Path Aware Networking: A Bestiary of Roads Not Taken
draft-dawkins-panrg-what-not-to-do-01

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Last updated 2018-06-18
Stream IRTF
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text xml pdf html bibtex
Stream IRTF state (None)
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to irsg@irtf.org
PANRG                                                    S. Dawkins, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                       Huawei Technologies
Intended status: Informational                             June 18, 2018
Expires: December 20, 2018

          Path Aware Networking: A Bestiary of Roads Not Taken
                 draft-dawkins-panrg-what-not-to-do-01

Abstract

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

   This document contains that catalog and analysis.

Status of This Memo

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

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

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

   This Internet-Draft will expire on December 20, 2018.

Copyright Notice

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

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

Dawkins                 Expires December 20, 2018               [Page 1]
Internet-Draft               What Not To Do                    June 2018

Table of Contents

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

1.  Introduction

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

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

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

   The meta-lessons from this experience are

Dawkins                 Expires December 20, 2018               [Page 2]
Internet-Draft               What Not To Do                    June 2018
Show full document text