Internet Area Working Group Y. Jia
Internet-Draft D. Trossen
Intended status: Informational L. Iannone
Expires: August 26, 2021 Huawei
D. Eastlake 3rd
Futurewei
P. Liu
China Mobile
February 22, 2021
Challenging Scenarios and Problems in Internet Addressing
draft-jia-intarea-scenarios-problems-addressing-00
Abstract
The Internet Protocol (IP) has been the major technological success
in information technology of the last half century. As Internet
become pervasive, IP start replacing communication technology for
domain-specific solutions. However, domains with specific
requirements as well as communication behaviors and semantics still
exists and represent what [RFC8799] recognizes as "limited domains".
When communicating within limited domains, the address semantic and
format may differ with respect to the IP address one. As such, there
is a need to adapt the domain-specific addressing to the Internet
addressing paradigm. In certain scenarios, such adaptation may raise
challenges.
This document describes well-recognized scenarios that showcase
possibly different addressing requirements which are challenging to
be accommodated in the IP addressing model. These scenarios
highlight issues related to the Internet addressing model and call
for starting a discussion on a way to re-think/evolve the addressing
model so to better accommodate different domain-specific
requirements.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
Jia, et al. Expires August 26, 2021 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Scenarios and Problems in Addressing February 2021
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on August 26, 2021.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Communication Scenarios in Limited Domains . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. Communication in Constrained Environments . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. Communication within Dynamically Changing Topologies . . 5
2.3. Communication among Moving Endpoints . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.4. Communication Across Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.5. Steering Communication Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.6. Communication with built-in security . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.7. Communication in Alternative Forwarding Architectures . . 11
3. Issues in Addressing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.1. Limiting Alternative Address Semantics . . . . . . . . . 13
3.2. Hampering Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.3. Complicating Traffic Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.4. Hampering Efficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.4.1. Header proportion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.4.2. Introducing Path Stretch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.4.3. Repetitive encapsulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4. Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Jia, et al. Expires August 26, 2021 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Scenarios and Problems in Addressing February 2021
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 system. At its inception
roughly 40 years ago [RFC0791], the Internet's addressing system,
represented in the form of the IP address and its locator-based
semantics, has brought the notion of a 'common addressing for all
communication'. Compared to proprietary technology-specific
solutions, such 'common addressing for all communication' advance
ensures end-to-end communication from any device connected to the
Internet to another.
However, scenarios, associated service, node behaviors, and
requirements on packet delivery have since been significantly
extended, with Internet technologies 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 the "Limited domain", first introduced in [RFC8799]. It
refers to a single physical network, attached to or running in
parallel with the Internet, or is defined by 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) that exhibit the domain-specific behaviors and pose the
requirements that lead to the establishment of the limited domain.
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 the routing of
packets. 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, and ultimately, domain-specific
addressing, into the common IP addressing used across limited
domains.
This document advocates the 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
Jia, et al. Expires August 26, 2021 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Scenarios and Problems in Addressing February 2021
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 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 addressing?"
To that end, this document describes well-recognized scenarios in
limited domains that could benefit from a greater flexibility in
addressing and analyses problems encountered throughout these
scenarios due to the lack of that flexibility. The purpose of this
draft is thus 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.
It is important to remark that any change in the addressing, hence at
the data plane level, leads to changes and challenges on 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-section outlines a number of scenarios, all of
which belong to the concept of "limited domains" [RFC8799]. While a
list of scenarios may be long, this document focuses on scenarios
with a number of aspects that we observe in those limited domains,
captured in the sub-section titles. For each scenarios, we point at
possible challenges, which we will pick upon in Section 3 when
describing more formally the issues existing 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, low-cost communication
network is required, and there are limitations for network devices in
computational power, memory, and energy availability. In addition to
IEEE 802.15.4, i.e., Low-Rate Wireless Personal Area Network
[LR-WPAN], several limited domains exists through utilizing link
Jia, et al. Expires August 26, 2021 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Scenarios and Problems in Addressing February 2021
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]. Generally, a group of IoT network devices form a
constrained node network at the edge, and IoT terminals connect to
these network devices for data transmission. This type of networks
and IoT devices in the network require as little computational power
as possible, smaller memory requirements, better energy availability
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 ([OCADO]).
