Re: [Apn] why it is necessary to differentiate the security concern for 5G Vertical Networks from the grand Internet ( was RE: Application-Aware Networking (APN) focused interim

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Sat, 05 June 2021 17:41 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: apn@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apn@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0236C3A2A27; Sat, 5 Jun 2021 10:41:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 SZTYyzmIoVR9; Sat, 5 Jun 2021 10:40:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B3F823A2A25; Sat, 5 Jun 2021 10:40:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 664E538AFA; Sat, 5 Jun 2021 13:41:30 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id ossFq8B6BGJW; Sat, 5 Jun 2021 13:41:30 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFEA138AF7; Sat, 5 Jun 2021 13:41:29 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67A171D3; Sat, 5 Jun 2021 13:40:56 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Linda Dunbar <ldunbar@futurewei.com>, "rtgwg\@ietf.org" <rtgwg@ietf.org>, "apn\@ietf.org" <apn@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <PH0PR13MB4922C32FD7938D6C6391C98FA93B9@PH0PR13MB4922.namprd13.prod.outlook.com>
References: <PH0PR13MB4922A88EFE55FA2398651301A9239@PH0PR13MB4922.namprd13.prod.outlook.com> <c78e1bae-042b-e0bb-be4a-c2223d039b11@sandelman.ca> <PH0PR13MB4922EF9BAC0CCC4BB8CC38E6A93B9@PH0PR13MB4922.namprd13.prod.outlook.com> <13268.1622832941@localhost> <PH0PR13MB4922C32FD7938D6C6391C98FA93B9@PH0PR13MB4922.namprd13.prod.outlook.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Sat, 05 Jun 2021 13:40:56 -0400
Message-ID: <362.1622914856@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/apn/3iRA-gMVR1H_GNgsBQXiJ-RViqo>
Subject: Re: [Apn] why it is necessary to differentiate the security concern for 5G Vertical Networks from the grand Internet ( was RE: Application-Aware Networking (APN) focused interim
X-BeenThere: apn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Application-aware Networking <apn.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apn>, <mailto:apn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/apn/>
List-Post: <mailto:apn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apn>, <mailto:apn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 05 Jun 2021 17:41:05 -0000

Linda Dunbar <ldunbar@futurewei.com> wrote:
    > I meant to say that APN is useful in those "Closed Loop Networks",
    > which are becoming more common for the 5G enabled special services.

So what parts of the Close Loop Network needs standards work?

    > The "end user" or services that need APN are the one who have special
    > contracts with the operators. Not all services.

I'm rather convinced that you could use RSVP+Diffserv (aka "diffedge") to do
this then.  diffedge did not, AFAIK, ever make it out of ID.
     https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-bernet-diffedge-01.txt

While Joel mentioned many things that made "Intserv" (just RSVP) undeployable
in the Internet, it was deployable within Enterprises, and there are now 20+
years of improvements to forwarding plane and control plane CPUs.
Given that you have a closed environment, it seems like diffedge + SDN ought
to do what you want.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide