[Apn] 回复:Re:回复:GoalsofneartermAPNwork

[yangfeng <[e-mail]>]

 


 

 
Hi Andrew,

 

 
 

 
Normally, DSCP can prioritize some traffic. But in case of congestion(maybe caused by degradation of transportation or some public event like black Friday) , prioritization is unfair for those with lower priority. Traffic needs to be rebalanced
 across the network by moving some traffic from the congested paths to somewhere else. This depends on where the traffic comes from and goes to, and the SLA contact. 

 

 
 

 
Thus linear space is necessary to make this work get much easier. 

 

 
 

 
Br,

 
Feng

 

 

 

 
 

 -------原始邮件-------   

 

 发件人：Andrew Alston - IETF <andrew-ietf=[e-mail]>
 

 发送时间：2023-01-21 18:48:06
 

 收件人：yangfeng <[e-mail]>,jmh <[e-mail]>,apn <[e-mail]>
 

 主题：Re: [Apn]回复:GoalsofneartermAPNwork
 

 

 
 
 

 
Feng, again – asking with no hats on,


 
 


 
How exactly does this differ from DSCP – (or extended dscp with more bits.)


 
 


 
When I read what you wrote below – to me – this reads exactly like more in depth dscp, and maybe I’m reading this wrong so I’m open to hearing otherwise.


 
 


 
But (putting hat back on) – I see this as much of the problem with getting broad based support and adequately defining a charter.  There seems to be a lot of confusion about what exactly is being attempted here.  A simplistic reading
 of what is below, points to something like more dscp bits, yet, at the same time, we here talk of the need for something else for reasons that don’t seem to be clearly defined.  To built a broad based community support for this work,
 I think there needs to be more clarity around what is actually being attempted – because that forms the basis of creating a framework, which in turn leads to solutions.


 
 


 
There were very large fears raised about the privacy and security aspects at the original BOF, and assurances were given at RTGWG that things like the ability to identify an application direct etc wouldn’t be there.  That got us some
 movement, but its lead to another question, if you remove that, is what you are left with nothing more than more DSCP bits (or something along those lines), and its lead to a question of, remove the application identification parts (which
 create significant security and privacy issues which the last BOF and what I believe was indicated in RTGWG clearly show are not tenable) – what’s left?


 
 


 
If indeed we are saying – this is purely an expanded form of DSCP or something similar – then – that needs to be crystal clear and spelled out as such, but there seems to be different messages about this.


 
 


 
Andrew


 
 


 

 
From: Apn <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of yangfeng
 Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2023 5:36 AM
 To: jmh <[e-mail]> apn <[e-mail]>
 Subject: [Apn] 回复:GoalsofneartermAPNwork


 

 
 


 

 

 
Hi Joel，
 


 

 

 
 


 

 

 
Chasing good QoE is quite nature.  As described in my previous email, we are currently distinguishing services by source IP address at our network edge devices. However, the source addresses are discrete, we hope there is a way to transform the address from discrete space into a linear space , which will make it be easier for classification, so that the services and policies along the tunnel can be combined in a simple way. Eventually that can improve our efficiency and reduce costs. The tagged information is not associated with any user or application. It is a group of users that have the same requirements on the network, and they will have the matched treatments on the various nodes along the tunnel. 
 


 

 

 
 


 

 

 
Br


 

 

 
Feng


 

 

 
 
 


 

 
 
-------原始邮件-------   


 

 

 
 
发件人：Joel Halpern <[e-mail]>
 
 


 

 
 
发送时间：2023-01-21 03:25:56 
 


 

 
 
收件人：apn <[e-mail]> 
 


 

 
 
主题：[Apn] Goals of near term APN work
 
 


 

 

 

 I have re-read the email discussions and the most recent draft of the 


 
charter.


 
I am quite confused by the charter.  Aw far as I can tell, it assumes 


 
that we need a new IP header field, that the field will carry a range of 


 
information that will help a range of network behaviors, and that we do 


 
not have the ability to address these needs currently.  It then says 


 
that the WG will develop a framework for such a field.


 
Is developing and defining a new (variable length?) header field to 


 
address some ill-defined broad range of needs really the goal?


 
Yours,


 
Joel


 
-- 


 
Apn mailing list


 
[e-mail] 
 


 
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apn 
 


 

 

 

 
 
Internal All Employees