A Survey of Semantic Internet Routing Techniques
draft-king-irtf-semantic-routing-survey-01
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Replaced".
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Daniel King , Adrian Farrel | ||
| Last updated | 2021-06-14 (Latest revision 2021-05-06) | ||
| Replaced by | draft-king-rtgwg-semantic-networking-survey | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Additional resources | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-king-irtf-semantic-routing-survey-01
IRTF D. King
Internet-Draft Lancaster University
Intended status: Informational A. Farrel
Expires: December 16, 2021 Old Dog Consulting
June 14, 2021
A Survey of Semantic Internet Routing Techniques
draft-king-irtf-semantic-routing-survey-01
Abstract
Historically, the meaning of an IP address has been to identify an
interface on a network device. Routing protocols were developed
based on the assumption that a destination address had this semantic.
Over time, routing decisions were enhanced to route packets according
to additional information carried within the packets and dependent on
policy coded in, configured at, or signaled to the routers.
Many proposals have been made to add semantics to IP addresses. The
intent is usually to facilitate routing decisions based solely on the
address and without the need to find and process information carried
in other fields within the packets.
This document presents a brief survey of technologies related to IP
semantic addressing and routing proposals. Inclusion of a proposal
or technique in this document does not imply any level of support. A
partner document examines the challenges for routing in this context.
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 16, 2021.
King & Farrel Expires December 16, 2021 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Semantic Routing Survey June 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. Network Path Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. Path Aware Routing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. What is Semantic Addressing? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Architectural Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. Existing Approaches for Routing Based on Additional Semantics 9
4.1. Non-Address-Based Routing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1.1. Deep Packet Inspection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1.2. Differentiated Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.1.3. IPv6 Extension Headers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.2. Semantic Overlays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.2.1. Application-Layer Traffic Optimization . . . . . . . 11
4.2.2. Multipath TCP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.2.3. Service Function Chaining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.2.4. Path Computation Element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.3. Semantic Addressing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.3.1. Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) . . . . . . . . 12
4.3.2. Identifier-Locator Network Protocol . . . . . . . . . 12
4.3.3. Segment Routing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.3.4. Preferred Path Routing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.3.5. Information-Centric Networking . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.3.6. Connectionless Network Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.4. Group Semantics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.4.1. Anycast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.4.2. Prioritycast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.4.3. Multicast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.4.4. Automatic Multicast Tunneling . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.4.5. Bit Index Explicit Replication . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5. Overview of Current Routing Research Work . . . . . . . . . . 18
5.1. Path Aware Networking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
5.2. Clean Slate Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
King & Farrel Expires December 16, 2021 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Semantic Routing Survey June 2021
5.2.1. Scalability, Control, and Isolation on Next-
Generation Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5.2.2. Non IP Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5.3. Hybrid Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
5.4. Approaches that Modify Existing Routing Protocols . . . . 20
5.4.1. Dynamic Anycast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
5.5. No Changes Needed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
6. Challenges for Internet Routing Research . . . . . . . . . . 22
6.1. Routing Research Questions to be Addressed . . . . . . . 22
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
10. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
11. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
1. Introduction
The Internet continues to expand rapidly, and the Internet Protocol
(IP) has become the global standard in many types of computer network
independent of whether or what connectivity to the Internet it has.
At the same time, there are increasingly varied expectations of the
services and service level objectives that can be required from
networks. Packet-delivery quality expectations beyond best effort is
a growth area: throughput, latency, error recovery, and (absence of)
packet or connectivity loss, reordering, or jitter. Requirements
include relative or absolute guarantees or predictable elastic
changes under contention on these performance factors. This places
significant pressure on Service Providers to be aware of the type of
services being delivered, and to have access to sufficient
information about how individual packets should be treated to meet
the user, application and application instance requirements.
IP addresses facilitate the identification of how a device is
attached to the Internet and how it is distinguished from every other
device. Addresses are used to direct packets to a destination
(destination address) and indicate to where receiver and network
replies and error messages should be sent (source address). An IP
address may be assigned to each network interface of a device
connected to a network that uses IP. Applications use IP addresses
to both identify a host and to indicate the physical or virtual
location of the host.
This document presents a brief survey of proposals to extend the
semantics of IP addresses by assigning additional meanings to some
parts of the address, or by partitioning the address into a set of
subfields that give scoped addressing instructions. Some of these
proposals are intended to be deployed in limited domains [RFC8799]
King & Farrel Expires December 16, 2021 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Semantic Routing Survey June 2021
that are IP-based, while other proposals are intended for use across
the Internet. Limited domains may present their own challenges in
terms of ensuring the perimeter of the domains, and connecting
domains across the Internet.
The impact that some proposals may have on routing systems could
require clean-slate solutions, hybrid solutions, extensions to
existing routing protocols, or potentially no changes at all. A
separate document ([I-D.king-irtf-challenges-in-routing]) describes
the challenges to the routing system presented by changes to IP
address semantics, and sets out research questions that should be
investigated by those proposing new semantic address schemes.
2. Network Path Selection
Two approaches are typically used for network path selection.
Firstly, a priori assessment by having the feasible paths and
constraints computed in advance. Secondly, real-time computation in
response to changing network conditions.
The first approach may be conducted offline and allows for concurrent
or global optimization based on constraints and policy. As network
size and complexity increases, the required computing power may
increase exponentially for this type of computation.
The second approach must consider the speed of calculation where
complex constraints are applied to the path selection. This
processing may delay service setup and the responsiveness to changes
(such as failures) in the network. Network topology filters may be
applied to reduce the complexity of the network data and the
computation algorithm, however, the path computation accuracy and
optimality may be negatively affected.
In both approaches, the amount of information that needs to be
imported and processed can become very large (e.g., in large
networks, with many possible paths and route metrics), which might
impede the scalability of either method both in terms of the storage
and the distribution of the information.
In the last decade, significant research has been conducted into the
architecture of the future Internet (for example, [RESEARCHFIAref]
and [ITUNET2030ref]). During this research, several techniques
emerged, highlighting the benefits of path awareness and path
selection for end-hosts, and multiple path-aware network
architectures have been proposed, including SCION [SCIONref] and RINA
[RINAref], and the work of the Path Aware Networking Research Group
(PANRG) as discussed later in this document.
King & Farrel Expires December 16, 2021 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Semantic Routing Survey June 2021
When choosing the best paths or topology structures, the following
may need to be considered:
o The method by which a path, or set of paths, is to be calculated.
For example, a path may be selected automatically by the routing
protocol or may imposed (perhaps for traffic engineering reasons)
by a central controller or management entity.
o The criteria used for selecting the best path. For example,
classic route preference, or administrative policies such as
economic costs, resilience, security, and if requested, applying
geopolitical considerations.
2.1. Path Aware Routing
The current architecture for IP networking is built using a best-
effort philosophy. There are techniques discussed in this document
that attempt better-than-best-effort delivery. The start-point and
end-point of a path are identified using IP addresses, and traffic is
steered along the path that does not necessarily follow the "shortest
path first" route through the network. Furthermore, the path might
not run all the way from a packet's source to its destination. The
assumption is that a packet reaching the end of a path is forwarded
to its destination using best-effort techniques.
Evaluating and building paths that respect requirements that go
beyond the simple best effort model is particularly challenging and
computationally heavy since numerous quality-related parameters need
to be considered.
