Re: [Apn] [Network-tokens] [arch-d] Questions for APN: Q#5

Yiannis Yiakoumis <yiannis@selfienetworks.com> Fri, 25 September 2020 23:22 UTC

Return-Path: <yiannis@selfienetworks.com>
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 4D35E3A0B96 for <apn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Sep 2020 16:22:39 -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, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=selfienetworks-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 21XlenM2v2DS for <apn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Sep 2020 16:22:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vs1-xe2b.google.com (mail-vs1-xe2b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::e2b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7F97C3A0B93 for <apn@ietf.org>; Fri, 25 Sep 2020 16:22:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vs1-xe2b.google.com with SMTP id y190so2375473vsy.1 for <apn@ietf.org>; Fri, 25 Sep 2020 16:22:36 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=selfienetworks-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:date:cc:in-reply-to:from:message-id:subject :to; bh=IRBYSNULQSYYZnwyQYcNx8J4jDPrKyoMUMp/3KCVvwE=; b=ipNQPhGz7FALHweX0GGN/ffOj+NyJxGWjd2i0IsAzNH0SYhar7gQQtr4Ce5jpOWHLD XH42iHmJlUycuRdcqNAXvztTcRKUcyBKPuQ22aD8TtDeDG1mnvzrdEh3jt+jgLhdSTY2 o/Sw/BOpf2bGVaQiZX78pmMtg31JXqnraouW9wD60DxwHcGESYcuvKEASk7KhyGWdaFj j0qCaUbVFtEgqwbPudKYpeaXEdX7DB9MFT496SmGBUDcrj4gsjBef5S2BYv1yaIaGMAK 9sL+gzocXD213d1cWTgPBpc3RhT4GNnO4dh+r2VC6keRtzsFKUcnHezTM0uvxxCRAJrn ocXA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:date:cc:in-reply-to:from :message-id:subject:to; bh=IRBYSNULQSYYZnwyQYcNx8J4jDPrKyoMUMp/3KCVvwE=; b=HJvGWCPoFvjOu1UojupsxHTjh9csCz9b2b16sdbpFzkON3gSFcDiLh6+Y6aHJVPWC7 IkngWKAJ0RX6OQBa8ViyPPeKuVWA29U7hnf+YrYUMWFdZ7iDp5C/jo3hfOlFt2wlspMg nneu8X4V4HG5Hl56VAbqU1rAUw8IBMGcfcUxaVQUZdMB0H7LU2dLdN/hxaLi/NxcRvQe KOaNoKGFAqoAtXI1sKlrWhVtb0E1wdK2cOPA27BV/W8XNNebt//4Ho5HiTtioyTDKYmp xrP2fgKQhW7bMMnUeMzNPLG8eAXAEM3uszxOnLETorX6Gc4olM3PsHukqfORm3Z8U9R6 R7GQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533majk3ZayCdU/WN4tO10veoczgSyzyHItKoadWpRK5kGQ15P1m oBYnotfM6z6RNWvpLSdaEWG4yfc6+RDLFA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxOi/843aV/H18xJzMVxM/FVP41s/rbZGcF5kiD3tCmoaS8jXmOEFZ10+NAskiOIJOirN6X4A==
X-Received: by 2002:a67:eb55:: with SMTP id x21mr1415021vso.44.1601076155307; Fri, 25 Sep 2020 16:22:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (0.92.231.35.bc.googleusercontent.com. [35.231.92.0]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id r17sm562760vsf.25.2020.09.25.16.22.35 for <apn@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 25 Sep 2020 16:22:35 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Superhuman-ID: kfive145.b3e05edc-eea8-476e-aa93-cbea47e46269
X-Superhuman-Draft-ID: draft00ca25eceac35586
References: <2020092211271508522412@chinaunicom.cn> <4FEADB2A-A062-44B4-8D36-3651EBDD1ACD@eggert.org> <a8542256-b0e7-f6d7-abb1-e2f379215849@huitema.net>
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2020 23:22:31 +0000
Cc: =?UTF-8?q?=E6=9B=B9=E7=95=85?= <caoc15@chinaunicom.cn>, "pengshuping" <pengshuping@huawei.com>, network-tokens@ietf.org, architecture-discuss@iab.org, "Lars Eggert" <lars@eggert.org>, zhangs366@chinaunicom.cn, "apn" <apn@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Superhuman Desktop (2020-09-25T22:06:10Z)
In-Reply-To: <a8542256-b0e7-f6d7-abb1-e2f379215849@huitema.net>
From: "Yiannis Yiakoumis" <yiannis@selfienetworks.com>
Message-ID: <kfirxvib.fe0473da-51f1-4bd7-91fe-290064021626@we.are.superhuman.com>
To: "Christian Huitema" <huitema@huitema.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=6f8f041d1a668943c30c0b69b6ecb6eabac19122d0716be7f1af81e0f3ac
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/apn/AWowRPyWbCsBb1BSX3yz5TqEGLo>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 27 Sep 2020 12:41:30 -0700
Subject: Re: [Apn] [Network-tokens] [arch-d] Questions for APN: Q#5
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: Fri, 25 Sep 2020 23:22:41 -0000

late in the discussion, but wanted to share some thoughts:

