Re: [arch-d] Programmable forwarding plane discussions ? (was: Re: on the nature of architecture discussion)
Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de> Mon, 06 April 2020 17:45 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 8F1DF3A0D1F for <architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Apr 2020 10:45:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.871
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.871 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.248, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 PHE2KDMqcZjg for <architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Apr 2020 10:44:58 -0700 (PDT)
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 8A2263A0D1D for <architecture-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 6 Apr 2020 10:44:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de [131.188.34.52]) by faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFAFF548042; Mon, 6 Apr 2020 19:44:52 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Postfix, from userid 10463) id AA097440040; Mon, 6 Apr 2020 19:44:52 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2020 19:44:52 +0200
From: Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>
To: Marie-Jose Montpetit <marie@mjmontpetit.com>
Cc: Bob Briscoe <ietf@bobbriscoe.net>, architecture-discuss@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20200406174452.GK28965@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
References: <20200406160325.GI28965@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <CAPjWiCQiTTzbVtNeEfdsMVDGo_77JS=qrDOmT2=wv7wpPcaDAQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <CAPjWiCQiTTzbVtNeEfdsMVDGo_77JS=qrDOmT2=wv7wpPcaDAQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/architecture-discuss/JgZnUS9h_suDLjibjT6aNKaK1OI>
Subject: Re: [arch-d] Programmable forwarding plane discussions ? (was: Re: on the nature of architecture discussion)
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, 06 Apr 2020 17:45:03 -0000
Yes, i know, but thanks for reminding! Cheers oerless On Mon, Apr 06, 2020 at 10:10:13AM -0700, Marie-Jose Montpetit wrote: > There is a IRTF RG on programmable forwarding planes: COINRG. > > And we have an active mailing list and an interim tomorrow if you want to > participate. > > mjm > > Marie-José Montpetit, Ph.D. > marie@mjmontpetit.com > > > > On April 6, 2020 at 12:06:07 PM, Toerless Eckert (tte@cs.fau.de) wrote: > > To give one example aspect of what i would think of as a part > of the architecture: Discussions about pogrammable forwarding planes. > > We had one talk/presentation last year sponsored by IESG talking about > forwarding planes. And i think we did already see some good disagrement > (discussion starter) about how flexible or inflexible we should consider > them to be now or how much they could be more flexible in the future. > I for once think that wee could promote for them to be more flexible > if we would start getting our heads around this and maybe start writing > up insights and expectations. > > There are several attendees whose organizations have collected > experiences with options such as P4, FPGA or fd.io. But we have > no forum whatsoever to discuss those programmable forwarding plane > aspects. Heck, i am sure there would be interest for IETF participants > interested in this topic to contribute educational insight, summaries > of experiences, and thoughts about gaps that should and could be > closed. > > I for once am of the firm believ that the degree of innovation on any > platform is proportional to the degree of flexible programmability > by third parties. See VNF/NFV in data centers versus ossification in > gigabit switching in the WAN. But once we get to those forwarding > planes, i think freely programmable can not mean x.86 style, but > it does need to mean something beyond P4, and it does IMHO also > mean that we have to do reusable extensible protocols or else we > can not have virtual programmed networks due to lack of code space. > Etc. pp... > > So, why don't we even have a mailing list for such discussions ? > Yes, fragementing into many mailing lists has downsides, but most people > here (beside probbly myself) would have likely not thought about > forwarding plane architectures when they joined architecture-discuss, > so having a more specific mailing list and promoting it might help > to even attract the interested community. > > Of course, anything IETF organization would be easier if there was > a sponsor in leadership. And even for a mailing list, such a sponsor > is mandatory. > > Cheers > Toerless > > On Mon, Apr 06, 2020 at 02:25:31PM +0100, Bob Briscoe wrote: > > Toerless, > > > > I helped with a series of 'Re-Arch' research workshops from 2008 to 2010. > > The name was about "re-architecting" the Internet (whatever that means), > but > > the accepted papers included articulation of insights about the existing > > architecture. I was also involved in various activities before that to > > promote research investigation into the Internet's architecture. So, > based > > on that experience, here's my 2 penny's worth. > > > > You don't want to have "arch-dispatch" sessions too often. Good > > architectural ideas don't come up that often, so if you create too much > > space to talk about them, the vacuum will get filled with waffle. Once a > > year is probably enough. But then, if you detect waffle is starting to > fill > > a vacuum, it's best to back off the timer to biennial. Of course, if some > > new activity spins out of this (as it sometimes should from an > arch-dispatch > > activity), that takes on a separate existence that is more frequent than > the > > annual cycle of dispatch sessions. > > > > You certainly don't want to do this from mic lines. It's too easy for > > "random-ietf-bigot" to have opinions about architecture that don't add > > anything (other than for those collecting lists of opinions). > Contributors > > need to have had to do some work, like writing an accepted paper, to even > > get into the room. > > > > It needs to be framed in a context of actionable outcomes. I mean, > something > > like arch-dispatch would be a suitable context, 'cos it gives out the > > "actionable-only" message. That doesn't preclude "vague thoughts", but > only > > as long as they have the potential to lead to some change that will > impact > > on real life once they firm-up. > > > > So, IAB might be a more appropriate context than IRTF, but you want an > > environment that will attract researchers and thinkers. So the "political > > officers" need to be in the background managing the process rather than > > holding the floor. > > > > The architecture of such a valuable artefact as the Internet can become > > highly political. Huge businesses have been built on the Internet's > current > > architecture, with a vested interest for it not to change. One person's > > architectural improvement is destruction of someone