The end-to-end principle (detailed in [RFC2775]) requires Internet
protocols (e.g., IPv6 [RFC8200]) to run on such constrained node
networks, allowing IoT devices using multiple communication
technologies to talk on the Internet. Often, devices located on 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 can easily select one of 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.
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.
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,
often complemented by and seamlessly switching between Wi-Fi,
cellular, or satellite based networks at any time. 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
Jia, et al. Expires August 26, 2021 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Scenarios and Problems in Addressing February 2021
terrestrial networks. The involved topologies of the satellite
network will be changing constantly while observing a regular flight
pattern in relation to other satellite and predictable overflight
patterns to ground users.
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
RoadSide 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.
In both 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].
Flexibility in Internet addressing here would allow for accommodating
such geographic address semantics into the overall Internet
addressing.
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
Jia, et al. Expires August 26, 2021 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Scenarios and Problems in Addressing February 2021
what is discussed in Section 2.2). Ever since, a lot of efforts have
been devoted to overcome such limitations once that 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, 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 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
[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 lack of 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.
Jia, et al. Expires August 26, 2021 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Scenarios and Problems in Addressing February 2021
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.
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 [QUIC]).
Greater flexibility in addressing may help in dealing with mobility
more efficienctly, e.g., through an augmented semantic that may
fufill the mobility requirements [RFC7429].
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
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 locator-
based 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 to combining service and location-based
addressing have been devised, the key challenge here is to facilitate
Jia, et al. Expires August 26, 2021 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Scenarios and Problems in Addressing February 2021
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 could
be used that serves as a link to next hop destination within the
chain of individual 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 an NSH header ([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.
2.5. Steering Communication Traffic
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) constraining 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
destinations.
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 quite some
configuration, and even small changes in network and user nodes could
result in a repartition and possibly even more 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 decision 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.
Jia, et al. Expires August 26, 2021 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Scenarios and Problems in Addressing February 2021
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 [DYNCAST] 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 [DYNCAST] and include, but are not limited
to, scenarios such as edge-assisted VR/AR, transportation 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.
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.
Flexibity 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 and privacy in the Internet is usually
implemented as an overlay based on the concept of Mix Networks
([TOR], [SPHINX]). 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 relationship. Efforts
like Cryptographically Generated Addresses (CGA) [RFC3972], provide
some security features by embedding a truncated public key in the
Jia, et al. Expires August 26, 2021 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Scenarios and Problems in Addressing February 2021
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 addresses.
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
using full length certificates, or being able to support larger HIP
addresses in a limited domain that use it.
Greater flexibility in addressing semantic could significantly help
in constructing a trusted and secure communication at the network
layer. This could lead 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 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.
Jia, et al. Expires August 26, 2021 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Scenarios and Problems in Addressing February 2021
On the one hand, such a communication model may be more suitable to
real-time traffic like that 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
boundaries.
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
Hz. 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.
Alternative way of forwarding data has also been the motivation for
the efforts created in the European Telecommunication Standards
Institute (ETSI), who formed a 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.
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.
Jia, et al. Expires August 26, 2021 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Scenarios and Problems in Addressing February 2021
3. Issues in Addressing
3.1. Limiting Alternative Address Semantics
Many approaches to changing the semantics of communication, e.g.,
through separating host identification from network node
identification [RFC7401] or through identifying content and services
directly [HICN], are limited by the existing packet size and semantic
constraints of IPv6, e.g., in the form of its source and destination
network addresses.
While approaches such as [ICNIP] may override the addressing
semantics, e.g., by replacing IPv6 source and destination information
with path identification, a possible unawareness of endpoints still
requires the carrying of other address information as part of the
payload, as discussed in Section 3.4. Also, the expressible service
or content semantic may be limited, as in [HICN] or the size of
supported networks [REED] due to relying on the limited bit positions
usable in IPv6 addresses.
3.2. Hampering Security
Fitting any new semantic into existing size constraints may hamper
the original objectives for introducing the new semantics in the
first place. For instance, host identifiers [RFC7401] or security
information may be limited by the IPv6 address size, as discussed in
Section 2.6 with the example of CGA [RFC3972]. On the one hand,
greater flexibility of addressing would allow to introduce fully
featured security in endpoint identification, potentially able to
eradicate the spoofing problem. On the other hand, it may be used to
include application gateways' certificates in order to provide more
efficiency, e.g., using web certificates also used in the addressing
of web services.
