Gap Analysis and Requirements for Routing on Service Addresses
draft-contreras-rtgwg-rosa-gaar-01
| Document | Type |
Expired Internet-Draft
(individual)
Expired & archived
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Luis M. Contreras , Dirk Trossen , Jens Finkhäuser , Paulo Mendes | ||
| Last updated | 2024-01-10 (Latest revision 2023-07-09) | ||
| Replaces | draft-trossen-rtgwg-rosa | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Expired | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft is available in these formats:
Abstract
The term 'service-based routing' (SBR) captures the set of mechanisms for the steering of traffic in an application-level service scenario. We position this steering as an anycast problem, requiring the selection of one of the possibly many choices for service execution at the very start of a service transaction. This document builds on the issues and pain points identified across a range of use cases, reported in [I-D.mendes-rtgwg-rosa-use-cases]. We summarize the key insights and provide a gap analysis with key technologies related to the problem of SBR, developed by the IETF over many years. We further outline the requirements to a system that would adequately close those gaps and thus address the pain points of our use cases. Those requirements will be used for outlining a suitable architecture framework in a separate document.
Authors
Luis M. Contreras
Dirk Trossen
Jens Finkhäuser
Paulo Mendes
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)