else's business > (selling > > hacks to work round architectural problems is big business). And one > > progression of changes destroys someone else's idea of how they thought > > changes would progress. So altho the discussion will often seem academic, > > the structure in which ideas are taken forward has to be resilient > against > > the wars it might start. That part is much easier said than done. > > > > Cheers > > > > > > Bob > > > > On 03/04/2020 02:05, Toerless Eckert wrote: > > > On Thu, Apr 02, 2020 at 11:58:34AM -0800, Melinda Shore wrote: > > > > On 4/2/20 11:34 AM, Toerless Eckert wrote: > > > > > Was it only presentations or also associated drafts ? Was the > > > > > material asked to be make available sufficiently long ago to > > > > > allow quality updates be prior review ? > > > > Neither, really. It largely consisted of heated discussions at > > > > the mike lines. While there were presentations, for the most > > > > part they were not architectural in nature (with a few notable > > > > exceptions). > > > Ok, remembering some bits now. > > > That was fun, but yes, not what i was thinking of. > > > > > > > My sense, from several decades of involvement in the IETF in > > > > various capacities, is that 1) it would take years to get > > > > agreement on a diagram of the current internet architecture > > > > and what you'd end up would be aspirational rather than > > > > descriptive; > > > I think we can and are doing descriptive. Most of stackevo > > > mentioned by you below was descriptive. So are IMHO > > > many other documents/RFC i would consider to be architectural. > > > > > > I can think of aspirational as a good and even necessar thing. > > > > > > > 2) architectural discussions in the past have > > > > had minimal impact on actual protocol design; > > > That is a very broad statement. We should first have an > > > unserstanding about what we mean with architecture before > > > i should even ask you to give me example evidence of this. > > > > > > My architecture interests for example are probably a lot lower > > > inside the machine room of the Internet than e.g. the > > > Internet BGP peering architecure. But all of it is valid > > > architecture topics to me. > > > > > > For example, i would consider CBOR an example of an > > > architcure concept (presentation layer) brought into > > > IETF and protocols. > > > > > > One example architecture area of interest for me is the problem that we > > > are not well enough taking the architecture of routers in to > > > account for our protocols, or better yet propose to evolve > > > architecture of both routers and protocols to be better fits in the > > > future. > > > > > > I am betting neither of these topics are what you would > > > have considered to be architecture in your statement... ?? > > > > > > > and 3) complexity > > > > always wins in the end (the history and output of the NSIS > > > > working group might be a particularly illustrative example > > > > of the latter). > > > > > > > > Right now, there is nothing stopping anybody from publishing > > > > drafts and contributing to (or, indeed, leading) architectural > > > > discussions in IETF working groups. I'm not sure what > > > > inferences we should make from the fact that for the most part > > > > that's not happening now. > > > If architecture can be associated directly with protocols > > > of an IETF WG, then yes, it could and should happen > > > in that WG, but i think there are more cases where even > > > this does not happen. E.g.: I have seen ADs eliminate architecture > > > from charters because it does not produce implementable protocols. > > > > > > But the more fundamental issue is that architecture mostly > > > needs to predate protocol development, like research mostly > > > needs to predate architecture and protocols. I can not > > > see a logic that argues we must have an IRTF, but we cannot > > > have an IATF (Internet Architecture Task Force). The > > > whole construct of IAB for architecture is weird to me. > > > > > > > I'm skeptical about the actual value of what you're proposing > > > > but as I said, there's nothing stopping you (or anybody else) > > > > from starting up something informally, which would give us all > > > > a better sense of the actual interest level and what the likely > > > > output would be. > > > Oh, i think there is a lot of sport in trying to discourage work > > > that is not officially sponsored by the IETF/IAB authorities > > > at least from my imited experience. > > > > > > We need to be darn careful with every single word we > > > write about a side meeting. Make sure it is called "non official" > > > every time you mention it, having people seemingly "borrow" > > > sign up sheets for examination what could be wrong with them, > > > ending up with concerns of using the same color (!) as "official" IETF > > > meeting sign up sheets. Dismissive comments about even doing > > > a side-meeting, Not being allowed to use IETF tooling > > > like webex, jabber, wiki, etherpad, and so on. Because using > > > IETF tools would mean "endorsement of the activity" *sigh*. > > > > > > This is sad in general, but at a time when it is legally crucial > > > to make sure all communications is easily recognizeable as > > > public and published because of the US Govt. export regulations > > > (see EAR 734.7) it is outright dangerous to make it so difficult > > > for inofficial side-meetings to use or emulate the > > > public/published nature of official IETF meetings. > > > > > > > Also, note that there have been IAB programs like stackevo to > > > > deal with these questions. > > > Last RFC published in 2016. Concluded in 2019. > > > Followup to architecture-discuss according to closing mail. > > > > > > Cheers > > > Toerless > > > > Melinda > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Melinda Shore > > > > melinda.shore@nomountain.net > > > > > > > > Software longa, hardware brevis > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Architecture-discuss mailing list > > > > Architecture-discuss@ietf.org > > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss > > > > > > > -- > > ________________________________________________________________ > > Bob Briscoe http://bobbriscoe.net/ > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Architecture-discuss mailing list > > Architecture-discuss@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss > > -- > --- > tte@cs.fau.de > > _______________________________________________ > Architecture-discuss mailing list > Architecture-discuss@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss -- --- tte@cs.fau.de
- [arch-d] Programmable forwarding plane discussion… Toerless Eckert
- Re: [arch-d] Programmable forwarding plane discus… Marie-Jose Montpetit
- Re: [arch-d] Programmable forwarding plane discus… Toerless Eckert
- Re: [arch-d] Programmable forwarding plane discus… Marie-Jose Montpetit
- Re: [arch-d] Programmable forwarding plane discus… Tim Chown