3. What is Semantic Addressing?
Networks are often divided into addressing regions for various
administrative or technological reasons. Different routing paradigms
may be applied in each region, and within a single region specific
"private" semantics may be applied to the IP addresses.
These address semantics are established using customer types,
customer connections, topological constraints, performance groups,
and security, etc. Service Providers or network operators will apply
local policies to user and application packets as they enter the
network possibly mapping addresses or possibly encapsulating them
with an additional IP header. In some case, the packet has its
source and destination within a single network and the network
operator can apply address semantics policies across the whole
network. In other cases (such as general IP-based traffic), a packet
will require a path across multiple networks, and each may apply its
own set of traffic forwarding policies. In these cases, there is
King & Farrel Expires December 16, 2021 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Semantic Routing Survey June 2021
often no consistency or guaranteed performance unless a Service Level
Agreement (SLA) is applied to traffic traversing multiple networks.
Semantic Addressing is a term that applies to any of the many
proposals have been made to add semantics to IPv6 addresses beyond
the simple identification of the source and destination, for example,
[I-D.jia-scenarios-flexible-address-structure]. These proposals may
set the meaning of an address within the scope of a limited domain,
or suggest an address semantic that is meaningful at specific points
in the network. In this context, a "limited domain" means that the
interpretation of the address is only applicable to a well-defined
set of network nodes, and if a packet bearing an address with a
modified semantic were to escape from the domain, the special meaning
of the address would be lost. Additionally (or alternatively), the
meaning of "specific points in the network" may be applied to the
source and destination nodes of a packet, while all transit nodes are
unaware of the special semantic, however it could be the case that
some key transit nodes are able to access the meaning of the address
and so apply special routing or other functions to the packet.
Such proposals include the following:
o Providing semantics specific to mobile networks so that a user or
device may move through the network without disruption to their
service [CONTENT-RTG-MOBILEref].
o Enabling optimized multicast traffic distribution by encoding
multicast tree and replication instructions within addresses
[MULTICAST-SRref].
o Using addresses to identify different device types so that their
traffic may be handled differently [SEMANTICRTG].
o Content-based routing (CBR), forwarding of the packet based on
message content rather than the destination addresses
[OPENSRNref].
o Deriving IP addresses from the lower layer identifiers and using
addresses depending on the underlying connectivity (for example,
[RFC6282].
o Identifying hierarchical connectivity so that routing can be
simplified [EIBPref].
o Providing geographic location information within addresses
[GEO-IPref].
King & Farrel Expires December 16, 2021 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Semantic Routing Survey June 2021
o Indicating the application or network function on a destination
device or at a specific location; or enable Service Function
Chaining (SFC).
o Expressing how a packet should be handled, prioritized, or
allocated network resources as it is forwarded through the network
[TERASTREAMref].
o Using cryptographic algorithms to mask the identity of the source
or destination, masking routing tables within the domain, while
still enabling packet forwarding across the network
[BLIND-FORWARDINGref].
In many cases, it may be argued that existing mechanisms applied on
top of the common address semantic defined in [RFC4291] can deliver
the correct functionality for these scenarios. That is, packets may
be tunneled over IP using a number of existing encapsulation
techniques. Nevertheless, there is pressure to reduce the amount of
encapsulation (partly to resist reduction in the maximum transmission
unit (MTU) over the network, and partly to achieve a flatter and more
transparent network architecture). This leads to investigations into
whether the current IP addresses can be "overloaded" (without any
negative connotations being attached to that word) by adding
semantics to the addresses.
Semantic Routing is the process of routing packets that contain IP
addresses with additional semantics, possibly using that information
to perform policy-based routing or other enhanced routing functions.
Several technical challenges exist for semantic routing: these are
discussed further in [I-D.king-irtf-challenges-in-routing].
3.1. Architectural Considerations
Semantics may be applied in a number of ways to integrate with
existing routing architectures. The most obvious is to build an
overlay such that IP is used only to route packets between network
nodes that utilize the semantics at a higher layer. There are a
number of uses of this approach including Service Function Chaining
(SFC) (see Section 4.2.3) and Information Centric Networking (ICN)
(see Section 4.3.5). An overlay may be achieved in a higher layer,
or may be performed using tunneling techniques (such as IP-in-IP) to
traverse the areas of the IP network that cannot parse additional
semantics and so join together those nodes that use the semantics.
The application of semantics may also be constrained to within a
limited domain. In some cases, such a domain will use IP, but be
disconnected from Internet. In those cases, the challenges are
limited to enabling the desired function within the domain. In other
King & Farrel Expires December 16, 2021 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Semantic Routing Survey June 2021
cases, traffic from within the domain is exchanged with other domains
that are connected together across an IP-based network using tunnels
or via application gateways. And in another case traffic from the
domain is routed across the Internet to other nodes and this requires
backward-compatible routing approaches, tunnels, or gateway
functions.
Limited domains [RFC8799] are a fact of networking life. They are
used to safely deploy or test features and functions in a controlled
environment so that they cannot contaminate other networks or the
Internet in general. Examples of limited domain in use today
include:
o Internet of Things (IoT) networks such as factory floors or home
networks
o Deterministic Networks (DetNet) that operate in campus networks or
private WANs to provide deterministic data paths with bounded
latency, low loss, predictable jitter, and high reliability.
o Content Distribution Networks (CDN) where clusters of servers
share content provision but may also need to be interconnected.
o Physical security may be provided for a site simply by not
permitting traffic to enter or leave the site. This may be
expanded by connecting multiple sites together using tunnels
across the Internet to form a Virtual Private Network (VPN).
Limited domains are also used as a driver for innovation. They
provide a safe space to run experiments and deploy new functions such
as advances in traffic steering, improvements in security, and new
routing protocols. A limited domains is a way to achieve incremental
deployability on an isolated island, and this enables innovation that
may (or may not) percolate to the whole Internet at a later stage.
For example, experiments to increase the programmability of network
forwarding functions need to be carried out in networks of similarly
capable nodes (so as to avoid the risks of broken interoperability or
forwarding loops), yet these experiments need to use real user data
that is flowing between hosts and servers.
Because limited domains don't always operate in isolation they may
need to be connected to other domains over the Internet, or to other
nodes within the wider Internet.
King & Farrel Expires December 16, 2021 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Semantic Routing Survey June 2021
4. Existing Approaches for Routing Based on Additional Semantics
Several IETF-based approaches are available to allow service
providers to perform policy-based routing, including identifying and
marking IP traffic either by changing the semantic of IP addresses or
by adding such a semantic in other fields/namespaces, enabling
differentiated handling by transit routers (queuing, dropping,
forwarding, etc.). The sections below distinguish between those
schemes that perform routing based on information other than IP
addresses, those that establish an overlay network in which to apply
semantics, and those that add semantics to the addresses. A further
separate group of approaches is presented here to cover the concept
of group semantics where a single address identifies more than one
end point.
4.1. Non-Address-Based Routing
Many routing schemes examine not just the destination address field,
but other field in the packet header to make routing decisions.
These approaches (sometimes referred to as "policy-based routing")
allow packets to follow different paths through the network depending
on semantics assigned to these other fields or simply based on
hashing algorithms operating on the values of those fields.
4.1.1. Deep Packet Inspection
Deep Packet Inspection (DPI) may be used by a router to learn the
characteristics of packets in order to forward them differently.