While increasing security, privacy protection can be improved. IP
addresses, even temporary ones, have been long recognized as a
"Personal Identification Information" that allows even to geolocating
the communicating endpoints [RFC8280]. Greater flexibility in
addressing may allow the use of cryptographically generated anonymous
addresses when considered needed, and protect from geolocation by
making such addresses topologically independent. Such property
potentially allows implemetation of secure architetures like [TOR]
and [SPHINX] at network layer, improving the overall efficiency as
described in Section 3.4.
Alternative addressing semantics may also help in (D)DoS mitigation.
This can be achieved by changing the service identification model,
making it completely orthogonal from network topology semantic. And
Jia, et al. Expires August 26, 2021 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Scenarios and Problems in Addressing February 2021
by not exposing all of the topological information the attack
exposes, the potential disruptions, may remain limited [ADDRLESS].
In this way, mounting such type of attack may become harder.
3.3. Complicating Traffic Engineering
Efforts in traffic engineering have long shown that the IP address
itself is not enough to steer traffic properly, seeing the
introduction of differentiated service code points (DSCP), the use of
header information of various kinds (such as ports) as flow
information, and the entirely separate expression of path
information, e.g., in the form of MPLS labels or through introducing
bitposition-based path identifiers (cf., [BIER-MC], [REED]). Newer
approaches to IP anycast suggest the use of service identification in
combination with a binding IP address model [DYNCAST] as a way to
allow for metric-based traffic steering decisions; approaches for
service function chaining [RFC7665] utilize the next service header
(NSH) information and packet classification to determine the
destination of the next packet hop.
Overall, when it comes to providing capabilities for traffic
engineering, the IP address itself is not semantically rich enough to
adequately describe the forwarding decision to be taken in the
network, not only impacting WHERE the packet will need to go but also
HOW it will need to be sent. Instead, various supplementary
information needs to be taken into account for a successful delivery
to take place.
3.4. Hampering Efficiency
3.4.1. Header proportion
Although fiber and ethernet dominate the Internet infrastructure,
numerous radio channels are expected to improve the wireless
communication efficiency. As IPv6 header fixedly occupies 40 byte in
a packet [RFC8200], header compression techniques are introduced to
shaping payload occupation within a packet. RObust Header
Compression (ROHC) [RFC5795], which customized for cellar network, is
being widely adopted in radios like WCDMA, LTE, and 5G. Considering
one base station is supposed to serve hundreds of user devices,
maximizing the effectiveness for specific spectrum directly improve
user quality of experience.
Similar header compression mechanisms are usually adopted for
communications among constrained devices. Due to the memory or
battery constraint, constrained devices prefer maximize carrying
efficiency for each packet they deliver. For personal area network,
the IEEE 802.15.4 enabled devices, which occupy the most share of the
Jia, et al. Expires August 26, 2021 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Scenarios and Problems in Addressing February 2021
market, either equipped with customized proprietary protocols, or
compress the header utterly as in [RFC4944]. Particular for
proprietary protocols, e.g., Zigbee, an application level gateway
should be introduced at the edge of the local network. Terminations
of the communications by such gateway break the end-to-end principle
via uncondictional trust as potential weak points, thus looping back
to the security crisis in Section 3.2.
Also, constraints coming from either devices or carrier links would
lead to a mixed scenarios and compound requirements for extraordinary
header compression. For native IPv6 communications on DECT ULE and
MS/TP Networks, dedicated compression mechanisms are specified in
[RFC8105] and [RFC8163], while the transmission of IPv6 packets over
NFC and PLC, specifications are being developed in [I-D.ietf-6lo-nfc]
and [I-D.ietf-6lo-plc]. For low power wide-area network, a generic
framework for static context header compression is depicted in
[RFC8724] for efficiency improvement.
3.4.2. Introducing Path Stretch
To serve a moving endpoint (cf., Section 2.3), mechanisms like Mobile
IP [RFC3775] are used for the maintenance of connection continuity.
As the result of the locator semantic in IP address [RFC2101],
traffic must follow a triangular route before arriving the updated
location inevitably affecting the transmission efficiency as well as
latency.
