Re: [arch-d] possible new IAB programme on Internet resilience

Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de> Mon, 23 December 2019 09:25 UTC

Return-Path: <eckert@i4.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
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 A0FD912008F for <architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Dec 2019 01:25:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.17
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.17 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779] 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 m4iFeTkA--rl for <architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Dec 2019 01:25:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de [IPv6:2001:638:a000:4134::ffff:40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7E734120046 for <architecture-discuss@iab.org>; Mon, 23 Dec 2019 01:25:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de [IPv6:2001:638:a000:4134::ffff:52]) by faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 586EC548046; Mon, 23 Dec 2019 10:25:19 +0100 (CET)
Received: by faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Postfix, from userid 10463) id 51A67440059; Mon, 23 Dec 2019 10:25:19 +0100 (CET)
Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2019 10:25:19 +0100
From: Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Cc: architecture-discuss@iab.org
Message-ID: <20191223092519.GA32894@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
References: <f13e1588-35e0-2493-93d2-add3480bb207@cs.tcd.ie>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <f13e1588-35e0-2493-93d2-add3480bb207@cs.tcd.ie>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/architecture-discuss/6dqFdDrq8DXICx0hACx_rwob6nU>
Subject: Re: [arch-d] possible new IAB programme on Internet resilience
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, 23 Dec 2019 09:25:28 -0000

Thanks for the initiative, Stephen

1. I strongly support the mission.

  IMHO, the Internet at large is still a pretty unreliable
  infrastructure mostly for non-(time)-critical consumption
  and commerce, and IMHO this needs to change. I am certainly
  happy to contibute to the program (see below for example
  points of my background).

2. Network and services resilience

  A Brian already alluded, there is more to Internet resilience
  than at e.g.: the naming level.

  a) Network resilience
  
  The most basic form of resilience i have helped to design and
  deploy use dual-path transmission for critical traffic
  (finance, video, military, industrial). That still is a maze
  of not well standardized or even documented approaches and
  protocols, and we are (IMHO) far away from realizing a vision,
  where for example a host stack itself could drive such level of
  resilience automatically (.e.g: MP-TCP not to increase
  throughput but resilience). But certainly, that overal issue
  of network-service resilience would be IMHO important to include
  into the program. Having bits in DetNet, bits in PANRG,
  and more bits in TSV and other WGs is not an architecture.

  b) Service resilience
  
  As Brian mentioned, ANIMA not only has ANI as a resilient
  operational plane, but it would also lend itself as a good
  framework to build further resilient networks and solutions.

3. Scope

  An interesting experience was in video networks where operators
  had to decide between sub-second fast convergence and sub 50 msec
  RSVP-TE tunnel protection. In the end, the per-interruption
  user experience impact difference was negligible and many
  operators simply wanted to reduce the total number of user visible
  interruptions to less than 1 interruption every 4 hour and ended up
  picking fast-convegence because it eliminated so many
  more bad-code and bad-operator action induced errors from
  the more complex to handle RSVP-TE solution.

  I bring this up just as an example to figure out what should
  be in scope of the program: User stories, (experience) metric
  required and design considerations that not only include
  pure "protocol" aspects (50 msec vs. sub-second), but also
  metrics such as code and operations complexity. Yes, some of
  these aspects are hard to specify let alone quantify, but
  that's why it should be an architecture program and not just
  a protocol specification program.

4. Politics and Openness

  IMHO, Resilience and related "metrics" of reliability
  are at the core of at least the public explanations of
  several political actions today such as US congress bills
  (e.g.: "Defending America's 5G Future") and US govt action
  (such as the Huawei EAR rulings).

  In face of these political challenges for open global
  collaboration, i would highly recommend to not charter a
  program like this as an "by-invitation-only" IAB program (as
  described in the current draft charter), but as an
  "everyone-is-welcome-to-contribute" program, more like an
  IETF working group. Otherwise, the program would be seen
  as yet another politically divisive step by those not invited
  to contribute.

Cheers
    Toerless

On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 01:32:57PM +0000, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> 
> Hiya,
> 
> The IAB are considering starting up a programme on Internet
> resilience as described at [1]. We'd love to get feedback
> on that idea, the text at [1] and to find out if people
> would like to participate and what topics you might suggest
> be considered (or even better, what you'd actually do work
> on yourself:-).
> 
> There's no specific deadline for this, but the IAB will
> consider this further in the new year, so if you could
> take a few minutes to share your thoughts on this before
> or over the holidays that'd be great.
> 
> Thanks,
> S.
> 
> 
> [1] https://github.com/intarchboard/resilience/

pub   RSA 4096/7B172BEA 2017-12-22 Stephen Farrell (2017) <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
> sub   RSA 4096/36CB8BB6 2017-12-22
> 




> _______________________________________________
> Architecture-discuss mailing list
> Architecture-discuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss


-- 
---
tte@cs.fau.de