This involves looking into the packet beyond the top-level network-
layer header to identify the payload. Once identified, the traffic
type can be used as an input for marking the packets for network
handling, or for performing specific policies on the packets.
However, DPI may be expensive both in processing costs and latency.
The processing costs means that dedicated infrastructure is necessary
to carry out the function and this may have an associated financial
cost. The latency incurred may be too much for use with any delay/
jitter sensitive applications. As a result, DPI is difficult for
large-scale deployment and its usage is often limited to specific
functions at the edge of the network.
Despite this, "shallow DPI" is commonplace in routers today as they
examine the five-tuple of source address, destination address,
payload protocol, source port, and destination port to perform a hash
function for ECMP purposes (a form of policy-based routing).
King & Farrel Expires December 16, 2021 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Semantic Routing Survey June 2021
4.1.2. Differentiated Services
Quality of Service (QoS) based on Differentiated Services [RFC2474]
is a widely deployed framework specifying a simple and scalable
coarse-grained mechanism for classifying and managing network
traffic. However, in a service providers network, DiffServ codepoint
(DSCP) values cannot be trusted when they are set by the customer,
and may have different meanings as packets are passed between
networks.
In real-world scenarios, Service Providers deploy "remarking" points
at the edges of their network, re-classifying received packets by
rewriting the DSCP field according to local policy using information
such as the source/destination address, IP protocol number, transport
layer source/destination ports, and possibly applying DPI as
described in Section 4.1.1.
The traffic classification process and node-by-node processing leads
to increased packet processing overhead and complexity at the edge of
the Service Providers network.
4.1.3. IPv6 Extension Headers
[RFC8200] defines the IPv6 header and also a number of extension
headers. These extension headers can be used to carry additional
information that may be used by transit routers (the hop-by-hop
options header) or by the destination identified by the destination
address field (the destination options header). These extension
headers could be used to encode additional semantics that might then
enable routing decisions and determine what functions and operations
should be performed on a packet.
[RFC7872] and [I-D.ietf-v6ops-ipv6-ehs-packet-drops] provide some
discussions about the operational problems of using IPv6 extension
headers especially in multi-domain environments, while
[I-D.bonica-6man-ext-hdr-update] proposes to update RFC 8200 with
guidance regarding the processing, insertion and deletion of IPv6
extension headers.
4.2. Semantic Overlays
An overlay network is built on top of an underlay or transport
network. Packets are encapsulated with the header for the overlay
network to carry the additional information needed to provide the
desired function, and then the packets are encapsulated for transport
through the underlay network. In this case, no changes are made to
the meaning of the IP addresses in the underlay, but the destination
address identifies the next hop in the overlay network rather than
King & Farrel Expires December 16, 2021 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Semantic Routing Survey June 2021
the ultimate destination of the packet. In this way, packets can be
steered through different overlay nodes where routing decisions can
be made.
4.2.1. Application-Layer Traffic Optimization
Application-Layer Traffic Optimization (ALTO) [RFC7285] is an
architecture and protocol. ALTO defines abstractions and services to
provide simplified network views and network services to guide the
application usage of network resources, including cost.
An ALTO server gathers information about the network and answers
queries from an ALTO client that wants to find a suitable path for
traffic. ALTO responses are typically used to route whole flows (not
individual packets) either to suitable destinations (such as network
functions) or onto paths that have specific qualities.
4.2.2. Multipath TCP
Multipath TCP (MPTCP) [RFC8684] enables the use of TCP in a multipath
network using multiple host addresses. A Multipath TCP connection
provides a bidirectional bytestream between two hosts communicating
like normal TCP and thus does not require any change to the
applications. However, Multipath TCP enables the hosts to use
different paths with different IP addresses to exchange packets
belonging to the MPTCP connection.
MPTCP increases the available bandwidth, and so provides shorter
delays; it increases fault tolerance, by allowing the use of other
routes when one or more routes become unavailable; and it enables
traffic engineering and load balancing.
4.2.3. Service Function Chaining
Service Function Chaining (SFC) [RFC7665] is the process of sending
traffic through an ordered set (a sequence) of abstract service
functions. This may be achieved using an overlay encapsulation such
as the Network Service Header (NSH) [RFC8300] or MPLS [RFC8596] that
rely on tunneling through an underlay without any additional
semantics applied to the IP addresses.
Alternatively, SFC can be performed by adding semantics to the
addresses, for example, as in Section 4.3.3.
King & Farrel Expires December 16, 2021 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Semantic Routing Survey June 2021
4.2.4. Path Computation Element
The Path Computation Element (PCE) [RFC4655] is an architecture and
protocol [RFC5440] that can be used to assist with network path
selection. A PCE is an entity capable of computing paths for a
single or set of services. A PCE might be a network node, network
management station, or dedicated computational platform that is
resource-aware and has the ability to consider multiple constraints
for sophisticated path computation. PCE applications compute label
switched paths for MPLS and GMPLS traffic engineering, but the PCE
has been extended for a variety of additional traffic engineering
problems.
4.3. Semantic Addressing
In semantic addressing, additional information or meaning is placed
into the IP address, and this is used to route packets within the
network.
4.3.1. Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)
The Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) [RFC6830] was published by
the IETF as an Experimental RFC in 2013 and is now being moved to the
Standards Track [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] and
[I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]. LISP separates IP addresses into two
numbering spaces: Endpoint Identifiers (EIDs) and Routing Locators
(RLOCs). The former, the EIDs, are used to identify communication
end-points (as the name states) as well as local routing and
forwarding in the edge network. The latter, RLOCs, are used to
locate the EIDs in the Internet topology end are usually the address
of ASBRs (Autonomous System Border Routers). IP packets addressed
with EIDs are encapsulated with RLOCs for routing and forwarding over
the Internet.
As end-to-end packet forwarding includes both EIDs and RLOCs an
additional control-plane is needed. This control plane provides a
mapping system and basic traffic engineering capabilities.
Multihoming becomes easier because one EID can be associated to more
than one RLOC or even to a local network address prefix.
4.3.2. Identifier-Locator Network Protocol
The Identifier-Locator Network Protocol (ILNP) [RFC6740] is an
experimental network protocol designed to separate the two functions
of network addresses: identification of network endpoints, topology
or location information. Differently from LISP, ILNP encodes both
locator and identifier in the IPv6 address format (128 bits). More
specifically, the most significant 64 bits of the 128 bits IPv6
King & Farrel Expires December 16, 2021 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Semantic Routing Survey June 2021
address is the locator, while the less significant 64 bits form the
identifier. Upon reaching the destination network, a cache is used
to find the corresponding node. Furthermore, DNS can be dynamically
updated, which is essential for mobility and also for provider-
independent addresses. Similar to LISP, multihoming can be set by
assigning multiple locators to the same identifier. In addition,
identifiers can also be encrypted for privacy reasons. It was
intended that ILNP should be backwards-compatible with existing IP,
and that it should be incrementally-deployable.
4.3.3. Segment Routing
Segment Routing (SR) [RFC8402] leverages the source routing paradigm.
A node steers a packet through an ordered list of instructions,
called "segments". A segment can represent any instruction,
topological or service based. A segment can have a semantic local to
an SR node or global within an SR domain. SR provides a mechanism
that allows a flow to be restricted to a specific topological path,
while maintaining per-flow state only at the ingress node(s) to the
SR domain.
