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

[Toerless Eckert <[e-mail]>]

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 ?

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.

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 <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >>
> >> ???
> >>
> >>> Begin forwarded message:
> >>>
> >>> *From: *John Day <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> >>> *Subject: **Re: [arch-d] A Public Option for the Core*
> >>> *Date: *August 16, 2020 at 06:18:04 EDT
> >>> *To: *John Grant <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> >>>
> >>> 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 <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> 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
> >>>> [phone] and [phone]
> >>>> http://www.ninetiles.com
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> Architecture-discuss mailing list
> >>>> [e-mail]
> >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss
> >>>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Architecture-discuss mailing list
> >> [e-mail]
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Architecture-discuss mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss
> > 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Architecture-discuss mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss

-- 
---
[e-mail]