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

Yiannis Yiakoumis <yiannis@selfienetworks.com> Sat, 03 October 2020 00:56 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 C93B53A176C for <apn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 17:56:02 -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, 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 b1bOPHBQTRsH for <apn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 17:56:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ua1-x92f.google.com (mail-ua1-x92f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::92f]) (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 BE0C13A176B for <apn@ietf.org>; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 17:56:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ua1-x92f.google.com with SMTP id n26so857965uao.8 for <apn@ietf.org>; Fri, 02 Oct 2020 17:56:00 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=selfienetworks-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:subject:to:references:from:date:message-id:cc :in-reply-to; bh=igiai4467APwp0TuOx8S8B1N3VlyJgp7lu6PjgVvVME=; b=dpYi5kBEW3SXS3LynrSA2HHqjIJ/YsnJihK0IqauxiaIynr2ZQMDAjXX+6H7wCEcqm /8vn3OA7Eo3+j3FGJppuG1GOKkxBpjgvTQfKYpX4tJdOtLMFdin9qieZTCd7KBgOYgF2 Eq5mzOrwSuzvf42xprfU6V8CmTD/fvpEHNXFdN7MaQMWWYg5RRMaB+EwJMzzTLiV70Ax fu0WKFDX/0eRS7D8oEPZAqJCyyYzWqTujhXLjGHX61/6gtq32NASWdqxb60QPlK8IxV6 /Ma1ilrRxuTevpTDe97WyBkJSyAidkDVDotuUM/oF/0LqiAb8GCiLKTLoHmlr0iVqQUR FK/Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:to:references:from:date :message-id:cc:in-reply-to; bh=igiai4467APwp0TuOx8S8B1N3VlyJgp7lu6PjgVvVME=; b=QH1P+yZ5td1e6N9HhfRzQH2yb+rdSO6ggRorgyQmIMz544L441KNYzR7oONXWPXHUv zobM38bGplyEVnK2KKH0/aFrwr0z8qfW0bVlpfHpZvW6vtXbkKFbPR+k/lbvmbE2TgKN W94yQmAWqTpeJ2g8SzTXsYEJcC1B64SpK76ajLRONV1P0YDMEFHmv3fC8AhYRKq+ILii dDSysMIS/y7Kd8QUAxBqA/+LYoXlFISjiF6/okhN91DShUUxljkgO+VJfrZoSOJXgMmZ 023AEla5CqBDyZNq0Cx2mJvAxxjPrJV/qhZxRzaO/MHTexSCUMORU8EVXQ4MS3FDzsE8 /PPQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531FmD3MuAZmz8bcLdveY1sYkSFfQeOtjYaSjiNel71GZWX9LJND Nq+S+yMlIr0cAFjOoWTGdmVHo792DFvx6g==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzOMH0CMMDgmJR1gOZiCLgmwz16QW6zNhQZZMp4Y+TSHwWDGegtuoTvfoZaE+sK/jan1J30zg==
X-Received: by 2002:ab0:a85:: with SMTP id d5mr2953993uak.45.1601686559391; Fri, 02 Oct 2020 17:55:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (0.92.231.35.bc.googleusercontent.com. [35.231.92.0]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id r17sm528802vsf.25.2020.10.02.17.55.59 for <apn@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 02 Oct 2020 17:55:59 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: "Christian Huitema" <huitema@huitema.net>
References: <2020092211271508522412@chinaunicom.cn> <4FEADB2A-A062-44B4-8D36-3651EBDD1ACD@eggert.org> <a8542256-b0e7-f6d7-abb1-e2f379215849@huitema.net> <kfirxvib.fe0473da-51f1-4bd7-91fe-290064021626@we.are.superhuman.com> <121369D4-F4C7-44E9-9BFC-FA26A7265E98@eggert.org> <kfpoveig.b33d3bb7-44af-4609-b592-1b67e085b0e9@we.are.superhuman.com> <09f1a2da-00bf-208b-6242-7229cb10622c@huitema.net>
From: "Yiannis Yiakoumis" <yiannis@selfienetworks.com>
Date: Sat, 03 Oct 2020 00:55:56 +0000
Message-ID: <kfsyp7vy.313f6706-237d-4177-9433-8a5445ea04d7@we.are.superhuman.com>
Cc: network-tokens@ietf.org, =?UTF-8?q?=E6=9B=B9=E7=95=85?= <caoc15@chinaunicom.cn>, zhangs366@chinaunicom.cn, architecture-discuss@iab.org, "apn" <apn@ietf.org>, "pengshuping" <pengshuping@huawei.com>, "Lars Eggert" <lars@eggert.org>
X-Mailer: Superhuman Desktop (2020-10-02T22:06:00Z)
X-Superhuman-ID: kfsyt57g.cff9e182-e5f8-4bf8-9fc6-33aa043d03ec
X-Superhuman-Draft-ID: draft004992ff0ce33f00
In-Reply-To: <09f1a2da-00bf-208b-6242-7229cb10622c@huitema.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=a7b62b2c0a0a85dfdc1d86f4d4547d1e23cedd210c7be43e8731097f8a46
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/apn/XYqP81zhSoF1jJDPVVSYb2dLxsc>
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: Sat, 03 Oct 2020 00:56:03 -0000

Hi Christian,

You are right - I meant to say access network, and the fact that despite the differences between a WAN and access network the main idea that you can use fine-granularity SLAs to improve performance/cost/efficiency remains valid. Apologies for the confusion.

Best,

Yiannis

On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 1:58 PM, Christian Huitema < huitema@huitema.net > wrote:

> 
> On 9/30/2020 11:07 AM, Yiannis Yiakoumis wrote:
> 
> 
>> Hi Lars,
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Wed, Sep 30 , 2020 at 12:28 AM, Lars Eggert < lars@ eggert. org (
>> lars@eggert.org ) > wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 2020-9-26, at 2:22, Yiannis Yiakoumis < yiannis@ selfienetworks. com (
>>> yiannis@selfienetworks.com ) > wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> One of the first successful proof-points for SDN was Google claiming 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 think these claims were made for Google's private B4 network, right?
>>> AFAIK that is a *very* different network from the public Internet. From
>>> what I recall, each transfer over B4 is scheduled over the course of a day
>>> based on various flow properties that are required to be specified,
>>> following some giant minmax-like computation.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Yes, this is for B4. While the network is different, the idea that you can
>> build a much more cost/performance efficient WAN still stands.
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you call WAN? Until now, APN was proposed for "limited domains",
> which are typically access networks. WAN would imply going further, to
> long distance networks used for connections between access providers. Is
> that really what you have in mind?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- Christian Huitema
> 
> 
> 
>