In SR for IPv6 networks (SRv6) segment routing functions are used to
achieve a networking objective that goes beyond packet routing, in
order to provide "network programming" [RFC8986]. The network
program is expressed as a list of instructions, which are represented
as 128-bit segments, called Segment Identifiers (SID) - encoded and
presented in the form of an IPv6 address. The first instruction of
the network program is placed in the Destination Address field of the
packet. If the network program requires more than one instruction,
the remaining list of instructions is placed in the Segment Routing
Extension Header (SRH)[RFC8754].
An SRv6 instruction can represent any topological or service-based
instruction. The SRv6 domain is the service provider domain where
SRv6 services are built to transport any kind of customer traffic
including IPv4, IPv6, or frames. SRv6 is the instantiation of
Segment Routing deployed on the IPv6 data plane. Therefore, in order
to support SRv6, the network must first be enabled for IPv6.
For nodes forwarding traffic, the SRH in the IPv6 header is only
processed if the destination address identifies the local node. In
this case, the node must take several actions, including reading the
SRH, performing any node-specific actions identified by the
destination address or the next SIDs in the SRH, and re-writing the
IPv6 destination address field using information from the SRH before
forwarding the packet.
King & Farrel Expires December 16, 2021 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Semantic Routing Survey June 2021
4.3.4. Preferred Path Routing
Preferred Path Routing (PPR)
[I-D.chunduri-lsr-isis-preferred-path-routing] is a proposed routing
protocol mechanism where alternate forwarding state is installed for
a set of different preferred paths. Each preferred path is described
as an ordered linear list of nodes, links, and network functions, and
the path is identified by a network-global preferred path identifier.
If a packet is marked with preferred path identifier, it is forwarded
according to the preferred path that has been installed on the
router. If a packet is not marked or if the preferred path is not
installed on the router, the packet is forwarded using the normal
shortest path first algorithm.
In PPR, the preferred path identifier is encoded in an IP address,
but the address is only used in an encapsulation of the end-to-end
packet. This approach is a hybrid in that it is applying a different
meaning to the IP addresses, using that meaning in an encapsulation,
but routing the packets through an existing IP network.
4.3.5. Information-Centric Networking
Information-Centric Networking (ICN) [ICNref] is an approach to
evolve the Internet infrastructure away from a host-centric paradigm,
based on perpetual connectivity and the end-to-end principle, to a
network architecture in which the focal point is information (or
content or data) that is assigned specific identifiers.
Several scenarios exist for semantic-based networking, providing
reachability based on Content Routing [CONTENTref] and Name Data
Networking [NDNref]. The technology area of ICN is now reaching
maturity, after many years of research and commercial investigation.
A technical discussion into the deployment and operation of ICNs
continues in the IETF: [RFC8763] provides several important
deployment considerations for facilitating ICN and practical
deployments.
Although ICN is primarily an overlay technology, a more recently
concept, Hybrid-Information-Centric Networking (hICN), has been
introduced [HICNref]. In an hICN environment the ICN aspect is
integrated into the IPv6 architecture, reusing existing IPv6 packet
formats with the intention of maintaining compatibility with existing
and deployed IP network technology without creating overlays that
might require a new packet format or additional encapsulations. The
work is described in [I-D.muscariello-intarea-hicn].
King & Farrel Expires December 16, 2021 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Semantic Routing Survey June 2021
4.3.6. Connectionless Network Protocol
The Connectionless Network Protocol (CLNP) [CLNPref] is a network
layer encoding that supports variable length, hierarchical
addressing. It is widely deployed in many communications networks
and is the ITU-T's standardized encoding for packets in the
management plane for Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SDH) networks.
For a while, CLNP was considered in competition with IP as the
network layer encoding for the Internet, but IP (in conjunction with
TCP) won out.
Many of the considerations for semantic addressing can be handled
using CLNP, and it is particularly well suited to applications that
demand variable length addresses or that structure addresses
hierarchically for routing or geo-political reasons.
Routing for CLNP can be achieved using the IS-IS routing protocol in
its full form as documented in [ISISref] rather than its IP-only form
[RFC1195]. While this may make it possible to use CLNP alongside IP
in some routed networks, it does not integrate the use of IP
addresses with additional semantics with the historic use of IP
addresses except in "ships that pass in the night" fashion.
Alternatively, [RFC1069] explains how to carry regular IP addresses
in CLNP.
4.4. Group Semantics
A mayor enhanced addressing semantic in IP is called "group
semantics". Here, an IP address identifies more than one individual
interface or node. This facilitates the delivery of a packet to any
one of a group of destinations, or to all members of a group.
4.4.1. Anycast
The first instance of group semantics to see deployment was what is
now called "anycast". This approach comes for "free" as part of
normal IP routing for unicast addresses. An anycast address can be
assigned to multiple interfaces on different nodes, and packets
carrying such a destination address are routed toward the instance
closest to the sender of the packet.
While duplicate identical addresses might have been considered a
configuration error, it now forms the basis of service redundancy in
IP networks. Multiple instances of services acting as responders use
the same IP address so that a consumer has a high chance of finding
the service even after network failures. IPv6 [RFC4291] formalizes
this semantic, following practices already used in before in IPv4 for
anycast. [RFC7094] discusses the architecture.
King & Farrel Expires December 16, 2021 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Semantic Routing Survey June 2021
Anycast presents a problem because not all the packets in a sequence
sent to the same anycast address will necessarily arrive at the same
destination. This situation can arise even in stable routing
systems. Solutions to this are not standardized as generic
mechanisms, and depend on a higher layer protocol performing an
initial discovery phase and then directing all subsequent packets
using unique unicast addresses.
There are also additional complexities for security when anycast is
used because security associations are best formed as one-to-one
relationships.
4.4.2. Prioritycast
A modification to anycast that can be instantiated by additional
engineering in the routing system is called "prioritycast". Instead
of relying on the shortest path forwarding semantic, prioritycast
directs all traffic to the anycast address instance that is reachable
and has the highest priority. This approach only requires small
modifications to routing protocols so that priorities are advertised
along side the addresses.
Prioritycast was originally introduced as a recommended operational
practice for deployments of Bidirectional PIM (Bidir-PIM) [RFC8736]
which requires a single active instance of its Rendezvous Point (RP)
service. The RP is the root of a bidirectional tree and prioritycast
addresses for RP allow fast failover without additional redundancy
protocols beside the routing protocol, which would otherwise be
necessary for such a redundancy service.
4.4.3. Multicast
Multicast address semantics support delivery to all members of a
group of destinations. This is a controlled variant of broadcasting
where packets are delivered to all possible receivers in a particular
(static) scope such as a multi-access link. Membership of a
multicast link is dynamically signalled by the group members, and a
group is identified by a specific address.
IP multicast [RFC1112], based on the protocol and service definition
aspects of Steve Deering's PhD, is widely deployed for IPv4. It is
equally adopted and used in IPv6 using the addressing architecture
specified in [RFC4291]. In IP multicast (Any Source Multicast - ASM)
any node can send to the multicast group and have its packets
delivered to all members of the group.
