulatory
   frameworks.  Practically speaking, especially in light UAV, both
   types of communications may be overlaid on the same data links.

   From this follow legal reliability requirements that apply to systems
   and C3 links which may make data-centric naming infeasible and making
   the use of authenticated host-to-host communications a requirement
   (such as via HIP).  For payload communications, named data approaches
   may be more desirable for their time decoupling properties above.

   Both approaches share a need to resolve identifiers to locators.
   When it comes to C3 link reliability, this translates into an end-
   point selection problem, as multiple underlying links may be
   available, but the determination of the "best" link depends on
   specific radio characteristics [RELIABLE-C3-UAS] or even the
   vehicle's spatial location.

   In the case of using IP, mobility of UAVs introduces a significant
   challenge.  Consider the case where a GCS is receiving telemetry
   information from a specific UAV.  Assuming that the UAV moves and
   changes its point of attachment to the network, it will have to
   configure a new IP address on its wireless interface.  However, this
   is problematic, as the telemetry information is still being sent by
   to the previous IP address of the UAV.  This simple example
   illustrates the necessity to deploy mobility management solutions to
   handle this type of situations.

   However, those technologies may not be suitable when the
   communication includes interconnections of public Internet and
   private networks (aka private limited domains), or when the movement
   is so fast that the locator and/or topology update becomes the
   limitation factor.

   Scenarios from research projects such as [COMP4DRONES] and [ADACORSA]
   regarding connectivity assume worse conditions.  Consider an
   emergency scenario in which 3GPP towers are inoperable.  Emergency
   services need to deploy a mobile ground control station that issues
   emergency landing overrides to all UAV in the area.  UAV must be able
   to authenticate this mobile GCS to prevent malicious interference
   with their opreations, but must be able to do so without access to
   internet-connected authentication databases.  HIP provides a means to
   secure communications to this mobile GCS, with no means for
   establishing its authority.  While such considerations are not
   directly part of the mechanism by which identifiers may be mapped to
   locators, they illustrate the need for carrying authenticating and
   authorizing information within identifiers.

Iannone, et al.           Expires 9 March 2023                 [Page 13]

Internet-Draft    Scenarios and Problems in Addressing    September 2022

   Furthermore, mobility management solutions increase the complexity of
   the deployment and may impact the performance of data distribution,
   both in terms of signaling/data overhead and communication path
   delay.  Considering the specific case of multicast data streams,
   mobility of content producers and consumers is inherently handled by
   multicast routing protocols, which are able to react to changes of
   location of mobile nodes by reconstructing the corresponding
   multicast delivery trees.  Nevertheless, this comes with a cost in
   terms of signaling and data overhead (data may still flow through
   branches of a multicast delivery tree where there are no receivers
   while the routing protocol is still converging).

   Another alternative is to perform the mobility management of
   producers and consumers not at the application layer based on IP
   multicast trees, but on the network layer based on an Information
   Centric Network approach, which was already mentioned in this

   Greater flexibility in addressing may help in dealing with mobility
   more efficiently, e.g., through an augmented semantic that may fulfil
   the mobility requirements [RFC7429] in a more efficient way or
   through moving from a locator- to a content or service-centric
   semantic for addressing.

   Some limited relief may be offered by in-network processing.  Sensor
   data used in autononmous operations becomes ever richer, while
   available transmission throughput rates do not increase at the same
   pace.  For this reason, the general trend in autonomous vehicles is
   to move away from transmitting raw sensor data and processing at the
   ground station.  Instead, aggregated Situational Awareness Data is
   instead transmitted.  In networking terms this implies in-network
   processing, as individual sensor nodes on board a UAV network no
   longer employ direct communications with a GCS.  A similar approach
   is taken in IoT sensors, where low-powered sensors may send raw data
   via CoAP [RFC7252] or similar protocols to a processing router, and a
   UAV collects aggregated data from this router to transmit it to where
   it may be further processed.

2.4.  Communication Across Services

   As a communication infrastructure spanning many facets of life, the
   Internet integrates services and resources from various aspects such
   as remote collaboration, shopping, content production as well as
   delivery, education, and many more.  Accessing those services and
   resources directly through URIs has been proposed by methods such as
   those defined in ICN [RFC7476], where providers of services and
   resources can advertise those through unified identifiers without
   additional planning of identifiers and locations for underlying data

Iannone, et al.           Expires 9 March 2023                 [Page 14]

Internet-Draft    Scenarios and Problems in Addressing    September 2022

   and their replicas.  Users can access required services and resources
   by virtue of using the URI-based identification, with an ephemeral
   relationship built between user and provider, while the building of
   such relationship may be constrained with user- as well as service-
   specific requirements, such as proximity (finding nearest provider),
   load (finding fastest provider), and others.

   While systems like ICN [CCN] provide an alternative to the
   topological addressing of IP, its deployment requires an overlay
   (over IP) or native deployment (alongside IP), the latter with
   dedicated gateways needed for translation.  Underlay deployments are
   also envisioned in [RFC8763], where ICN solutions are being used to
   facilitate communication between IP addressed network endpoints or
   URI-based service endpoints, still requiring gateway solutions for
   interconnection with ICN-based networks as well as IP routing based
   networks (cf., [ICN5G][ICNIP]).

   Although various approaches combining service and location-based
   addressing have been devised, the key challenge here is to facilitate
   a "natural", i.e., direct communication, without the need for
   gateways above the network layer.

   Another aspect of communication across services is that of chaining
   individual services to a larger service.  Here, an identifier would
   be used that serves as a link to next hop destination within the
   chain of single services, as done in the work on Service Function
   Chaining (SFC).  With this, services are identified at the level of
   Layer 2/3 ([RFC7665], [RFC8754], [RFC8595]) or at the level of name-
   based service identifiers like URLs [RFC8677] although the service
   chain identification is carried as a Network Service header (NSH)
   [RFC7665], separate to the packet identifiers.  The forwarding with
   the chain of services utilizes individual locator-based IP addressing
   (for L3 chaining) to communicate the chained operations from one
   Service Function Forwarder [RFC7665] to another, leading to concerns
   regarding overhead incurred through the stacking of those chained
   identifiers in terms of packet overhead and therefore efficiency in
   handling in the intermediary nodes.