Another example for introducing additional path lengthening is the
routing in TOR (cf., Section 2.6). As the address indicates
identifications to a certain extent [RFC2101], privacy enhancement
mechanisms usually involve the concealment of the source IP address
during communications. To achieve high anonymity, traffic should be
handed over by several (at least three) intermediates before reaching
the destination. Undoubtedly, frequent relaying enhance the privacy
at the cost of lower communication efficiency, no matter how close
the destination is located.
IP Anycast [RFC7094] is usually adopted for efficient content
delivery through extensive replica distribution. In most cases,
request packets should be guided to the nearest server in relation
to, e.g., geography or network topology, while occasionally, traffic
may also be directed to a remote or suboptimal site. Given that
Autonomous Systems (AS) always select route according to their own
preference, e.g., route of customer AS path (rather than shortest
path), traffic guidance for the nearest site is hard to be guaranteed
(cf., [ANYCAST]), while computing-related metrics are mostly ignored.
Jia, et al. Expires August 26, 2021 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Scenarios and Problems in Addressing February 2021
3.4.3. Repetitive encapsulation
Addressing proposals such as those in [ICNIP] utilize path
identification within an alternative forwarding architecture that
acts upon the provided path identification. However, due to the
limitation of existing flow-based architectures with respect to the
supported header structures (in the form of IPv4 or IPv6 headers),
the new routing semantics are being inserted into the existing header
structure, while repeating the original, sender-generated header
structure, in the payload of the packet as it traverses the limited
domain, effectively doubling the header overhead per packet.
The problem is also present in a number of solutions tackling
different issues, e.g., mobility [I-D.ietf-lisp-introduction], DC
networking ([RFC8926], [RFC7348], [I-D.ietf-intarea-gue]), and
privacy ([TOR], [SPHINX]). Certainly these solutions are able to
avoid other issues, like path lengthening or privacy, but they come
at the price of multiple encapsulations that reduce the effective
payload.
4. Problem Statement
This document highlights that, with the emergence of limited domains,
novel approaches to addressing in communication scenarios are being
developed and deployed within those limited domains.
While this may be interpreted as a crucial point to the flexibility
of addressing in the Internet, evidences exist (as describe in this
document) that the existing Internet addressing structure itself is a
potential hinderance 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.
As a problem statement, this document's goal is not to 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.
5. Security Considerations
TBD.
Jia, et al. Expires August 26, 2021 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Scenarios and Problems in Addressing February 2021
6. IANA Considerations
This document does not include an IANA request.
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[RFC0791] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791,
DOI 10.17487/RFC0791, September 1981,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc791>.
[RFC8200] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8200>.
7.2. Informative References
[ADDRLESS]
Hao, S., Liu, R., Weng, Z., Chang, D., Bao, C., and X. Li,
"Addressless: A new internet server model to prevent
network scanning", PLOS ONE Vol. 16, pp. e0246293,
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0246293, February 2021.
[ALOHA] Kuo, F., "The ALOHA System", ACM SIGCOMM Computer
Communication Review Vol. 25, pp. 41-44,
DOI 10.1145/205447.205451, January 1995.
[ANYCAST] Li, Z., Levin, D., Spring, N., and B. Bhattacharjee,
"Internet anycast: performance, problems, & potential",
Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the ACM Special
Interest Group on Data Communication,
DOI 10.1145/3230543.3230547, August 2018.
[BACnet] "BACnet-A Data Communication Protocol for Building
Automation and Control Networks", ANSI/ASHRAE Standard
135-2016, January 2016,
<https://www.techstreet.com/ashrae/standards/ashrae-
135-2016?product_id=1918140>.
[BIER-MC] Trossen, D., Rahman, A., Wang, C., and T. Eckert,
"Applicability of BIER Multicast Overlay for Adaptive
Streaming Services", draft-ietf-bier-multicast-http-
response-05 (work in progress), January 2021.
[BLE] "Bluetooth Specification", Bluetooth SIG Working Groups,
n.d., <https://www.bluetooth.com/specifications>.
Jia, et al. Expires August 26, 2021 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Scenarios and Problems in Addressing February 2021
[CARTISEAN]
Hughes, L., Shumon, K., and Y. Zhang, "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., Thornton, J., Plass, M.,
Briggs, N., and R. Braynard, "Networking named content",
Proceedings of the 5th international conference on
Emerging networking experiments and technologies -
CoNEXT '09, DOI 10.1145/1658939.1658941, 2009.
