Re: [arch-d] [Network-tokens] [Apn] Questions for APN: Q#5

[Christian Huitema <[e-mail]>]

On 9/30/2020 11:07 AM, Yiannis Yiakoumis wrote:
> Hi Lars,
>
> On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 12:28 AM, Lars Eggert <[e-mail]
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>     Hi,
>
>     On 2020-9-26, at 2:22, Yiannis Yiakoumis
>     <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>     wrote:
>
>         One of the first successful proof-points for SDN was Google
>         claiming that they moved their WAN utilization to ~100%,
>         instead of over-provisioning. It saved them lots of money. Two
>         of the design principles that led them there were
>         i) moving from "all packets are equally important" to
>         "allocate resources based on application-level priorities" and
>         ii) moving from "TCP flows regulated by "fair share"
>         mechanisms" to "measure demands, and shape flows at the
>         endpoints".
>
>     I think these claims were made for Google's private B4 network,
>     right? AFAIK that is a *very* different network from the public
>     Internet. From what I recall, each transfer over B4 is scheduled
>     over the course of a day based on various flow properties that are
>     required to be specified, following some giant minmax-like
>     computation.
>
>
> Yes, this is for B4. While the network is different, the idea that you
> can build a much more cost/performance efficient WAN still stands.

What do you call WAN? Until now, APN was proposed for "limited domains",
which are typically access networks. WAN would imply going further, to
long distance networks used for connections between access providers. Is
that really what you have in mind?

-- Christian Huitema