   Greater flexibility in addressing may allow for incorporating
   different information, e.g., service as well as chaining semantics,
   into the overall Internet addressing.

Iannone, et al.           Expires 9 March 2023                 [Page 15]

Internet-Draft    Scenarios and Problems in Addressing    September 2022

2.5.  Communication Traffic Steering

   Steering traffic within a communication scenario may involve at least
   two aspects, namely (i) limiting certain traffic towards a certain
   set of communication nodes and (ii) restraining the sending of
   packets towards a given destination (or a chain of destinations) with
   metrics that would allow the selection among one or more possible

   One possibility for limiting traffic inside limited domains, towards
   specific objects, e.g., devices, users, or group of them, is subnet
   partition with techniques such as VLAN [RFC5517], VxLAN [RFC7348], or
   more evolved solution like TeraStream [TERASTREAM] realizing such
   partitioning.  Such mechanisms usually involve significant
   configuration, and even small changes in network and user nodes could
   result in a repartition and possibly additional configuration
   efforts.  Another key aspect is the complete lack of correlation of
   the topological address and any likely more semantic-rich
   identification that could be used to make policy decisions regarding
   traffic steering.  Suitably enriching the semantics of the packet
   address, either that of the sender or receiver, so that such decision
   could be made while minimizing the involvement of higher layer
   mechanisms, is a crucial challenge for improving on network
   operations and speed of such limited domain traffic.

   When making decisions to select one out of a set of possible
   destinations for a packet, IP anycast semantics can be applied albeit
   being limited to the locator semantic of the IP address itself.
   Recent work in [SFCANYCAST] suggests utilizing the notion of IP
   anycast address to encode a "service identifier", which is
   dynamically mapped onto network locations where service instances
   fulfilling the service request may be located.  Scenarios where this
   capability may be utilized are provided in [SFCANYCAST] and include,
   but are not limited to, scenarios such as edge-assisted VR/AR,
   transportation, smart cities, smart homes, smart wearables, and
   digital twins.

   The challenge here lies in the possible encoding of not only the
   service information itself but the constraint information that helps
   the selection of the "best" service instance and which is likely a
   service-specific constraint in relation to the particular scenario.
   The notion of an address here is a conditional (on those constraints)
   one where this conditional part is an essential aspect of the
   forwarding action to be taken.  It needs therefore consideration in
   the definition of what an address is, what is its semantic, and how
   the address structure ought to look like.

Iannone, et al.           Expires 9 March 2023                 [Page 16]

Internet-Draft    Scenarios and Problems in Addressing    September 2022

   As outlined in the previous sub-section, chaining services are
   another aspect of steering traffic along a chain of constituent
   services, where the chain is identified through either a stack of
   individual identifiers, such as in Segment Routing [RFC8402], or as
   an identifier that serves as a link to next hop destination within
   the chain, such as in Service Function Chaining (SFC).  The latter
   can be applied to services identified at the level of Layer 2/3
   ([RFC7665], [RFC8754], [RFC8595]) or at the level of name-based
   service identifiers like URLs [RFC8677].  However, the overhead
   incurred through the stacking of those chained identifiers is a
   concern in terms of packet overhead and therefore efficiency in
   handling in the intermediary nodes.

   Flexibility in addressing may enable more semantic rich encoding
   schemes that may help in steering traffic at hardware level and
   speed, without complex mechanisms usually resulting in handling
   packets in the slow path of routers.

2.6.  Communication with built-in security

   Today, strong security in the Internet is usually implemented as a
   general network service ([PILA], [RFC6158]).  Among the various
   reasons for such approach is the limited semantic of current IP
   addresses, which do not allow to natively express security features
   or trust relationships. +In specific contexts strong identification
   and tracking is necessary for safety and security purposes, like for
   instance for UAS [RFC9153] or aeronautical telecommunications
   networks [I-D.haindl-lisp-gb-atn].  This becomes very cumbersome when
   communication goes beyond limited domains and in the public Internet,
   where security and trust associated to those identifier may be lost
   or just impossible to verify.

   Efforts like Cryptographically Generated Addresses (CGA) [RFC3972],
   provide some security features by embedding a truncated public key in
   the last 57-bit of IPv6 address, thereby greatly enhancing
   authentication and security within an IP network via asymmetric
   cryptography and IPsec [RFC4301].  The development of the Host
   Identity Protocol (HIP) [RFC7401] saw the introduction of
   cryptographic identifiers for the newly introduced Host Identity (HI)
   to allow for enhanced accountability, and therefore trust.  The use
   of those HIs, however, is limited by the size of IPv6 128bit

   Through a greater flexibility in addressing, any security-related
   key, certificate, or identifier could instead be included in a
   suitable address structure without any information loss (i.e., as-is,
   without any truncation or operation as such), avoiding therefore
   compromises such as those in HIP.  Instead, CGAs could be created

Iannone, et al.           Expires 9 March 2023                 [Page 17]

Internet-Draft    Scenarios and Problems in Addressing    September 2022

   using full length certificates, or being able to support larger HIP
   addresses in a limited domain that uses it.  This could significantly
   help in constructing a trusted and secure communication at the
   network layer, leading to connections that could be considered as
   absolute secure (assuming the cryptography involved is secure).  Even
   more, anti-abuse mechanisms and/or DDoS protection mechanisms like
   the one under discussion in PEARG ([PEARG]) Research Group may
   leverage a greater flexibility of the overall Internet addressing, if
   provided, in order to be more effective.

2.7.  Communication protecting user privacy

   See Comments in Section "Issues".

2.8.  Communication in Alternative Forwarding Architectures

   The performance of communication networks has long been a focus for
   optimization due to the immediate impact on cost of ownership for
   communication service providers.  Technologies like MPLS [RFC3031]
   have been introduced to optimize lower layer communication, e.g., by
   mapping L3 traffic into aggregated labels of forwarding traffic for
   the purposes of, e.g., traffic engineering.

