Subject: New IP (was: Re: Contractual Networking at IETF 112)

From: Nick Hilliard <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2021 20:20:42 +0000

Charlie Perkins wrote on 05/11/2021 19:55:
> We have organized a side meeting on Contractual Networking for IETF 
> 112.  It is happening on Tuesday at 10am Pacific Time.

For those of us who haven't been following too closely, can you provide 
some background about how this fits into the New IP model that Huawei is 
pushing?

Nick

---

From: Charles Perkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2021 19:31:38 -0700

Hello Nick,

I am not familiar with the particulars of the New IP model.   It might 
be hard to tell how well it fits, since a lot of the purpose of the side 
meeting is to make some discussion about whether Contractual Networking 
deserves more attention and if so what parts are not already done 
elsewhere.  If New IP is relevant, maybe someone familiar with it could 
bring some discussion to the session next Tuesday.

Naturally Yours,
Charlie P.

On 11/5/2021 1:20 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> For those of us who haven't been following too closely, can you 
> provide some background about how this fits into the New IP model that 
> Huawei is pushing?
>
> Nick
>

---

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2021 13:32:31 -0500

For those interested, here are some papers describing some aspects of the
project:

new_ip_20191226 (1)-edited-edited.pdf (ft.com)
<http://prod-upp-image-read.ft.com/e8dd8c46-70e6-11ea-95fe-fcd274e920ca>
Main September standard proposal-converted-edited.pdf (ft.com)
<http://prod-upp-image-read.ft.com/ec34d7aa-70e6-11ea-95fe-fcd274e920ca>
Huawei presentation 2-edited.pdf (ft.com)
<http://prod-upp-image-read.ft.com/eff4a82a-70e6-11ea-95fe-fcd274e920ca>
Microsoft Word - Human Rights and Technical Standards Manuscript -
16-08-21.docx (oxil.uk)
<https://oxil.uk/publications/2021-08-27-technical-standards-human-rights/Human_rights_and_technical_standards.pdf>

Rather than telling people that the 1980s model is perfect and immutable, I
encourage people to look at how very minor tweaks to the existing IP
infrastructure could achieve very similar results.

Looking at some of the use cases described, they appear to me to be a
combination of fluff (hologram! distributed ledgers!) and rather myopic
vision.

I already have rather more than 256 networked devices in my house. So the
notion that going to an 8 bit address space is a useful optimization seems
like someone has utterly lost the plot. Like the dimwits who are unable to
imagine that four people living in a 3 bedroom house with a kitchen, living
room have already used up the six slots allowed by DECT6.0 handset vendors
when they put a handset each side of the master bed.

Given that IP headers are already rather large for the 1500 byte packets
the ethernet folk have hobbled us with, I can't see the utility in gobbling
up even more. At the rate this proposal is going, it is going to be
necessary to split each packet header over multiple packets.