Research deployments in the 1990s (the so called 'MBone' [MBONEref])
indicated that IP multicast gave rise to a number of issues related
King & Farrel Expires December 16, 2021 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Semantic Routing Survey June 2021
to address assignment, implementation, scale, and security. The
problem of allocation and management of IP multicast (group)
addresses led to several proposals including Multicast Address
Dynamic Client Allocation Protocol (MADCAP) [RFC2730], the Multicast
Address Allocation Architecture (MALLOC) [RFC6308], the Multicast
Address-Set Claim Protocol (MASC) [RFC2909], and the Multicast-Scope
Zone Announcement Protocol (MZAP) [RFC2776], but none was widely
adopted. Attempts to create a complete routing protocol suite for IP
multicast service model within the IETF resulted in the Multicast
Source Discovery Protocol (MSDP) being published as an experimental
RFC [RFC3618].
The popularity of multicast as a concept and the widespread
deployment of commercial IPv4 multicast led to the development of
"Source Specific Multicast" service (SSM) [RFC4607]. In SSM, the
combination of the Source and Group addresses (S,G) of an IP
multicast packet form a so-called SSM channel address, which
identifies group of receivers and implies a single permitted sender.
Receivers subscribe to every SSM channel.
From the perspective of a service user, SSM solves the security issue
(only valid sources can send traffic) and the address assignment
issue (all group addresses are relative to the source address). For
the operator, SSM also eliminates the complex operational
requirements of ASM.
4.4.4. Automatic Multicast Tunneling
Automatic Multicast Tunneling (AMT) [RFC7450] is a protocol for
delivering multicast traffic from sources in a multicast-enabled
network to receivers that lack multicast connectivity to the source
network. The protocol uses UDP encapsulation and unicast replication
to provide this functionality as a hybrid solution using both
multicast routing and an overlay approach.
4.4.5. Bit Index Explicit Replication
The IETF standardized or otherwise deployed protocol solutions in
support of ASM and SSM in about 2015 relied all on per-hop, per ASM-
group/per-SSM-channel stateful hop-by-hop forwarding/replication.
Service Provider at that time were starting to removing or reduce
heavy-weight control and per-hop forwarding processing in unicast
caused by MPLS LDP/RSVP-TE driven designs, replacing it with more
lightweight MPLS-SR and later SRv6 forwarding and associated control
planes. But to reduce the cost for multicast service, the only
transit-hop stateless solution available was ingress-replication,
tunnel multicast across unicast, hence trading hop-by-hop state (and
King & Farrel Expires December 16, 2021 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Semantic Routing Survey June 2021
its control and management plane cost) in the network against traffic
overhead and (under congestion) higher latency.
Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER) [RFC8279] addresses these
problems. BIER does not contain the notion of ASM or SSM groups.
Instead, a sender enumerates the set of receivers to which the packet
is to be delivered. The network routers forward packets and
replicate them onto the shortest paths to the destinations. As the
packets are replicated, so the enumeration of the receivers is pruned
on each copy of the packet.
BIER is able to use existing routing protocols without modification,
but requires enhancements in the forwarding plane to encode, parse,
and act on the set of receivers. The BIER information is carried in
new encapsulations [RFC8296] that is carried hop-by-hop in IP. Thus,
the additional semantic is in an overlay.
5. Overview of Current Routing Research Work
Several recent techniques for improving IP-based routing have been
proposed, some of these are highlighted below.
5.1. Path Aware Networking
The IRTF's Path Aware Networking Research Group [PANRGref] aims to
support research in bringing path aware techniques into use in the
Internet. This research overlaps with many past and existing IETF
and IRTF efforts including multipath transport protocols, congestion
control in multiply-connected environments, traffic engineering, and
alternate routing architectures.
[I-D.irtf-panrg-path-properties] offers a vocabulary of path
properties. By doing so it gives some clarity of the distinction
between path aware routing and semantic routing as considered in this
document.
[I-D.irtf-panrg-what-not-to-do] provides a catalog and analysis of
past efforts to develop and deploy Path Aware techniques. Most, but
not all, of these mechanisms were considered at higher levels,
although some apply at the IP routing and forwarding layer.
5.2. Clean Slate Approaches
Incremental updates to the current Internet are seen as suboptimal
and as providing an undesirable long-term solution [CLEANSLATEref].
A clean slate redesign of inter-domain routing would provide many
benefits and could reuse existing legacy routing protocols for intra-
King & Farrel Expires December 16, 2021 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Semantic Routing Survey June 2021
domain communication. The following subsections outline current
proposals for clean slate inter-domain Internet routing.
5.2.1. Scalability, Control, and Isolation on Next-Generation Networks
The SCION (Scalability, Control, and Isolation on Next-Generation
Networks) [SCIONref] inter-domain network architecture has been
designed to address security and scalability issues and provides an
alternative to current Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) solutions. The
SCION proposal combines a globally distributed public key
infrastructure, a way to efficiently derive symmetric keys between
any network entities, and the forwarding approach of packet-carried
forwarding state.
SCION End-hosts fetch viable path segments from the path server
infrastructure, and construct the exact forwarding route themselves
by combining those path segments. The architecture ensures that a
variety of combinations among the path segments are feasible, while
cryptographic protections prevent unauthorized combinations or path-
segment alteration. The architecture further enables path
validation, providing per-packet verifiable guarantees on the path
traversed.
5.2.2. Non IP Approaches
5.2.2.1. Recursive InterNetwork Architecture
Recursive Inter Network Architecture (RINA) [RINAref] builds upon the
principle that applications communicate through Inter-process
Communication (IPC) facilities. For an application to communicate
through the distributed IPC facility, it only needs to know the name
of the destination application and to use the IPC interface to
request communication.
By leveraging IPC concepts RINA allows two processes to communicate,
IPC requires certain functions such as locating processes,
determining permission, passing information, scheduling, and managing
memory. Similarly, two applications on different end-hosts should
communicate by utilizing the services of a distributed IPC facility
(DIF). A DIF is an organizing structure, generally referred to as a
"layer".
The scope and functions provided by the different IPC facilities may
vary given the different type of network and performance goals.
Moreover, an IPC layer may recursively request services from other
IPC layers. The idea of recursively using multiple inter-process
communication services creates a multilayer structure repeated until
King & Farrel Expires December 16, 2021 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Semantic Routing Survey June 2021
an IPC facility can fit well for physical technologies, e.g., wired
or wireless networks.
5.2.2.2. Expedited Internet Bypass Protocol
The Expedited Internet Bypass Protocol (EIBP) [EIBPref] is a clean
slate approach to routing and forwarding in the Internet using the
Internet infrastructure, but bypassing the Internet Protocol (IP).
The EIBP method may be deployed in current routers and when invoked
for a specific end to end IP hosts or networks, EIBP bypasses the
heavy traffic and security challenges faced at Layer-3. EIBP does
not require routing protocols, instead it abstracts network
structural (physical or logical) information into intelligent
forwarding addresses that are acquired by EIBP routers automatically.
The Forwarding tables used by EIBP are proportional to the
connectivity (degree) at a routing device making the protocol
scalable. The EIBP routing system does not require network-wide
dissemination. Topology change impacts are local and thus
instabilities on topology changes are minimal. EIBP is a low
configuration protocol, which can be deployed in an AS and extended
to multiple ASes independently. EIBP evaluations were conducted
using GENI testbeds and compared to IP using Open Shortest Path First
and Border Gateway Protocol. Significant performance improvements in
terms of convergence and churn rates highlight the capabilities of
EIBP.