   Even further, other works have emerged in recent years that have
   replaced the notion of packets with other concepts for the same
   purpose of improved traffic engineering and therefore efficiency
   gains.  One such area is that of Software Defined Networks (SDN)
   [RFC7426], which has highlighted how a majority of Internet traffic
   is better identified by flows, rather than packets.  Based on such
   observation, alternate forwarding architectures have been devised
   that are flow-based or path-based.  With this approach, all data
   belonging to the same traffic stream is delivered over the same path,
   and traffic flows are identified by some connection or path
   identifier rather than by complete routing information, possibly
   enabling fast hardware based switching (e.g.  [DETNET], [PANRG]).

   On the one hand, such a communication model may be more suitable for
   real-time traffic like in the context of Deterministic Networks
   ([DETNET]), where indeed a lot of work has focused on how to
   "identify" packets belonging to the same DETNET flow in order to
   jointly manage the forwarding within the desired deterministic

   On the other hand, it may improve the communication efficiency in
   constrained wireless environments (cf., Section 2.1), by reducing the
   overhead, hence increasing the number of useful bits per second per

Iannone, et al.           Expires 9 March 2023                 [Page 18]

Internet-Draft    Scenarios and Problems in Addressing    September 2022

   Also, the delivery of information across similar flows may be
   combined into a multipoint delivery of a single return flow, e.g.,
   for scenarios of requests for a video chunk from many clients being
   responded to with a single (multi-destination) flow, as outlined in
   [BIER-MC] as an example.  Another opportunity to improve
   communication efficiency is being pursued in ongoing IETF/IRTF work
   to deliver IP- or HTTP-level packets directly over path-based or
   flow-based transport network solutions, such as in
   [TROSSEN][BIER-MC][ICNIP][ICN5G] with the capability to bundle
   unicast forward communication streams flexibly together in return
   path multipoint relations.  Such capability is particularly opportune
   in scenarios such as chunk-based video retrieval or distributed data
   storage.  However, those solutions currently require gateways to
   "translate" the flow communication into the packet-level addressing
   semantic in the peering IP networks.  Furthermore, the use of those
   alternative forwarding mechanisms often require the encapsulation of
   Internet addressing information, leading to wastage of bandwidth as
   well as processing resources.

   Providing an alternative way of forwarding data has also been the
   motivation for the efforts created in the European Telecommunication
   Standards Institute (ETSI), which formed an Industry Specification
   Group (ISG) named Non-IP Networking (NIN) [ETSI-NIN].  This group
   sets out to develop and standardize a set of protocols leveraging an
   alternative forwarding architecture, such as provided by a flow-based
   switching paradigm.  The deployment of such protocols may be seen to
   form limited domains, still leaving the need to interoperate with the
   (packet-based forwarding) Internet; a situation possibly enabled
   through a greater flexibility of the addressing used across Internet-
   based and alternative limited domains alike.

   As an alternative to IP routing, EIBP (Extended Internet Bypass
   Protocol) [EIBP] offers a communications model that can work with IP
   in parallel and entirely transparent and independent to any operation
   at network layer.  For this, EIBP proposes the use of physical and/or
   virtual structures in networks and among networks to auto assign
   routable addresses that capture the relative position of routers in a
   network or networks in a connected set of networks, which can be used
   to route the packets between end domains.  EIBP operates at Layer 2.5
   and provides encapsulation (at source domain), routing, and de-
   encapsulation (at destination domain) for packets.  EIBP can forward
   any type of packets between domains.  A resolver to map the domain ID
   to EIBP's edge router addresses is required.  When queried for a
   specific domain, the resolver will return the corresponding edge
   router structured addresses.

   EIBP decouples routing operations from end domain operations,
   offering to serve any domain, without point solutions to specific

Iannone, et al.           Expires 9 March 2023                 [Page 19]

Internet-Draft    Scenarios and Problems in Addressing    September 2022

   domains.  EIBP also decouples routing IDs or addresses from end
   device/domain addresses.  This allows for accommodation of new and
   upcoming domains.  A domain can extend EIBP's structured addresses
   into the domain, by joining as a nested domain under one or more edge
   routers, or by extending the edge router's structure addresses to its

   A greater flexibility in addressing semantics may reduce the
   aforementioned wastage by accommodating Internet addressing in the
   light of such alternative forwarding architectures, instead enabling
   the direct use of the alternative forwarding information.

3.  Desired Network Features

   From the previous subsection, we recognize that Internet technologies
   are used across a number of scenarios, each of which brings their own
   (vertical) view on needed capabilities in order to work in a
   satisfactory manner to those involved.

   In the following, we complement those vertical-specific insights with
   answers to the question of network features that end users (in the
   form of individuals or organizations alike) desire from the networked
   system at large.  Answers to this question look at the network more
   from a horizontal perspective, i.e. not with a specific usage in mind
   beyond communication within and across networks.  The text here
   summarizes the discussion that took place on the INT Area mailing
   list after IETF112 on this issue.  For some of those identified
   features, we can already identify how innovations on addressing may
   impact the realization of a particular feature.

   We then combine the insights from both scenario-specific and wider
   horizontal views for the identification of issues when realizing the
   specific capability of addressing, presented in Section 4.

   1.  Always-On: The world is getting more and more connected, leading
       to being connected to the Internet, anywhere, by any technology
       (e.g., cable, fiber, or radio), even simultaneously, "all the
       time", and, most importantly, automatically (without any switch
       turning).  However, when defining "all the time" there is a clear
       and important difference to be made between availability and
       reliability vs "desired usage".  In other words, "always on" can
       be seen as a desirable perception at the end user level or as a
       characteristic of the underlying system.  From an end user
       perspective, clearly the former is of importance, not necessarily
       leading to an "always on" system notion but instead "always-app-
       available", merely requiring the needed availability and
       reliability to realize the perception of being "always on" (e.g.,
       for earthquake alerts), possibly complemented by app-specific

Iannone, et al.           Expires 9 March 2023                 [Page 20]

Internet-Draft    Scenarios and Problems in Addressing    September 2022

       methods to realize the "always on" perception (e.g., using local
       caching rather than communication over the network).

