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

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Sun, 16 August 2020 20:24 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
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 7CCCD3A10FC for <architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 16 Aug 2020 13:24:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.047
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.047 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, FREEMAIL_REPLY=1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.949, 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=gmail.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 N8dg8lJeVZYa for <architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 16 Aug 2020 13:24:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pl1-x643.google.com (mail-pl1-x643.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::643]) (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 0F8553A10FA for <architecture-discuss@ietf.org>; Sun, 16 Aug 2020 13:24:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pl1-x643.google.com with SMTP id q19so6473550pll.0 for <architecture-discuss@ietf.org>; Sun, 16 Aug 2020 13:24:11 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=sjej3nB1QZdPtND2tgLNzXJcL/o5U1Xm88S1SbKohdk=; b=sNu/Oq7gzHXThc30eq62o9mMrQwr3W4Qc+Eldd5+WoQvX+RpCUCxDIysHvN5yaT6Eq +h5rH3dBoLu2fWJEB/sjtfNdA8rAOTeZYyJG/ChBTvY8/ywAw539crtWSxNxk+OC4+zw h+F09/3Q6Lk2L3TItqt0Ez6CMBMdfG6LTOyTilLKVtMhdxH9fbbFe+bxel7yEVOTAFml 9uXk7b+csHr6eYLY9R0EI9B7IobAQAmOwLKTpRGc/9W0zvPaEdtpJ2UJXzOKSjTFqw90 8PGTFjVd6fjZKAH5ZOh1ojezJj7PfJNIGtDKWWlDL3sDgjodWUypyXR9BI5KVU4cNVNH /zug==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=sjej3nB1QZdPtND2tgLNzXJcL/o5U1Xm88S1SbKohdk=; b=LSjT0083kSd4ZuiH327DeTixcNskmcY4lMBaEL9LfLUAimwWYWxiu8H+wws7u3PMBs KGXZUug0XIZVrTpqFjeBX8Nybj6KNrE7wcWX1A+bGAyfBPFBs43dd1cLrMxUv3xjtgfr fiBhEgZ8VX7GJm64IqjL3Dj9HgiVA8qSnYWKjQcZ4SB+Lf8vyI5ZexFFS8c+1DSie+ws nny+ONalnz/eIRx1mKvqU5JNEA4T3YtCcTstPdy4mckq0CW3zJxilDqBck/MnTY4n0ls ZutRegatsy/ZP34Zt76tC0SCK3briyZuFa2NlEa4f1bICpFDKrTkYSdkymZ7Cy4QKy3C l7Mw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532NwVe82KD3wTvVIcdKRtuVUiqOR4NsMhjJzPb76nOwEOJx0zX8 9/UxY9H2ppntUpktL9G+asPVMpwaPOuBUA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwZ+yAorGlGwGMaNp+lmK60Y7XuCZmRzo5FGp/wAGWY4xynMaaukw7rl06bFkhT8sC3/bovCw==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:c781:: with SMTP id gn1mr9766065pjb.151.1597609451040; Sun, 16 Aug 2020 13:24:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.178.20] ([151.210.139.192]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id n3sm16560714pfq.131.2020.08.16.13.24.08 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 16 Aug 2020 13:24:10 -0700 (PDT)
To: Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>, John Day <jeanjour@comcast.net>
Cc: architecture-discuss@ietf.org
References: <754DE168-DF3B-4471-A145-39C6143E538A@comcast.net> <FB381338-A278-45B2-A40B-3A065E3A3ED1@strayalpha.com>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1fd2ed7d-d4bc-c5b7-9a4a-7966d5e60513@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2020 08:24:06 +1200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <FB381338-A278-45B2-A40B-3A065E3A3ED1@strayalpha.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/architecture-discuss/G1dgMrjCiNUmUTZeXYpjRHIV1mc>
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: Sun, 16 Aug 2020 20:24:14 -0000

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
>