Re: [arch-d] Fwd: A Public Option for the Core

John Day <jeanjour@comcast.net> Mon, 17 August 2020 11:43 UTC

Return-Path: <jeanjour@comcast.net>
X-Original-To: architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC4E33A14CC for <architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Aug 2020 04:43:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=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=comcast.net
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 urTuXWW9LsrX for <architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Aug 2020 04:43:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from resqmta-ch2-12v.sys.comcast.net (resqmta-ch2-12v.sys.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe21:29:69:252:207:44]) (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 262E13A14D1 for <architecture-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Aug 2020 04:43:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from resomta-ch2-20v.sys.comcast.net ([69.252.207.116]) by resqmta-ch2-12v.sys.comcast.net with ESMTP id 7dVTkoJpF8dHA7dXWkXfOl; Mon, 17 Aug 2020 11:42:58 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net; s=20190202a; t=1597664578; bh=PQDxZlyOHxxxkbKfXK/JjhPSVwa3gTc2LrVthyOHHZQ=; h=Received:Received:Content-Type:Mime-Version:Subject:From:Date: Message-Id:To; b=1p7Xa33M8Oiklu851u6rUvmZMQX0FpwG8UbqznUW3DLtCwxilzFZgfYZJ7d7T7Dgx 5B4QHWcWVpnq+1xyTI4jk7e/OnuWYxn/4hfnQxvjNXCfra0mwCP5DbVMOmWl1yFIAm 5HFn0EfcxSXFwVOle5zTY7we0T4vBGgCEbyrzNJU/ZcWjShRt48IGoRNX4gbRwETrn NrJVRTEmtmHotXHKUXgsh8/o3XtuNxMbnLpOi9uWqQIIt67y4QEacDbiWiJNoUUyYU yKyGX+t5VhXhvWDJJHrXg+1JM5tTOVALqsiYgXagqKe/fgwJSN7P2hbS5W/dyd5xyx lK0T9NbPWV6OQ==
Received: from [IPv6:2601:189:4300:cee9:e4a0:2eb4:8c8a:c734] ([IPv6:2601:189:4300:cee9:e4a0:2eb4:8c8a:c734]) by resomta-ch2-20v.sys.comcast.net with ESMTPSA id 7dXAk8f9FHxi27dXBk4myK; Mon, 17 Aug 2020 11:42:57 +0000
X-Xfinity-VMeta: sc=-100.00;st=legit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.15\))
From: John Day <jeanjour@comcast.net>
In-Reply-To: <20200817074637.GW62842@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2020 07:42:36 -0400
Cc: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>, architecture-discuss@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <BC83D497-4EC6-48A8-9289-433B8A896B47@comcast.net>
References: <754DE168-DF3B-4471-A145-39C6143E538A@comcast.net> <FB381338-A278-45B2-A40B-3A065E3A3ED1@strayalpha.com> <1fd2ed7d-d4bc-c5b7-9a4a-7966d5e60513@gmail.com> <20200817074637.GW62842@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
To: Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.15)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/architecture-discuss/1ntiIQG1bKC1_xpoyPUCd1aoLjY>
Subject: Re: [arch-d] Fwd: A Public Option for the Core
X-BeenThere: architecture-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: open discussion forum for long/wide-range architectural issues <architecture-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/architecture-discuss>, <mailto:architecture-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/architecture-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:architecture-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:architecture-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss>, <mailto:architecture-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2020 11:43:02 -0000


> On Aug 17, 2020, at 03:46, Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de> wrote:
> 
> John, Joe, Brian:
> 
> All great discussion points, but i am not sure if JohnD's starting
> point of "no deductive adaptation of behavior" is really mandatory
> and/or sufficient for *I* net neutrality. Aka: Do we even have
> an approved and complete *I* "net neutrality" definition ? If so, where ?

Really? I said that?  Interesting. I wonder, when and even more, why?
> 
> Btw, IMHO: Having an application tell the network exactly what it
> wants from the network is quite a challenging task for applications.
> When i worked with enterprise application developers, they wouldn't
> even want to bother to understand what differences in service from the
> network would best help the application.
> 
> Hence we thought of a framework where the application would instead
> attribute traffic as to what it is, e.g.: application FOO, wihthin FOO floX,
> e.g.: X = audio/video/...  Aka: Whatever the application developer was able/
> willing to tell.
> 
> Then one can have a trusted layer that would map this information to
> actual network service requirements/advisory information.
> 
> In classical enterprise environments, this trusted mapping layer
> could typically be a nework device (given how applications in enterprise
> are subject to a lot of control by the enterprise operator anyhow).
> In typical residential environment, the trusted mapping would likely
> best be the browser, given how that performs all type of control
> operations against applications anyhow.

Interesting conjecture. O, well.

John

> 
> Cheers
>    Toerless
> 
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 08:24:06AM +1200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> On 17-Aug-20 03:01, Joe Touch wrote:
>>> And the second is that service level implies connection. It only requires the network understands a label *I* control, rather than trying to infer one from the packet contents.
>> 
>> However, it does need some kind of flow state (whether flows are individual or aggregated) in the forwarding queues. Not that this is a new argument; we had it in the diffserv WG many years ago and it continues to this day in TSVWG.
>> 
>> I don't think this really affects the basic arguments for a "public core". It just indicates that transit networks don't need to be strictly best effort and stateless in order to be neutral.
>> 
>>   Brian
>>  
>>> 
>>> Joe
>>> 
>>>> On Aug 16, 2020, at 3:19 AM, John Day <jeanjour@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> ???
>>>> 
>>>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>>> 
>>>>> *From: *John Day <jeanjour@comcast.net <mailto:jeanjour@comcast.net>>
>>>>> *Subject: **Re: [arch-d] A Public Option for the Core*
>>>>> *Date: *August 16, 2020 at 06:18:04 EDT
>>>>> *To: *John Grant <j@ninetiles.com <mailto:j@ninetiles.com>>
>>>>> 
>>>>> No, that is not true.  Your first mistake is that there is a control plane.
>>>>> 
>>>>> John
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Aug 16, 2020, at 06:02, John Grant <j@ninetiles.com <mailto:j@ninetiles.com>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 16/08/2020 02:48, Joseph Touch wrote:
>>>>>>> *I* want apps to be able to get different service from the network and to pay differently for them if needed, but *never* to have the network infer or enforce that mapping.
>>>>>> Of course, if you're going to do that -- have the application negotiate a particular kind of service rather than have the network "inspect" the packets and guess what service is needed -- you need a control plane protocol (let's call it "signalling") to do the negotiation, and you no longer have the connectionless/stateless paradigm on which IP is founded.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>> John Grant
>>>>>> Nine Tiles, Cambridge, England
>>>>>> +44 1223 862599 and +44 1223 511455
>>>>>> http://www.ninetiles.com
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Architecture-discuss mailing list
>>>>>> Architecture-discuss@ietf.org
>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Architecture-discuss mailing list
>>>> Architecture-discuss@ietf.org
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Architecture-discuss mailing list
>>> Architecture-discuss@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss
>>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Architecture-discuss mailing list
>> Architecture-discuss@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss
> 
> -- 
> ---
> tte@cs.fau.de