   2.  Transparency: Being agnostic with respect to local domains
       network protocols (Bluetooth, ZigBee, Thread, Airdrop, Airplay,
       or any others) is key to provide an easy and straightforward
       method for contacting people and devices without any knowledge of
       network issues, particularly those specific to network-specific
       solutions.  While having a flexible addressing model that
       accommodates a wide range of use cases is important, the
       centrality of the IP protocol remains key as a mean to provide
       global connectivity.

   3.  Multi-homing: Seamless multi-homing capability for the host is
       key to best use the connectivity options that may be available to
       an end user, e.g., for increasing resilience in cases of failures
       of one available option.  Protocols like LISP, SHIM6, QUIC,
       MPTCP, SCTP (to cite a few) have been successful at providing
       this capability in an incremental way, but too much of that
       capability is realized within the application, making it hard to
       leverage across all applications.  While today each transport
       protocol has its own way to perform multi-address discovery, the
       network layer should provide the multi-homing feature (e.g.,
       SHIM6 can be used to discover all addresses on both ends), and
       then leave the address selection to the transport.  With that,
       multi-address discovery remains a network feature exposed to the
       upper layers.  This may also mean to update the Socket API (which
       may be actually the first thing to do), which does not
       necessarily mean to expose more network details to the
       applications but instead be more address agnostic yet more

   4.  Mobility: A lot of work has been put in MobileIP
       ([RFC5944],[RFC6275]) to provide seamless and lossless
       communications for moving nodes (vehicle, satellites).  However,
       it has never been widely deployed for several reasons, like
       complexity of the protocol and the fact that the problem has
       often been tackled at higher layers, with applications resilient
       to address changes.  However, similar to multi-homing, solving
       the problem at higher layers means that each and every transport
       protocol and application have their own way to deal with
       mobility, leading to similar observations as those for the
       previous multi-homing aspect.

   5.  Security and Privacy: The COVID-19 pandemic has boosted end
       users' desire to be protected and protect their privacy.  The
       balance among privacy, security, and accountability is not simple
       to achieve.  There exist different views on what those properties

Iannone, et al.           Expires 9 March 2023                 [Page 21]

Internet-Draft    Scenarios and Problems in Addressing    September 2022

       should be, however the network should provide the means to
       provide what is felt as the best trade-off for the specific use

   6.  Performance: While certainly desirable, "performance" is a
       complex issue that depends on the objectives of those building
       for but also paying for performance.  Examples are (i) speed
       (shorter paths/direct communications), (ii) bandwidth (10petabit/
       s for a link), (iii) efficiency (less overlays/encapsulations),
       (iv) high efficacy or sustainability (avoid waste).  From an
       addressing perspective, length/format/semantics that may adapt to
       the specific use case (e.g. use short addresses for low power
       IoT, or, where needed, longer for addresses embedding
       certificates for strong authentication, authorization and
       accountability) may contribute to the performance aspects that
       end users desire, such as reducing waste through not needed
       encapsulation or needed conversion at network boundaries.

   7.  Availability, Reliability, Predictability: These three properties
       are important to enable wide-range of services and applications
       according to the desired usage (cf. point 1).

   8.  Do not do harm: Access to the Internet is considered a human
       right [RFC8280].  Access to and expression through it should
       align with this core principle.  This issue transcends through a
       variety of previously discussed 'features' that are desired, such
       as privacy, security but also availability and reliability.
       However, lifting the feature of network access onto a basic
       rights level also brings in the aspect of "do not do harm"
       through the use of the Internet with respect to wider societal
       objectives.  Similar to other industries, such as electricity or
       cars, preventing harm usually requires an interplay of
       commercial, technological, and regulatory efforts, such as the
       enforcement of seat belt wearing to reduce accident death.  As a
       first step, the potential harmfulness of a novel method must be
       recognized and weighted against the benefits of its introduction
       and use.  One increasingly important consideration in the
       technology domain is "sustainability" of resource usage for an
       end user's consumption of and participation in Internet services.
       As an example, Distributed Ledger Technologies (DLT) are seen as
       an important tool for a variety of applications, including
       Internet decentralization ([DINRG]).  However, the non-linear
       increase in energy consumption means that extending proof-of-work
       systems to the entire population of the planet would not only be
       impractical but also possibly highly wasteful, not just at the
       level of computational but also communication resource usage
       [DLT-draft].  This poses the question on how novel methods for

Iannone, et al.           Expires 9 March 2023                 [Page 22]

Internet-Draft    Scenarios and Problems in Addressing    September 2022

       addressing may improve on sustainability of such technologies,
       particularly if adopted more widely.

   9.  Maximum Transmission Unit (MTU): One long standing issue in the
       Internet is related to the MTU and how to discover the path MTU
       in order to avoid fragmentation ([I-D.ietf-6man-mtu-option],
       [I-D.templin-6man-aero]).  While it makes sense to always
       leverage as much performance from local systems as possible, this
       should come without sacrificing the ability to communicate with
       all systems.  Having a solid solution to solve the issue would
       make the overall interconnection of systems more robust.

4.  Issues in Addressing

   The desired properties outlined in the previous section have
   implications that go beyond addressing and need to be tackled from a
   larger architectural point of view.  Such a discussion is left as
   future action, limiting the present document at discussing only the
   addressing viewpoint and identifying shortcomings perceived from this
   There are a number of issues that we can identify from the
   communication scenarios in Section 2 and the network features
   generally desire from the network, presented in Section 3.  We do not
   claim to be exhaustive in our list:

   1.  Limiting Alternative Address Semantics: Several communication
       scenarios pursue the use of alternative semantics of what
       constitute an 'address' of a packet traversing the Internet,
       which may fall foul of the defined network interface semantic of
       IP addresses.

   2.  Hampering Security: Aligning with the semantic and length
       limitations of IP addressing may hamper the security objectives
       of any new semantic, possibly leading to detrimental effects and
       possible other workarounds (at the risk of introducing fragility
       rather than security).