5.3. Hybrid Approaches
Some research work is engaged in examining the emerging set of new
requirements that exceed the network and transport services of the
current Internet, which only delivers "best effort" service. This
work aims to determine what features can be built on top of existing
solutions by adding additional new components or features. A
starting point for this discussion can be found in
[I-D.bryant-arch-fwd-layer-ps].
5.4. Approaches that Modify Existing Routing Protocols
Some routing solutions to support semantic addressing may be possible
by applying small changes to existing routing protocols. These
modifications may be:
o Backward compatible with the pre-existing protocol enabling
insertion into existing networks.
o Compatible with forwarding existing IP packets enabling support of
legacy traffic.
King & Farrel Expires December 16, 2021 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Semantic Routing Survey June 2021
o Applicable only to deployment within a limited domain.
5.4.1. Dynamic Anycast
Dyncast (Dynamic anycast) addresses the problem of directing traffic
from a client to one service instance among several available, while
considering decision metrics beyond shortest path when doing so.
Those service instances are therefore possible destinations for a
specific service demand. [I-D.liu-dyncast-ps-usecases] outlines
several use cases where such traffic steering requirement is
desirable and may occur, such as in edge computing scenarios but also
in distribution of video content in scenarios like autonomous
driving. The draft also outlines problems with existing solutions,
most notably latency in changing relations from one service instance
to another due to a change in metric, which defines that decision
(e.g., load in servers, latency, or a combination of several such
metrics).
Key to the proposed dyncast [I-D.li-dyncast-architecture]
architecture is to build on the notion of (IP) anycast, while
changing the addressing semantic from a locator-based addressing to a
service-oriented one. Here, the initial "service demand" packet is
being identified through a service identifier as destination address.
This identifier is then mapped onto a binding IP (locator-based)
address at the ingress of the network, allowing for locator-based
routing to be used throughout the network. The ingress-based
architecture is designed in such a way that ingress nodes upon
arrival of a new service demand can determine which instance (i.e.,
which binding IP address) to use considering both network- and
service-related metrics. These metrics can be distributed among
ingress nodes in various ways, including over a routing protocol
solution.
The overall forwarding decision is based on the adherence to what is
termed "instance affinity", i.e., the need to adhere to a previous
routing decision for more than one packet, unlike IP forwarding on
locator addresses. This affinity is created, by means of a binding
table on the ingress nodes, since often more than one packet is
needed for the overall service-level transaction with a specific
service instance. For instance, HTTP requests may span more than one
routed packet. Also, a service instance may also create ephemeral
state, which requires the client to continue communicating with this
instance for the duration of this state. While the affinity is
entirely defined by the application layer protocol, the network layer
takes the affinity marking as input into the decision to renew its
routing decision.
King & Farrel Expires December 16, 2021 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Semantic Routing Survey June 2021
5.5. No Changes Needed
It is entirely possible that some forms of modified address semantic
will work perfectly well with existing routing protocols and
mechanisms either across the whole Internet or within limited and
carefully controlled domains. Claims for this sort of functionality
need to be the subject of careful research and analysis as the
existing protocols were developed with a different view of the
meaning of IP addresses, and because routing systems are notoriously
fragile.
6. Challenges for Internet Routing Research
Improving IP-based semantic network routing capabilities and capacity
so that they scale and address a set of growing requirements presents
significant research challenges, and will require contributions from
the networking research community.
6.1. Routing Research Questions to be Addressed
As research into the scenarios and possible uses of semantic
addressing progresses, a number of questions need to be addressed in
the scope of routing. These questions go beyond "Why do we need this
function?" and "What could we achieve by carrying this additional
semantic in an IP address?" The questions are also distinct from
issues of how the additional semantics can be encoded within an IP
address. All of those issues are, of course, important
considerations in the debate about semantic addressing, but they form
part of the essential groundwork of research into semantic addressing
itself.
The document "Challenges for the Internet Routing Infrastructure
Introduced by Changes in Address Semantics"
[I-D.king-irtf-challenges-in-routing] sets out the challenges for the
routing system, and how it might be impacted by the use of semantic
addressing.
7. Security Considerations
This document is a survey of existing work and so introduces no
security considerations of itself. However, many of the proposals
referenced either are intended to improve security or have their own
security implications. For example:
o In network path selection, the criteria used for selecting the
best path may include security considerations.
o Semantic addresses may be established using security criteria.
King & Farrel Expires December 16, 2021 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft Semantic Routing Survey June 2021
o Physical security may be provided for a site or limited domain
simply by not permitting traffic to enter or leave the site. This
may be expanded by connecting multiple sites together using
tunnels across the Internet to form a Virtual Private Network
(VPN) such that the same level of security is shared by all nodes
that participate in the VPN provided that the tunnels are
themselves secure.
o There are also additional complexities for security when any form
of multicast or anycast is used because of issues of address
assignment and the formation of security associations.
8. IANA Considerations
This document makes no requests for IANA action.
9. Acknowledgements
Thanks to Stewart Bryant for useful conversations. Luigi Iannone,
Robert Raszuk, Dirk Trossen, Ron Bonica, Marie-Jose Montpetit, Yizhou
Li, Toerless Eckert, Tony Li, Joel Halpern, and Carsten Bormann made
helpful suggestions. The text on Dyncast is based on suggestions
from Dirk Trossen, Luigi Iannone, and Yizhou Li. Toerless Eckert
suggested text for the multicast sections.
This work is partially supported by the European Commission under
Horizon 2020 grant agreement number 101015857 Secured autonomic
traffic management for a Tera of SDN flows (Teraflow).
10. Contributors
Joanna Dang
Email: dangjuanna@huawei.com
11. Informative References
[BLIND-FORWARDINGref]
Simsek, I., "On-Demand Blind Packet Forwarding",
Paper 30th International Telecommunication Networks and
Applications Conference (ITNAC), 2020, 2020,
<https://www.computer.org/csdl/proceedings-article/
itnac/2020/09315187/1qmfFPPggrC>.
King & Farrel Expires December 16, 2021 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft Semantic Routing Survey June 2021
[CLEANSLATEref]
Feldmann, A., "Internet Clean-Slate Design: What and
Why?", Paper Annals of telecommunications-annales des
telecommunications;64(5):271-6, 2009, 2009,
<http://ccr.sigcomm.org/online/files/p59-feldmannA.pdf>.
[CLNPref] "Protocol for providing the connectionless-mode network
service: Protocol specification - Part 1",
standard ISO/IEC 8473-1:1998, 1998,
<https://www.iso.org/standard/30931.html>.
[CONTENT-RTG-MOBILEref]
Liu, H. and W. He, "Rich Semantic Content-oriented Routing
for mobile Ad Hoc Networks", Paper The International
Conference on Information Networking (ICOIN2014), 2014,
2014, <https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6799682>.
[CONTENTref]
Choi, J., Han, J., and E. Cho, "A survey on content-
oriented networking for efficient content delivery",
Paper IEEE Communications Magazine, 49(3): 121-127, May
2011., 2011, <https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/
iel5/35/5723785/05723809.pdf>.
[EIBPref] Shenoy, N., "Can We Improve Internet Performance? An
Expedited Internet Bypass Protocol", Presentation 28th
IEEE International Conference on Network Protocols, 2020,
<https://icnp20.cs.ucr.edu/Slides/NIPAA/D-3_invited.pptx>.