[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,
<https://www.etsi.org/deliver/
etsi_en/300100_300199/30017501/02.06.01_60/
en_30017501v020601p.pdf>.
[DETNET] "Deterministic Networking (DetNet)", n.d.,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/detnet/about/>.
[DYNCAST] Geng, L., Liu, P., and P. Willis, "Dynamic-Anycast in
Compute First Networking (CFN-Dyncast) Use Cases and
Problem Statement", draft-geng-rtgwg-cfn-dyncast-ps-
usecase-00 (work in progress), October 2020.
[ECMA-340]
EECMA-340, "Near Field Communication - Interface and
Protocol (NFCIP-1) 3rd Ed.", June 2013.
[ETSI-NIN]
ETSI - European Telecommunication Standards Institute,
"Non-IP Networking - NIN", n.d.,
<https://www.etsi.org/technologies/non-ip-networking>.
[HANDLEY] Handley, M., "Delay is Not an Option: Low Latency Routing
in Space", Proceedings of the 17th ACM Workshop on Hot
Topics in Networks, DOI 10.1145/3286062.3286075, November
2018.
[HICN] Muscariello, L., "Hybrid Information-Centric Networking:
ICN inside the Internet Protocol", March 2018,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/interim-2018-icnrg-
01/materials/slides-interim-2018-icnrg-01-sessa-hybrid-
icn-hicn-luca-muscariello>.
Jia, et al. Expires August 26, 2021 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Scenarios and Problems in Addressing February 2021
[I-D.ietf-6lo-nfc]
Choi, Y., Hong, Y., Youn, J., Kim, D., and J. Choi,
"Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Near Field
Communication", draft-ietf-6lo-nfc-17 (work in progress),
August 2020.
[I-D.ietf-6lo-plc]
Hou, J., Liu, B., Hong, Y., Tang, X., and C. Perkins,
"Transmission of IPv6 Packets over PLC Networks", draft-
ietf-6lo-plc-05 (work in progress), October 2020.
[I-D.ietf-intarea-gue]
Herbert, T., Yong, L., and O. Zia, "Generic UDP
Encapsulation", draft-ietf-intarea-gue-09 (work in
progress), October 2019.
[I-D.ietf-lisp-introduction]
Cabellos-Aparicio, A. and D. Saucez, "An Architectural
Introduction to the Locator/ID Separation Protocol
(LISP)", draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-13 (work in
progress), April 2015.
[I-D.ietf-lisp-mn]
Farinacci, D., Lewis, D., Meyer, D., and C. White, "LISP
Mobile Node", draft-ietf-lisp-mn-08 (work in progress),
August 2020.
[I-D.ietf-lisp-nexagon]
sbarkai@gmail.com, s., Fernandez-Ruiz, B., Barkai, S.,
Tamir, R., Rodriguez-Natal, A., Maino, F., Cabellos-
Aparicio, A., and D. Farinacci, "Network-Hexagons: H3-LISP
GeoState & Mobility Network", draft-ietf-lisp-nexagon-06
(work in progress), October 2020.
[I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]
Farinacci, D., Maino, F., Fuller, V., and A. Cabellos-
Aparicio, "Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Control-
Plane", draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-30 (work in progress),
November 2020.
[ICN5G] Ravindran, R., suthar, P., Trossen, D., Wang, C., and G.
White, "Enabling ICN in 3GPP's 5G NextGen Core
Architecture", draft-irtf-icnrg-5gc-icn-04 (work in
progress), January 2021.
Jia, et al. Expires August 26, 2021 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Scenarios and Problems in Addressing February 2021
[ICNIP] Trossen, D., Robitzsch, S., Essex, U., AL-Naday, M., and
J. Riihijarvi, "Internet Services over ICN in 5G LAN
Environments", draft-trossen-icnrg-internet-icn-5glan-04
(work in progress), October 2020.
[IEEE_1901.1]
"Standard for Medium Frequency (less than 15 MHz) Power
Line Communications for Smart Grid Applications", IEEE
1901.1 IEEE-SA Standards Board, May 2018,
<https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8360785>.
[LR-WPAN] "IEEE 802.15.4 - IEEE Standard for Low-Rate Wireless
Networks", IEEE 802.15 WPAN Task Group 4, May 2020,
<https://standards.ieee.org/standard/802_15_4-2020.html>.