   1.  Hampering Privacy:

       *  Easy individual identification

       *  Flow linkability

       *  App/Activity profiling

   2.  Complicating Traffic Engineering: Utilizing a plethora of non-
       address inputs into the traffic steering decision in real
       networks complicates traffic engineering in that it makes the

Iannone, et al.           Expires 9 March 2023                 [Page 23]

Internet-Draft    Scenarios and Problems in Addressing    September 2022

       development of suitable policies more complex, while also leading
       to possible contention between methods being used.

   3.  Hampering Efficiency: Extending IP addressing through point-wise
       solutions also hampers efficiency, e.g., through needed re-
       encapsulation (therefore increasing the header processing
       overhead as well as header-to-payload ratio), through introducing
       path stretch, or through requiring compression techniques to
       reduce the header proportion of large addresses when operating in
       constrained environments.

   4.  Fragility: The introduction of point solutions, each of which
       comes with possibly own usages of address or packet fields,
       together with extension-specific operations, increases the
       overall fragility of the resulting system, caused, for instance,
       through contention between feature extensions that were neither
       foreseen in the design nor tested during the implementation

   5.  Extensibility: Accommodating new requirements through ever new
       extensions as an extensibility approach to addressing compounds
       aspects discussed before, i.e., fragility, efficiency etc.  It
       complicates engineering due to the clearly missing boundaries
       against which contentions with other extensions could be managed.
       It complicates standardization since extension-based
       extensibility requires independent, and often lengthy,
       standardization processes.  And ultimately, deployments are
       complicated due to backward compatibility testing required for
       any new extension being integrated into the deployed system.

   The table below shows how the above identified issues do arise
   somehow in our outlined communication scenarios in Section 2.  This
   overview will be deepened in more details in the considerations
   document [I-D.iannone-internet-addressing-considerations].

Iannone, et al.           Expires 9 March 2023                 [Page 24]

Internet-Draft    Scenarios and Problems in Addressing    September 2022

     |               | Issue | Issue | Issue | Issue | Issue | Issue |
     |               | 1     | 2     | 3     | 4     | 5     | 6     |
     | Constrained   |       |       |       | x     | x     | x     |
     | Environments  |       |       |       |       |       |       |
     | Dynamically   | x     |       | x     | x     | x     | x     |
     | Changing      |       |       |       |       |       |       |
     | Topologies    |       |       |       |       |       |       |
     | Moving        | x     |       | x     | x     | x     | x     |
     | Endpoints     |       |       |       |       |       |       |
     | Across        | x     |       | x     | x     | x     | x     |
     | Services      |       |       |       |       |       |       |
     | Traffic       | x     |       | x     | x     | x     | x     |
     | Steering      |       |       |       |       |       |       |
     | Built-in      | x     | x     |       | x     | x     | x     |
     | Security      |       |       |       |       |       |       |
     | Alternative   | x     |       |       | x     |       | x     |
     | Forwarding    |       |       |       |       |       |       |
     | Architectures |       |       |       |       |       |       |

             Table 1: Issues Involved in Challenging Scenarios

5.  Problem Statement

   This document identifies a number of scenarios as well as general
   features end users would want from the network, positioning the
   existing Internet addressing structure itself as a potential
   hindrance in solving key problems for Internet service provisioning.
   Such problems include supporting new, e.g., service-oriented,
   scenarios more efficiently, with improved security and efficient
   traffic engineering, as well as large scale mobility.  We can observe
   that those new forms of communication are particularly driven by the
   conceptual framework of limited domains, realizing the requirements
   of stakeholders for an optimized communication in those limited
   domains, while still utilizing the Internet for interconnection as
   well as for access to the wealth of existing Internet services.

   This co-existence of optimized LD-level as well as Internet
   communication creates a tussle between those requirements on
   addressing stemming from those limited domains and those coming from

Iannone, et al.           Expires 9 March 2023                 [Page 25]

Internet-Draft    Scenarios and Problems in Addressing    September 2022

   the Internet in the form of agreed IPv6 semantics.  This tussle
   directly refers back to our introductory question on flexibility in
   addressing (or leaving the problem to limited domain solutions to
   deal with).  It is also captured in the discussion on where new
   features are being introduced, i.e. at the edge or core of the

   But more importantly, the question on 'what is an address anyway'
   (derived from what features we may want from the network) should not
   be guided by the answers that the Internet can give us today, e.g.,
   being a mere ephemeral token for accessing PoP-based services (as
   indicated in related arch-d mailing list discussions), but instead
   what features could be enabled by a particular view of what an
   address is.  However, that is not to 'second guess' the market and
   its possible evolution, but to outline clear features from which to
   derive clear principles for a design.

   For this, it is important to recognize that skewing the technical
   capabilities of any feature, let alone addressing, to the current
   economic situation of the Internet bears the danger of locking down
   innovation capabilities as an outcome of those technical limitations
   being introduced.  Instead, addressing must align with enabling the
   model of permissionless but compatible innovation that the IETF has
   been promoting, ultimately enabling the serendipity of new
   applications that has led to many of those applications we can see in
   the Internet today.

   At this stage, this document does not provide a definite answer nor
   does it propose or promote specific solutions to the problems here
   portrayed.  Instead, this document aims at stimulating discussion on
   the emerging needs for addressing, with the possibility to
   fundamentally re-think the addressing in the Internet beyond the
   current objectives of IPv6, in order to provide the flexibility to
   suitably support the many new forms of communication that will
   emerge.  Addressing can be rather flexible and can be of any form
   that applications may need.  There is no limitation on the address to
   preclude any future applications.

   To complement the problem statement in this document, the companion
   considerations document
   [I-D.iannone-internet-addressing-considerations] deepens the issues
   identified in Section 4 along key properties of today's Internet

Iannone, et al.           Expires 9 March 2023                 [Page 26]

Internet-Draft    Scenarios and Problems in Addressing    September 2022

6.  Security Considerations

   The present memo does not introduce any new technology and/or
   mechanism and as such does not introduce any security threat to the
   TCP/IP protocol suite.

   Nevertheless, it is worth to observe whether or not greater
   flexibility of addressing (as suggested in previous sections) would
   allow to introduce fully featured security in endpoint
   identification, potentially able to eradicate the spoofing problem,
   as one example.  Furthermore, it may be used to include application
   gateways' certificates in order to provide more efficiency, e.g.,
   using web certificates also in the addressing of web services.  While
   increasing security, privacy protection may also be improved.