[GEO-IPref]
Dasu, T., Kanza, Y., and D. Srivastava, "Geotagging IP
Packets for Location-Aware Software-Defined Networking in
the Presence of Virtual Network Functions", Paper 25th ACM
SIGSPATIAL International Conference on Advances in
Geographic Information Systems (ACM SIGSPATIAL 2017),
2017, <https://about.att.com/ecms/dam/sites/labs_research/
content/publications/
AI_Geotagging_IP_Packets_for_Location.pdf>.
[HICNref] Carofiglio, G., Muscariello, L., Auge, J., Papalini, M.,
Sardara, M., and A. Compagno, "Enabling ICN in the
Internet Protocol: Analysis and Evaluation of the Hybrid-
ICN Architecture", Paper Proceedings of the 6th ACM
Conference on Information-Centric Networking, 2019., 2019,
<https://www.researchgate.net/publication/336344520_Enabli
ng_ICN_in_the_Internet_Protocol_Analysis_and_Evaluation_of
_the_Hybrid-ICN_Architecture>.
King & Farrel Expires December 16, 2021 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft Semantic Routing Survey June 2021
[I-D.bonica-6man-ext-hdr-update]
Bonica, R. and T. Jinmei, "Inserting, Processing And
Deleting IPv6 Extension Headers", draft-bonica-6man-ext-
hdr-update-05 (work in progress), March 2021.
[I-D.bryant-arch-fwd-layer-ps]
Bryant, S., Chunduri, U., Eckert, T., and A. Clemm,
"Forwarding Layer Problem Statement", draft-bryant-arch-
fwd-layer-ps-02 (work in progress), January 2021.
[I-D.chunduri-lsr-isis-preferred-path-routing]
Chunduri, U., Li, R., White, R., Tantsura, J., Contreras,
L. M., and Y. Qu, "Preferred Path Routing (PPR) in IS-IS",
draft-chunduri-lsr-isis-preferred-path-routing-06 (work in
progress), September 2020.
[I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis]
Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., Lewis, D., and A.
Cabellos, "The Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)",
draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-36 (work in progress), November
2020.
[I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]
Farinacci, D., Maino, F., Fuller, V., and A. Cabellos,
"Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Control-Plane",
draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-30 (work in progress), November
2020.
[I-D.ietf-v6ops-ipv6-ehs-packet-drops]
Gont, F., Hilliard, N., Doering, G., Kumari, W., Huston,
G., and W. (. Liu, "Operational Implications of IPv6
Packets with Extension Headers", draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-
ehs-packet-drops-06 (work in progress), April 2021.
[I-D.irtf-panrg-path-properties]
Enghardt, T. and C. Kraehenbuehl, "A Vocabulary of Path
Properties", draft-irtf-panrg-path-properties-02 (work in
progress), February 2021.
[I-D.irtf-panrg-what-not-to-do]
Dawkins, S., "Path Aware Networking: Obstacles to
Deployment (A Bestiary of Roads Not Taken)", draft-irtf-
panrg-what-not-to-do-19 (work in progress), March 2021.
[I-D.jia-scenarios-flexible-address-structure]
Jia, Y., Li, G., and S. Jiang, "Scenarios for Flexible
Address Structure", draft-jia-scenarios-flexible-address-
structure-00 (work in progress), October 2020.
King & Farrel Expires December 16, 2021 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft Semantic Routing Survey June 2021
[I-D.king-irtf-challenges-in-routing]
King, D., Dang, J., and A. Farrel, "Challenges for the
Internet Routing Infrastructure Introduced by Changes in
Address Semantics", draft-king-irtf-challenges-in-
routing-02 (work in progress), May 2021.
[I-D.li-dyncast-architecture]
Li, Y., Iannone, L., Trossen, D., and P. Liu, "Dynamic-
Anycast Architecture", draft-li-dyncast-architecture-00
(work in progress), February 2021.
[I-D.liu-dyncast-ps-usecases]
Liu, P., Willis, P., and D. Trossen, "Dynamic-Anycast
(Dyncast) Use Cases & Problem Statement", draft-liu-
dyncast-ps-usecases-01 (work in progress), February 2021.
[I-D.muscariello-intarea-hicn]
Muscariello, L., Carofiglio, G., Auge, J., Papalini, M.,
and M. Sardara, "Hybrid Information-Centric Networking",
draft-muscariello-intarea-hicn-04 (work in progress), May
2020.
[ICNref] Barbera, D., Xylomenos, G., Ververidis, C., Siris, V., and
N. Fotiou, "A Survey of information-centric networking
research", Paper IEEE Communications Surveys and
Tutorials, vol. 16, Iss. 2, Q2 2014, 2014,
<https://www.scopus.com/record/
display.uri?eid=2-s2.0-84901242669>.
[ISISref] "Intermediate System to Intermediate System intra-domain
routeing information exchange protocol for use in
conjunction with the protocol for providing the
connectionless-mode network service", standard ISO/IEC
10589, 2002, <https://standards.iso.org/ittf/
PubliclyAvailableStandards/
c030932_ISO_IEC_10589_2002(E).zip>.
[ITUNET2030ref]
"Network 2030 Architecture Framework", Technical
Specification ITU-T Focus Group on Technologies for
Network 2030, 2020, <https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-
T/focusgroups/net2030/Documents/Network_2030_Architecture-
framework.pdf>.
[MBONEref]
Savetz, K., Randall, N., and Y. Lepage, "MBONE:
Multicasting Tomorrow's Internet", Book IDG, 1996,
<https://www.savetz.com/mbone/>.
King & Farrel Expires December 16, 2021 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft Semantic Routing Survey June 2021
[MULTICAST-SRref]
Jia, W. and W. He, "A Scalable Multicast Source Routing
Architecture for Data Center Networks", Paper IEEE
Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, vol. 32, no.
1, pp. 116-123, January 2014, 2014,
<https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6799682>.
[NDNref] Zhang, L., Afanasyev, A., and J. Burke, "Named Data
Networking", Paper ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication,
Review 44(3): 66-73, 2014, 2014.
[OPENSRNref]
Ren, P., Wang, X., Zhao, B., Wu, C., and H. Sun, "OpenSRN:
A Software-defined Semantic Routing Network Architecture",
Paper IEEE Conference on Computer Communications Workshops
(INFOCOM WKSHPS), Hong Kong, 2015, 2015,
<https://www.researchgate.net/
publication/308827498_OpenSRN_A_software-
defined_semantic_routing_network_architecture>.
[PANRGref]
"Path Aware Networking Research Group", RG Path Aware
Networking Research Group,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/rg/panrg/about>.
[RESEARCHFIAref]
Pan, J., Paul, S., and R. Jain, "A Survey of the Research
on Future Internet Architectures", Paper IEEE
Communications Magazine, vol. 49, no. 7, July 2011, 2014,
<https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/5936152>.
[RFC1069] Callon, R. and H. Braun, "Guidelines for the use of
Internet-IP addresses in the ISO Connectionless-Mode
Network Protocol", RFC 1069, DOI 10.17487/RFC1069,
February 1989, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1069>.
[RFC1112] Deering, S., "Host extensions for IP multicasting", STD 5,
RFC 1112, DOI 10.17487/RFC1112, August 1989,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1112>.
[RFC1195] Callon, R., "Use of OSI IS-IS for routing in TCP/IP and
dual environments", RFC 1195, DOI 10.17487/RFC1195,
December 1990, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1195>.
