Subject: [ncrg] Relevance for IPv4 address sharing mechanisms

From: Nejc Škoberne <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2012 11:19:49 -0500

Hi,

I work on research on IPv4 address sharing mechanisms, which are in 
other WGs, so my question is: will this framework also be useful for 
evaluating complexity of these mechanisms? I.e. Stateful NAT64 (RFC 
6146), DS-Lite (RFC 6333), current MAP and 4rd Internet Drafts and so 
on. Maybe it's a stupid question, but at the meeting today, routing 
protocols were mostly discussed.

Thanks,
Nejc

---

From: Rana Sircar <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2012 21:31:50 +0530

Hi All,

Will it be possible to share the minutes of the discussions?

Best Regards,
Rana
GSM+919899003705|

On 5 November 2012 21:49, Nejc Škoberne <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I work on research on IPv4 address sharing mechanisms, which are in other
> WGs, so my question is: will this framework also be useful for evaluating
> complexity of these mechanisms? I.e. Stateful NAT64 (RFC 6146), DS-Lite
> (RFC 6333), current MAP and 4rd Internet Drafts and so on. Maybe it's a
> stupid question, but at the meeting today, routing protocols were mostly
> discussed.
>
> Thanks,
> Nejc
> ______________________________**_________________
> ncrg mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/**listinfo/ncrg<https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/ncrg>
>

---

From: "Michael Behringer (mbehring)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2012 21:54:26 +0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
> Nejc Škoberne
> Sent: 05 November 2012 11:20
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [ncrg] Relevance for IPv4 address sharing mechanisms
> 
> Hi,
> 

Nejc, 

The NCRG should *specifically* contribute to IETF activities, and try to analyse the complexity in protocols. It seems to me that protocol complexity is significantly simpler to figure out than the complexity of a real network, with all its dependencies on hardware, human operators, etc. I'm thinking here of the complexity of the specs only, ignoring the implementation at this point. 

So please share your thoughts here on how we could analyse the complexity of those protocols!

Michael
 
> Thanks,
> Nejc
> _______________________________________________
> ncrg mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/ncrg

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2012 18:24:26 -0500

Maximum number of steps to process under worst-case scenario? 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Johna Till Johnson
President & Sr. Founding Partner
Nemertes Research
917-991-1468
[email-masked]
www.nemertes.com
http://www.twitter.com/nemertes
http://www.twitter.com/johnatilljohnso

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Everything is interesting if you go into it deeply enough."--Richard 
Feynman

From:   "Michael Behringer (mbehring)" <[email-masked]>
To:     Nejc ?koberne <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" 
<[email-masked]>, 
Date:   11/06/2012 04:55 PM
Subject:        Re: [ncrg] Relevance for IPv4 address sharing mechanisms
Sent by:        [email-masked]

> Nejc ?koberne
other

Nejc, 

The NCRG should *specifically* contribute to IETF activities, and try to 
analyse the complexity in protocols. It seems to me that protocol 
complexity is significantly simpler to figure out than the complexity of a 
real network, with all its dependencies on hardware, human operators, etc. 
I'm thinking here of the complexity of the specs only, ignoring the 
implementation at this point. 

So please share your thoughts here on how we could analyse the complexity 
of those protocols!

Michael

---

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2012 13:20:59 -0500

On 11/06/12 16:54, Michael Behringer (mbehring) allegedly wrote:
> The NCRG should *specifically* contribute to IETF activities, and try
> to analyse the complexity in protocols. It seems to me that protocol
> complexity is significantly simpler to figure out than the complexity
> of a real network, with all its dependencies on hardware, human
> operators, etc. I'm thinking here of the complexity of the specs
> only, ignoring the implementation at this point.
> 

... before the fact.  That is: Analyzing the output of WGs when they are
finished, doesn't help much.  They need tools that predict and model.
Ideally, the NCRG should give protocol designers a clear understanding
of principles and heuristics that they can put to practical use in IETF
WGs.  These are more detailed and applied than just giving them general
principles of complexity theory.

---

From: Rana Sircar <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2012 22:25:58 +0530

Hi Michael,

I was trying to understand this aspect - on one hand we have protocol
complexity and on other Network complexity. Unfortunately sum of Protocol
complexity does not translate to a total Network complexity. On other hand,
in many cases, Protocol complexity comes fairly close to Algorithmic
complexity (in theory).

As I understand, IETF covers both Transport & signaling protocols
(including service layer & management ones). This itself gives 2 dimensions
to the network under considerations (assuming that the goal is still
"Network" and not limited to "Protocol").

As we know, the mission of the IETF is to make the Internet work better by
producing high quality, relevant technical documents that influence the way
people design, use, and manage the Internet (from Engineering standpoint).
This would remove Operations from the view. But it does bring Network
engineering requirements, Architecture, Design & implementation in its
purview.

With Mobile Broadband, enterprise, Military/Government networks & personal
networks in picture (apart from fixed line access, Metro & core), we  do
have a complex job in hand.  The final answer may not be a "value" or
"Measure" but may be a "Class of Complexity" instead.

Best Regards,
Rana
GSM+919899003705|