7.  IANA Considerations

   This document does not include an IANA request.

8.  References

8.1.  Normative References

   [RFC0791]  Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC0791, September 1981,

8.2.  Informative References

   [ADACORSA] "Airborne data collection on resilient system
              architectures", n.d.,

   [ALOHA]    Kuo, F. F. and Association for Computing Machinery (ACM),
              "The ALOHA System", ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication
              Review, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 41-44,
              DOI 10.1145/205447.205451, 11 January 1995,

   [BACnet]   "BACnet-A Data Communication Protocol for Building
              Automation and Control Networks", ANSI/ASHRAE Standard
              135-2016, January 2016,

   [BIER-MC]  Trossen, D., Rahman, A., Wang, C., and T. Eckert,
              "Applicability of BIER Multicast Overlay for Adaptive
              Streaming Services", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,

Iannone, et al.           Expires 9 March 2023                 [Page 27]

Internet-Draft    Scenarios and Problems in Addressing    September 2022

              draft-ietf-bier-multicast-http-response-06, 10 July 2021,

   [BLE]      "Bluetooth Specification", Bluetooth SIG Working Groups,
              n.d., <>.

              Hughes, L., Shumon, K., Zhang, Y., and Springer Berlin
              Heidelberg, "Cartesian Ad Hoc Routing Protocols", Ad-Hoc,
              Mobile, and Wireless Networks, pp. 287-292,
              DOI 10.1007/978-3-540-39611-6_27, 2003,

   [CCN]      Jacobson, V., Smetters, D. K., Thornton, J. D., Plass, M.
              F., Briggs, N. H., Braynard, R. L., and ACM Press,
              "Networking named content", Proceedings of the 5th
              international conference on Emerging networking
              experiments and technologies - CoNEXT '09,
              DOI 10.1145/1658939.1658941, 2009,

              CCSDS - Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems, "IP
              over CCSDS Space Links", SIS Space Internetworking
              Services Area, n.d.,

   [CHEN21]   Chen, Y., Li, H., Liu, J., Wu, Q., Lai, Z., and IEEE,
              "GAMS: An IP Address Management Mechanism in Satellite
              Mega-constellation Networks", 2021 International Wireless
              Communications and Mobile Computing (IWCMC),
              DOI 10.1109/iwcmc51323.2021.9498722, 28 June 2021,

   [CHRIKI19] Chriki, A., Touati, H., Snoussi, H., Kamoun, F., and
              Elsevier BV, "FANET: Communication, mobility models and
              security issues", Computer Networks, vol. 163, pp. 106877,
              DOI 10.1016/j.comnet.2019.106877, November 2019,

              "COMP4DRONES", n.d.,

   [DDS]      AL-Madani, B., Elkhider, S. M., El-Ferik, S., and MDPI AG,
              "DDS-Based Containment Control of Multiple UAV Systems",
              Applied Sciences, vol. 10, no. 13, pp. 4572,

Iannone, et al.           Expires 9 March 2023                 [Page 28]

Internet-Draft    Scenarios and Problems in Addressing    September 2022

              DOI 10.3390/app10134572, 1 July 2020,

   [DECT-ULE] "Digital Enhanced Cordless Telecommunications (DECT);
              Common Interface (CI); Part 1: Overview", ETSI European
              Standard, EN 300 175-1, V2.6.1, May 2009,

   [DETNET]   "Deterministic Networking (DetNet)", n.d.,

   [DINRG]    "Decentralized Internet Infrastructure - DINRG", n.d.,

              Trossen, D., Guzman, D., Bride, M. M., and X. Fan, "Impact
              of DLTs on Provider Networks", Work in Progress, Internet-
              Draft, draft-trossen-rtgwg-impact-of-dlts-02, 30 August
              2022, <

   [ECMA-340] EECMA-340, "Near Field Communication - Interface and
              Protocol (NFCIP-1) 3rd Ed.", June 2013.

   [EIBP]     Willis, N.Shenoy, S.Chandraiah, P., "A Structured Approach
              to Routing in the Internet", June 2021, <First Intl
              Workshop on Semantic Addressing and Routing for Future

   [ETSI-NIN] ETSI - European Telecommunication Standards Institute,
              "Non-IP Networking - NIN", n.d.,

   [HANDLEY]  Handley, M. and ACM, "Delay is Not an Option", Proceedings
              of the 17th ACM Workshop on Hot Topics in Networks,
              DOI 10.1145/3286062.3286075, 15 November 2018,

              Haindl, B., Lindner, M., Moreno, V., Comeras, M. P.,
              Maino, F., and B. Venkatachalapathy, "Ground-Based LISP
              for the Aeronautical Telecommunications Network", Work in
              Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-haindl-lisp-gb-atn-07, 22
              March 2022, <

Iannone, et al.           Expires 9 March 2023                 [Page 29]

Internet-Draft    Scenarios and Problems in Addressing    September 2022

              Jia, Y., Trossen, D., Iannone, L., Mendes, P., Shenoy, N.,
              Toutain, L., Chen, A. Y., and D. Farinacci, "Internet
              Addressing Considerations", Work in Progress, Internet-
              Draft, draft-iannone-internet-addressing-considerations-
              00, 11 July 2022, <

              Hinden, R. M. and G. Fairhurst, "IPv6 Minimum Path MTU
              Hop-by-Hop Option", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
              draft-ietf-6man-mtu-option-15, 10 May 2022,

              Card, S. W., Wiethuechter, A., Moskowitz, R., Zhao, S.,
              and A. Gurtov, "Drone Remote Identification Protocol
              (DRIP) Architecture", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
              draft-ietf-drip-arch-29, 16 August 2022,

              Herbert, T., Yong, L., and O. Zia, "Generic UDP
              Encapsulation", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
              ietf-intarea-gue-09, 26 October 2019,

              Cabellos, A. and D. S. (Ed.), "An Architectural
              Introduction to the Locator/ID Separation Protocol
              (LISP)", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-
              lisp-introduction-15, 20 September 2021,

              Farinacci, D., Lewis, D., Meyer, D., and C. White, "LISP
              Mobile Node", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
              ietf-lisp-mn-12, 24 July 2022,

              Barkai, S., Fernandez-Ruiz, B., Tamir, R., Rodriguez-
              Natal, A., Maino, F., Cabellos-Aparicio, A., and D.

