IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [6gip] 6G in 3GPP?

John Grant <j@ninetiles.com> Sat, 16 January 2021 12:45 UTC

Return-Path: <j@ninetiles.com>
X-Original-To: 6gip@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 6gip@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D0ED3A174A for <6gip@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 16 Jan 2021 04:45:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.16
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.16 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.262, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id t6WHKA_rXHeU for <6gip@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 16 Jan 2021 04:45:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from know-smtprelay-omc-5.server.virginmedia.net (know-smtprelay-omc-5.server.virginmedia.net [80.0.253.69]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5B9083A1749 for <6gip@ietf.org>; Sat, 16 Jan 2021 04:45:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.0.167] ([86.7.146.7]) by cmsmtp with ESMTPA id 0kx8lk3KrSJHJ0kx9leveu; Sat, 16 Jan 2021 12:45:17 +0000
X-Originating-IP: [86.7.146.7]
X-Authenticated-User: john.s.grant@ntlworld.com
X-Spam: 0
X-Authority: v=2.3 cv=ZJn5Z0zb c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=ETEHsBHxkjOw4DtPg6cH8g==:117 a=ETEHsBHxkjOw4DtPg6cH8g==:17 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=le6d79QuAAAA:8 a=oCcaPWc0AAAA:8 a=97HGENa0gJViHslQTKcA:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=QbAMNLWdp4a7deKPGBBn:22
To: 6gip@ietf.org
References: <HE1PR07MB3386A43B4B32BF2CE5DC48C79BAA0@HE1PR07MB3386.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <248399ab-7dc1-ee13-928c-751568ea58e5@gmail.com> <HE1PR07MB3386A19851BFFF1ED5DDECAE9BA90@HE1PR07MB3386.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <CAC8QAccaYy7hKAdz9Y79wMrE0UFBa_=PsERyeGpiMmYpWESLLw@mail.gmail.com> <HE1PR07MB3386B9F18A356F64A0B6DD359BA80@HE1PR07MB3386.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <2281d844-ae2c-ecdd-9cf7-e9e130af3739@gmail.com> <1610654118.14219.268.camel@gmail.com> <85a003a1-f833-ad5f-6f1f-a8e26cbc0039@gmail.com> <DB7PR06MB47925677D30E281EAEFC39A9B5A70@DB7PR06MB4792.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com> <b52b3d34-f389-b38c-1098-85fe52da83c1@gmail.com> <DB7PR06MB4792C81377C428841A7D569AB5A70@DB7PR06MB4792.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com>
From: John Grant <j@ninetiles.com>
Message-ID: <d56d8dc3-263e-671f-bc43-4dcaccc90380@ninetiles.com>
Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2021 12:45:13 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.6.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <DB7PR06MB4792C81377C428841A7D569AB5A70@DB7PR06MB4792.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-GB
X-Antivirus: AVG (VPS 210115-4, 15/01/2021), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-CMAE-Envelope: MS4wfHUy51WCWitp5oJtX9R6npI8cIp6kJ6kj+TPtf7IlxydtdGlEgRqKthP/objS3L/OsPywYPCfizOPHhmZ2jhN2tJLlOnF2fYZ6QrTyAvoYDU0ZOw0yxK C+olPzjksda+9MAWN9CboRJFmFhjHfvn6iA=
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6gip/5WE4u3oFwI9lCH1Jl0jGoAJ85GM>
Subject: Re: [6gip] 6G in 3GPP?
X-BeenThere: 6gip@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IP Issues in 6th Generation Mobile Network System \(6gip\)" <6gip.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/6gip>, <mailto:6gip-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/6gip/>
List-Post: <mailto:6gip@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:6gip-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6gip>, <mailto:6gip-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2021 12:45:22 -0000

On 15/01/2021 19:51, David Lake wrote:
> There is this 'contract-based networking' in NewIP that one would win from looking at but ultimately, the contract parties are deemed to simply to their best to achieve their commitments - best effort.
>
> If my PC were to have a contract with each intermediate router that forwarded this datagram it would be unscalable...
>
> <DL> That's not quite what I'm saying.   There are several elements where I think what we CURRENTLY do with the Internet is vastly different from other shared-media networks (e.g. electricity, gas, water in some countries, rail).
Quite. There's no need for the endsystem to have a contract with every 
entity involved in delivering the service.

End-to-end reservation does scale; on any link divide the maximum 
throughput by the granularity of the reservation and that tells you the 
maximum number of flows there can be. And any node only needs to have a 
conversation with its neighbours, not with everything else in the network.

-- 
John Grant
Nine Tiles, Cambridge, England
+44 1223 862599 and +44 1223 511455
http://www.ninetiles.com


-- 
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email