[MANET1] Abdallah, A., Abdallah, E., Bsoul, M., and A. Otoom,
"Randomized geographic-based routing with nearly
guaranteed delivery for three-dimensional ad hoc network",
International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks Vol.
12, pp. 155014771667125, DOI 10.1177/1550147716671255,
October 2016.
[OCADO] "Ocado Technology's robot warehouse a Hive of IoT
innovation", n.d., <https://techmonitor.ai/tech-leaders/
ocado-technology-robot-hive-innovation>.
[PEARG] "Privacy Enhancements and Assessments Research Group -
PEARG", n.d., <https://irtf.org/pearg>.
[QUIC] Iyengar, J. and M. Thomson, "QUIC: A UDP-Based Multiplexed
and Secure Transport", draft-ietf-quic-transport-34 (work
in progress), January 2021.
[REED] Reed, M., Al-Naday, M., Thomos, N., Trossen, D.,
Petropoulos, G., and S. Spirou, "Stateless multicast
switching in software defined networks", 2016 IEEE
International Conference on Communications (ICC),
DOI 10.1109/icc.2016.7511036, May 2016.
[RFC2101] Carpenter, B., Crowcroft, J., and Y. Rekhter, "IPv4
Address Behaviour Today", RFC 2101, DOI 10.17487/RFC2101,
February 1997, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2101>.
[RFC2775] Carpenter, B., "Internet Transparency", RFC 2775,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2775, February 2000,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2775>.
Jia, et al. Expires August 26, 2021 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Scenarios and Problems in Addressing February 2021
[RFC3031] Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., and R. Callon, "Multiprotocol
Label Switching Architecture", RFC 3031,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3031, January 2001,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3031>.
[RFC3775] Johnson, D., Perkins, C., and J. Arkko, "Mobility Support
in IPv6", RFC 3775, DOI 10.17487/RFC3775, June 2004,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3775>.
[RFC3972] Aura, T., "Cryptographically Generated Addresses (CGA)",
RFC 3972, DOI 10.17487/RFC3972, March 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3972>.
[RFC4301] Kent, S. and K. Seo, "Security Architecture for the
Internet Protocol", RFC 4301, DOI 10.17487/RFC4301,
December 2005, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4301>.
[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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4919>.
[RFC4944] Montenegro, G., Kushalnagar, N., Hui, J., and D. Culler,
"Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 802.15.4
Networks", RFC 4944, DOI 10.17487/RFC4944, September 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4944>.
[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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5061>.
[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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5177>.
[RFC5275] Turner, S., "CMS Symmetric Key Management and
Distribution", RFC 5275, DOI 10.17487/RFC5275, June 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5275>.
[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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5517>.
Jia, et al. Expires August 26, 2021 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Scenarios and Problems in Addressing February 2021
[RFC5795] Sandlund, K., Pelletier, G., and L-E. Jonsson, "The RObust
Header Compression (ROHC) Framework", RFC 5795,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5795, March 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5795>.
[RFC5944] Perkins, C., Ed., "IP Mobility Support for IPv4, Revised",
RFC 5944, DOI 10.17487/RFC5944, November 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5944>.
[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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6182>.
[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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6626>.
[RFC7094] McPherson, D., Oran, D., Thaler, D., and E. Osterweil,
"Architectural Considerations of IP Anycast", RFC 7094,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7094, January 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7094>.
[RFC7348] Mahalingam, M., Dutt, D., Duda, K., Agarwal, P., Kreeger,
L., Sridhar, T., Bursell, M., and C. Wright, "Virtual
eXtensible Local Area Network (VXLAN): A Framework for
Overlaying Virtualized Layer 2 Networks over Layer 3
Networks", RFC 7348, DOI 10.17487/RFC7348, August 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7348>.
[RFC7401] Moskowitz, R., Ed., Heer, T., Jokela, P., and T.
Henderson, "Host Identity Protocol Version 2 (HIPv2)",
RFC 7401, DOI 10.17487/RFC7401, April 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7401>.
[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, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7426>.
[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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7429>.
Jia, et al. Expires August 26, 2021 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft Scenarios and Problems in Addressing February 2021
[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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7476>.
[RFC7665] Halpern, J., Ed. and C. Pignataro, Ed., "Service Function
Chaining (SFC) Architecture", RFC 7665,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7665, October 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7665>.