Iannone, et al.           Expires 9 March 2023                 [Page 30]

Internet-Draft    Scenarios and Problems in Addressing    September 2022

              Farinacci, "Network-Hexagons:Geolocation Mobility Edge
              Network Based On H3 and LISP", Work in Progress, Internet-
              Draft, draft-ietf-lisp-nexagon-39, 15 August 2022,

              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-31, 2 May 2022,

              Templin, F. L., "Automatic Extended Route Optimization
              (AERO)", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-templin-
              6man-aero-61, 7 August 2022,

   [ICN5G]    Ravindran, R., Suthar, P., Trossen, D., Wang, C., and G.
              White, "Enabling ICN in 3GPP's 5G NextGen Core
              Architecture", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
              irtf-icnrg-5gc-icn-04, 10 January 2021,

   [ICNIP]    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,

              "Standard for Medium Frequency (less than 15 MHz) Power
              Line Communications for Smart Grid Applications", IEEE
              1901.1 IEEE-SA Standards Board, May 2018,

   [LR-WPAN]  "IEEE 802.15.4 - IEEE Standard for Low-Rate Wireless
              Networks", IEEE 802.15 WPAN Task Group 4, May 2020,

   [MANET1]   Abdallah, A. E., Abdallah, E. E., Bsoul, M., Otoom, A. F.,
              and SAGE Publications, "Randomized geographic-based
              routing with nearly guaranteed delivery for three-

Iannone, et al.           Expires 9 March 2023                 [Page 31]

Internet-Draft    Scenarios and Problems in Addressing    September 2022

              dimensional ad hoc network", International Journal of
              Distributed Sensor Networks, vol. 12, no. 10, pp.
              155014771667125, DOI 10.1177/1550147716671255, October
              2016, <>.

              Marojevic, V., Guvenc, I., Dutta, R., Sichitiu, M. L.,
              Floyd, B. A., and Institute of Electrical and Electronics
              Engineers (IEEE), "Advanced Wireless for Unmanned Aerial
              Systems: 5G Standardization, Research Challenges, and
              AERPAW Architecture", IEEE Vehicular Technology Magazine,
              vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 22-30, DOI 10.1109/mvt.2020.2979494,
              June 2020, <>.

   [OCADO]    "Ocado Technology's robot warehouse a Hive of IoT
              innovation", n.d., <

   [PANRG]    "Path Aware Networking Research Group - PANRG", n.d.,

   [PEARG]    "Privacy Enhancements and Assessments Research Group -
              PEARG", n.d., <>.

   [PILA]     Krahenbuhl, C., Legner, M., Bitterli, S., Perrig, A., and
              IEEE, "Pervasive Internet-Wide Low-Latency
              Authentication", 2021 International Conference on Computer
              Communications and Networks (ICCCN),
              DOI 10.1109/icccn52240.2021.9522235, July 2021,

              Finkhaeuser, J., Larsen, M., and ACM, "Reliable Command,
              Control and Communication Links for Unmanned Aircraft
              Systems", Proceedings of the 2021 Drone Systems
              Engineering and Rapid Simulation and Performance
              Evaluation: Methods and Tools Proceedings,
              DOI 10.1145/3444950.3444954, 18 January 2021,

   [RFC2775]  Carpenter, B., "Internet Transparency", RFC 2775,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2775, February 2000,

   [RFC3031]  Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., and R. Callon, "Multiprotocol
              Label Switching Architecture", RFC 3031,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3031, January 2001,

Iannone, et al.           Expires 9 March 2023                 [Page 32]

Internet-Draft    Scenarios and Problems in Addressing    September 2022

   [RFC3972]  Aura, T., "Cryptographically Generated Addresses (CGA)",
              RFC 3972, DOI 10.17487/RFC3972, March 2005,

   [RFC4301]  Kent, S. and K. Seo, "Security Architecture for the
              Internet Protocol", RFC 4301, DOI 10.17487/RFC4301,
              December 2005, <>.

   [RFC4919]  Kushalnagar, N., Montenegro, G., and C. Schumacher, "IPv6
              over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Networks (6LoWPANs):
              Overview, Assumptions, Problem Statement, and Goals",
              RFC 4919, DOI 10.17487/RFC4919, August 2007,

   [RFC5061]  Stewart, R., Xie, Q., Tuexen, M., Maruyama, S., and M.
              Kozuka, "Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP)
              Dynamic Address Reconfiguration", RFC 5061,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5061, September 2007,

   [RFC5177]  Leung, K., Dommety, G., Narayanan, V., and A. Petrescu,
              "Network Mobility (NEMO) Extensions for Mobile IPv4",
              RFC 5177, DOI 10.17487/RFC5177, April 2008,

   [RFC5275]  Turner, S., "CMS Symmetric Key Management and
              Distribution", RFC 5275, DOI 10.17487/RFC5275, June 2008,

   [RFC5517]  HomChaudhuri, S. and M. Foschiano, "Cisco Systems' Private
              VLANs: Scalable Security in a Multi-Client Environment",
              RFC 5517, DOI 10.17487/RFC5517, February 2010,

   [RFC5944]  Perkins, C., Ed., "IP Mobility Support for IPv4, Revised",
              RFC 5944, DOI 10.17487/RFC5944, November 2010,

   [RFC6158]  DeKok, A., Ed. and G. Weber, "RADIUS Design Guidelines",
              BCP 158, RFC 6158, DOI 10.17487/RFC6158, March 2011,

   [RFC6182]  Ford, A., Raiciu, C., Handley, M., Barre, S., and J.
              Iyengar, "Architectural Guidelines for Multipath TCP
              Development", RFC 6182, DOI 10.17487/RFC6182, March 2011,

Iannone, et al.           Expires 9 March 2023                 [Page 33]

Internet-Draft    Scenarios and Problems in Addressing    September 2022

   [RFC6275]  Perkins, C., Ed., Johnson, D., and J. Arkko, "Mobility
              Support in IPv6", RFC 6275, DOI 10.17487/RFC6275, July
              2011, <>.