King & Farrel Expires December 16, 2021 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft Semantic Routing Survey June 2021
[RFC2474] Nichols, K., Blake, S., Baker, F., and D. Black,
"Definition of the Differentiated Services Field (DS
Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers", RFC 2474,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2474, December 1998,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2474>.
[RFC2730] Hanna, S., Patel, B., and M. Shah, "Multicast Address
Dynamic Client Allocation Protocol (MADCAP)", RFC 2730,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2730, December 1999,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2730>.
[RFC2776] Handley, M., Thaler, D., and R. Kermode, "Multicast-Scope
Zone Announcement Protocol (MZAP)", RFC 2776,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2776, February 2000,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2776>.
[RFC2909] Radoslavov, P., Estrin, D., Govindan, R., Handley, M.,
Kumar, S., and D. Thaler, "The Multicast Address-Set Claim
(MASC) Protocol", RFC 2909, DOI 10.17487/RFC2909,
September 2000, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2909>.
[RFC3618] Fenner, B., Ed. and D. Meyer, Ed., "Multicast Source
Discovery Protocol (MSDP)", RFC 3618,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3618, October 2003,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3618>.
[RFC4291] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
Architecture", RFC 4291, DOI 10.17487/RFC4291, February
2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4291>.
[RFC4607] Holbrook, H. and B. Cain, "Source-Specific Multicast for
IP", RFC 4607, DOI 10.17487/RFC4607, August 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4607>.
[RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and J. Ash, "A Path Computation
Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4655, August 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4655>.
[RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation
Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, March 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5440>.
[RFC6282] Hui, J., Ed. and P. Thubert, "Compression Format for IPv6
Datagrams over IEEE 802.15.4-Based Networks", RFC 6282,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6282, September 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6282>.
King & Farrel Expires December 16, 2021 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft Semantic Routing Survey June 2021
[RFC6308] Savola, P., "Overview of the Internet Multicast Addressing
Architecture", RFC 6308, DOI 10.17487/RFC6308, June 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6308>.
[RFC6740] Atkinson, RJ. and SN. Bhatti, "Identifier-Locator Network
Protocol (ILNP) Architectural Description", RFC 6740,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6740, November 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6740>.
[RFC6830] Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, "The
Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)", RFC 6830,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6830, January 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6830>.
[RFC7094] McPherson, D., Oran, D., Thaler, D., and E. Osterweil,
"Architectural Considerations of IP Anycast", RFC 7094,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7094, January 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7094>.
[RFC7285] Alimi, R., Ed., Penno, R., Ed., Yang, Y., Ed., Kiesel, S.,
Previdi, S., Roome, W., Shalunov, S., and R. Woundy,
"Application-Layer Traffic Optimization (ALTO) Protocol",
RFC 7285, DOI 10.17487/RFC7285, September 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7285>.
[RFC7450] Bumgardner, G., "Automatic Multicast Tunneling", RFC 7450,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7450, February 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7450>.
[RFC7665] Halpern, J., Ed. and C. Pignataro, Ed., "Service Function
Chaining (SFC) Architecture", RFC 7665,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7665, October 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7665>.
[RFC7872] Gont, F., Linkova, J., Chown, T., and W. Liu,
"Observations on the Dropping of Packets with IPv6
Extension Headers in the Real World", RFC 7872,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7872, June 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7872>.
[RFC8200] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8200>.
King & Farrel Expires December 16, 2021 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft Semantic Routing Survey June 2021
[RFC8279] Wijnands, IJ., Ed., Rosen, E., Ed., Dolganow, A.,
Przygienda, T., and S. Aldrin, "Multicast Using Bit Index
Explicit Replication (BIER)", RFC 8279,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8279, November 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8279>.
[RFC8296] Wijnands, IJ., Ed., Rosen, E., Ed., Dolganow, A.,
Tantsura, J., Aldrin, S., and I. Meilik, "Encapsulation
for Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER) in MPLS and Non-
MPLS Networks", RFC 8296, DOI 10.17487/RFC8296, January
2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8296>.
[RFC8300] Quinn, P., Ed., Elzur, U., Ed., and C. Pignataro, Ed.,
"Network Service Header (NSH)", RFC 8300,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8300, January 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8300>.
[RFC8402] Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L.,
Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment
Routing Architecture", RFC 8402, DOI 10.17487/RFC8402,
July 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8402>.
[RFC8596] Malis, A., Bryant, S., Halpern, J., and W. Henderickx,
"MPLS Transport Encapsulation for the Service Function
Chaining (SFC) Network Service Header (NSH)", RFC 8596,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8596, June 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8596>.
[RFC8684] Ford, A., Raiciu, C., Handley, M., Bonaventure, O., and C.
Paasch, "TCP Extensions for Multipath Operation with
Multiple Addresses", RFC 8684, DOI 10.17487/RFC8684, March
2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8684>.
[RFC8736] Venaas, S. and A. Retana, "PIM Message Type Space
Extension and Reserved Bits", RFC 8736,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8736, February 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8736>.
[RFC8754] Filsfils, C., Ed., Dukes, D., Ed., Previdi, S., Leddy, J.,
Matsushima, S., and D. Voyer, "IPv6 Segment Routing Header
(SRH)", RFC 8754, DOI 10.17487/RFC8754, March 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8754>.
[RFC8763] Rahman, A., Trossen, D., Kutscher, D., and R. Ravindran,
"Deployment Considerations for Information-Centric
Networking (ICN)", RFC 8763, DOI 10.17487/RFC8763, April
2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8763>.
King & Farrel Expires December 16, 2021 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft Semantic Routing Survey June 2021
[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>.
[RFC8986] Filsfils, C., Ed., Camarillo, P., Ed., Leddy, J., Voyer,
D., Matsushima, S., and Z. Li, "Segment Routing over IPv6
(SRv6) Network Programming", RFC 8986,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8986, February 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8986>.
[RINAref] Day, J., "Patterns in Network Architecture: A Return to
Fundamentals", Book Prentice Hall, 2008.
[SCIONref]
Barbera, D., Chaut, L., Perrig, A., Reischuk, R., and P.
Szalachowski, "Patterns in Network Architecture: A Return
to Fundamentals", Paper The ACM, vol. 60, no. 6, June
2017, 2017,
<https://icnp20.cs.ucr.edu/Slides/NIPAA/D-3_invited.pptx>.
[SEMANTICRTG]
Strassner, J., Sung-Su, K., and J. Won-Ki, "Semantic
Routing for Improved Network Management in the Future
Internet", Book Chapter Springer, Recent Trends in
Wireless and Mobile Networks, 2010, 2010,
<https://link.springer.com/
chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-14171-3_14>.
[TERASTREAMref]
Zaluski, B., Rajtar, B., Habjani, H., Baranek, M., Slibar,
N., Petracic, R., and T. Sukser, "Terastream
implementation of all IP new architecture", Paper 36th
International Convention on Information and Communication
Technology, Electronics and Microelectronics (MIPRO),
2013, 2013,
<https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6596297>.
Authors' Addresses
Daniel King
Lancaster University
UK
Email: d.king@lancaster.ac.uk
King & Farrel Expires December 16, 2021 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft Semantic Routing Survey June 2021
Adrian Farrel
Old Dog Consulting
UK
Email: adrian@olddog.co.uk
King & Farrel Expires December 16, 2021 [Page 32]