One of the first successful proof-points for SDN was Google claiming ( https://cs144.github.io/handouts/cs144_mogul_2019_nov.pdf ) that they moved their WAN utilization to ~100%, instead of over-provisioning. It saved them lots of money. Two of the design principles that led them there were

i) moving from "all packets are equally important" to "allocate resources based on application-level priorities" and

ii) moving from "TCP flows regulated by "fair share" mechanisms" to "measure demands, and shape flows at the endpoints".

I can imagine offering low-latency SLA for 1% of the traffic (say video calls), is much cheaper and easier than doing this for all Internet traffic (with the cost varying whether you are in Europe/US or an emerging market, rural or urban, a WISP, a low-orbit satellite network, etc). *Could anyone from operator-land comment on the economics of oversubscription/overprovision/SLAs in the mobile world?*

(btw: we already have SLAs today --- VoLTE is IP traffic routed through dedicated radio and wired resources and has materially better network quality and reliability than plain VoIP, and when you sign-up for a broadband connection you can get 10Mbps/100Mbps/1Gbps etc).

If over-provisioning wins (in 10 years) it will likely be the outcome of the network community's  failure to find a good solution for traffic differentiation, rather than a verdict that these use cases were not important enough.

FWIW: there are many issues to debate around fine-grained traffic differentiation beyond overprovisioning (like security, scalability, privacy, net neutrality), and there are different approaches one could take (APN and network tokens have different design principles and priorities on these trade-offs).

Best,

Yiannis

=====================
Yiannis Yiakoumis
Co-Founder & CEO
https://selfienetworks.com | +1-650-644-7857

On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 8:29 AM, Christian Huitema < huitema@huitema.net > wrote:

> 
> 
> 
> On 9/21/2020 11:44 PM, Lars Eggert wrote:
> 
> 
>> 
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 2020-9-22, at 9:02, zhangs366@ chinaunicom. cn (
>> zhangs366@chinaunicom.cn ) wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> [Shuping] Again APN is aimed to work within a controlled and limited
>>> operators’ network domain not for Internet.
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> that significantly limits the attractiveness of this proposal to
>> application vendors. They can either buy into APN and ship an app that
>> only works in some (initially, very few to none) operator networks. Or,
>> they can ship a slightly less optimal app that works on the entire
>> Internet with its billions of users.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> More broadly, I'd like to point out that during the entire history of the
>> Internet there were application classes that the deployed networks at the
>> time were struggling to support. There were always claims that something
>> like APN was needed, i.e, solutions that were intending to improve network
>> performance and quality but that were also adding significant complexity
>> and often required application changes.
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes indeed. In the 90's the argument was around video conferencing, which
> "obviously" could not work on a plain best effort service. And then we got
> Skype.
> 
> 
>> 
>> 
>> What always happened so far was that Moore's law solved these problems, by
>> improving the performance and quality of the general Internet so that best
>> effort was sufficient to support all these "special" applications a few
>> years down the road.
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Indeed the whole history of wireless is driven by Moore's law. For
> example, the theory of MIMO has been known for some time, put the
> application and the use of large number of input and output is only
> possible because of progress in electronics.
> 
> 
>> 
>> 
>> The same will happen with the use cases presented to motivate the need for
>> APN. The general Internet may struggle to support them now, but in five
>> years or so - which is about the time horizon for any APN enablement of
>> any operator network to happen - these will just work.
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> More bandwidth solves a lot of these issues. But we can also expect
> improvement in transport protocols and in queue management. Active Queue
> Management techniques can isolate different data streams and prevent
> stupid issues like "my daughter playing video games is degrading my VPN".
> New congestion control protocols like BBR actively manage queuing delays,
> resulting in significantly lower latency overall. And then application
> just get smarter in their use of caches, redundancy, gap filling, etc. All
> that is guaranteed to improve over time.
> 
> 
> 
> -- Christian Huitema
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Network-tokens mailing list
> Network-tokens@ ietf. org ( Network-tokens@ietf.org )
> https:/ / www. ietf. org/ mailman/ listinfo/ network-tokens (
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/network-tokens )
> 
> 
>