   [RFC6626]  Tsirtsis, G., Park, V., Narayanan, V., and K. Leung,
              "Dynamic Prefix Allocation for Network Mobility for Mobile
              IPv4 (NEMOv4)", RFC 6626, DOI 10.17487/RFC6626, May 2012,

   [RFC7252]  Shelby, Z., Hartke, K., and C. Bormann, "The Constrained
              Application Protocol (CoAP)", RFC 7252,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7252, June 2014,

   [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,

   [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,

   [RFC7426]  Haleplidis, E., Ed., Pentikousis, K., Ed., Denazis, S.,
              Hadi Salim, J., Meyer, D., and O. Koufopavlou, "Software-
              Defined Networking (SDN): Layers and Architecture
              Terminology", RFC 7426, DOI 10.17487/RFC7426, January
              2015, <>.

   [RFC7429]  Liu, D., Ed., Zuniga, JC., Ed., Seite, P., Chan, H., and
              CJ. Bernardos, "Distributed Mobility Management: Current
              Practices and Gap Analysis", RFC 7429,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7429, January 2015,

   [RFC7476]  Pentikousis, K., Ed., Ohlman, B., Corujo, D., Boggia, G.,
              Tyson, G., Davies, E., Molinaro, A., and S. Eum,
              "Information-Centric Networking: Baseline Scenarios",
              RFC 7476, DOI 10.17487/RFC7476, March 2015,

   [RFC7665]  Halpern, J., Ed. and C. Pignataro, Ed., "Service Function
              Chaining (SFC) Architecture", RFC 7665,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7665, October 2015,

Iannone, et al.           Expires 9 March 2023                 [Page 34]

Internet-Draft    Scenarios and Problems in Addressing    September 2022

   [RFC8200]  Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
              (IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017,

   [RFC8280]  ten Oever, N. and C. Cath, "Research into Human Rights
              Protocol Considerations", RFC 8280, DOI 10.17487/RFC8280,
              October 2017, <>.

   [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, <>.

   [RFC8595]  Farrel, A., Bryant, S., and J. Drake, "An MPLS-Based
              Forwarding Plane for Service Function Chaining", RFC 8595,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8595, June 2019,

   [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,

   [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,

   [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, <>.

   [RFC8799]  Carpenter, B. and B. Liu, "Limited Domains and Internet
              Protocols", RFC 8799, DOI 10.17487/RFC8799, July 2020,

   [RFC8926]  Gross, J., Ed., Ganga, I., Ed., and T. Sridhar, Ed.,
              "Geneve: Generic Network Virtualization Encapsulation",
              RFC 8926, DOI 10.17487/RFC8926, November 2020,

   [RFC9000]  Iyengar, J., Ed. and M. Thomson, Ed., "QUIC: A UDP-Based
              Multiplexed and Secure Transport", RFC 9000,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC9000, May 2021,

Iannone, et al.           Expires 9 March 2023                 [Page 35]

Internet-Draft    Scenarios and Problems in Addressing    September 2022

   [RFC9153]  Card, S., Ed., Wiethuechter, A., Moskowitz, R., and A.
              Gurtov, "Drone Remote Identification Protocol (DRIP)
              Requirements and Terminology", RFC 9153,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC9153, February 2022,

              Wion, A., Bouet, M., Iannone, L., Conan, V., and ACM,
              "Distributed Function Chaining with Anycast Routing",
              Proceedings of the 2019 ACM Symposium on SDN Research,
              DOI 10.1145/3314148.3314355, 3 April 2019,

              "Deutsche Telekom tests TeraStream, the network of the
              future, in Croatia", n.d.,

   [TROSSEN]  Trossen, D., Sarela, M., Sollins, K., and Association for
              Computing Machinery (ACM), "Arguments for an information-
              centric internetworking architecture", ACM SIGCOMM
              Computer Communication Review, vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 26-33,
              DOI 10.1145/1764873.1764878, 9 April 2010,

   [WANG19]   Wang, P., Zhang, J., Zhang, X., Yan, Z., Evans, B. G.,
              Wang, W., and Institute of Electrical and Electronics
              Engineers (IEEE), "Convergence of Satellite and
              Terrestrial Networks: A Comprehensive Survey", IEEE
              Access, vol. 8, pp. 5550-5588,
              DOI 10.1109/access.2019.2963223, 2020,


   Thanks to all the people that shared insightful comments both
   privately to the authors as well as on various mailing list,
   especially on the INTArea Mailing List.  Also thanks for the
   interesting discussions to Stewart Bryant, Ron Bonica, Toerless
   Eckert, Brian E.  Carpenter, Kiran Makhijani, Fred Templin.

Authors' Addresses

   Luigi Iannone
   Huawei Technologies France S.A.S.U.
   18, Quai du Point du Jour

Iannone, et al.           Expires 9 March 2023                 [Page 36]

Internet-Draft    Scenarios and Problems in Addressing    September 2022

   92100 Boulogne-Billancourt


   Dirk Trossen
   Huawei Technologies Duesseldorf GmbH
   Riesstr. 25C
   80992 Munich


   Nirmala Shenoy
   Rochester Institute of Technology
   New-York,  14623
   United States of America


   Paulo Mendes
   Willy-Messerschmitt Strasse 1
   81663 Munich


   Donald E. Eastlake 3rd
   Futurewei Technologies
   2386 Panoramic Circle
   Apopka, FL,  32703
   United States of America


   Peng Liu
   China Mobile
   32 Xuanwumen West Ave
   Xicheng, Beijing
   P.R. China

Iannone, et al.           Expires 9 March 2023                 [Page 37]

Internet-Draft    Scenarios and Problems in Addressing    September 2022


   Dino Farinacci
   United States of America


   Jens Finkhaeuser
   AnyWi Technologies B.V.
   3e Binnenvestgracht 23H
   2312 NR Leiden


   Yihao Jia


Iannone, et al.           Expires 9 March 2023                 [Page 38]