[RFC8105] Mariager, P., Petersen, J., Ed., Shelby, Z., Van de Logt,
M., and D. Barthel, "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over
Digital Enhanced Cordless Telecommunications (DECT) Ultra
Low Energy (ULE)", RFC 8105, DOI 10.17487/RFC8105, May
2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8105>.
[RFC8163] Lynn, K., Ed., Martocci, J., Neilson, C., and S.
Donaldson, "Transmission of IPv6 over Master-Slave/Token-
Passing (MS/TP) Networks", RFC 8163, DOI 10.17487/RFC8163,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8163>.
[RFC8280] ten Oever, N. and C. Cath, "Research into Human Rights
Protocol Considerations", RFC 8280, DOI 10.17487/RFC8280,
October 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8280>.
[RFC8402] Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L.,
Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment
Routing Architecture", RFC 8402, DOI 10.17487/RFC8402,
July 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8402>.
[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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8595>.
[RFC8677] Trossen, D., Purkayastha, D., and A. Rahman, "Name-Based
Service Function Forwarder (nSFF) Component within a
Service Function Chaining (SFC) Framework", RFC 8677,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8677, November 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8677>.
[RFC8724] Minaburo, A., Toutain, L., Gomez, C., Barthel, D., and JC.
Zuniga, "SCHC: Generic Framework for Static Context Header
Compression and Fragmentation", RFC 8724,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8724, April 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8724>.
Jia, et al. Expires August 26, 2021 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft Scenarios and Problems in Addressing February 2021
[RFC8754] Filsfils, C., Ed., Dukes, D., Ed., Previdi, S., Leddy, J.,
Matsushima, S., and D. Voyer, "IPv6 Segment Routing Header
(SRH)", RFC 8754, DOI 10.17487/RFC8754, March 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8754>.
[RFC8763] Rahman, A., Trossen, D., Kutscher, D., and R. Ravindran,
"Deployment Considerations for Information-Centric
Networking (ICN)", RFC 8763, DOI 10.17487/RFC8763, April
2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8763>.
[RFC8799] Carpenter, B. and B. Liu, "Limited Domains and Internet
Protocols", RFC 8799, DOI 10.17487/RFC8799, July 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8799>.
[RFC8926] Gross, J., Ed., Ganga, I., Ed., and T. Sridhar, Ed.,
"Geneve: Generic Network Virtualization Encapsulation",
RFC 8926, DOI 10.17487/RFC8926, November 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8926>.
[SPHINX] Danezis, G. and I. Goldberg, "Sphinx: A Compact and
Provably Secure Mix Format", 2009 30th IEEE Symposium on
Security and Privacy, DOI 10.1109/sp.2009.15, May 2009.
[TERASTREAM]
"Deutsche Telekom tests TeraStream, the network of the
future, in Croatia", n.d.,
<https://www.telekom.com/en/media/media-
information/archive/deutsche-telekom-tests-terastream-the-
network-of-the-future-in-croatia-358444>.
[TOR] "The Tor Project", n.d., <https://www.torproject.org/>.
[TROSSEN] Trossen, D., Sarela, M., and K. Sollins, "Arguments for an
information-centric internetworking architecture", ACM
SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review Vol. 40, pp. 26-33,
DOI 10.1145/1764873.1764878, April 2010.
Authors' Addresses
Yihao Jia
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd
156 Beiqing Rd.
Beijing 100095
P.R. China
Email: jiayihao@huawei.com
Jia, et al. Expires August 26, 2021 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft Scenarios and Problems in Addressing February 2021
Dirk Trossen
Huawei Technologies Duesseldorf GmbH
Riesstr. 25C
Munich 80992
Germany
Email: dirk.trossen@huawei.com
Luigi Iannone
Huawei Technologies France S.A.S.U.
18, Quai du Point du Jour
Boulogne-Billancourt 92100
France
Email: luigi.iannone@huawei.com
Donald E. Eastlake 3rd
Futurewei Technologies
2386 Panoramic Circle
Apopka, FL 32703
United States of America
Email: d3e3e3@gmail.com
Peng Liu
China Mobile
32 Xuanwumen West Ave
Xicheng, Beijing 100053
P.R. China
Email: liupengyjy@chinamobile.com
Jia, et al. Expires August 26, 2021 [Page 25]