[arch-d] Clarification on Question #1 and #2//Question List for APN

Lizhenbin <lizhenbin@huawei.com> Thu, 17 September 2020 12:07 UTC

Return-Path: <lizhenbin@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C0F63A0921; Thu, 17 Sep 2020 05:07:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id s6oWH6895EsS; Thu, 17 Sep 2020 05:07:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 64A483A0933; Thu, 17 Sep 2020 05:07:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhreml737-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown []) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 53BCA894C3E53180ACFA; Thu, 17 Sep 2020 13:07:09 +0100 (IST)
Received: from lhreml737-chm.china.huawei.com ( by lhreml737-chm.china.huawei.com ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1913.5; Thu, 17 Sep 2020 13:06:25 +0100
Received: from DGGEMM403-HUB.china.huawei.com ( by lhreml737-chm.china.huawei.com ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_0, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA) id 15.1.1913.5 via Frontend Transport; Thu, 17 Sep 2020 13:06:24 +0100
Received: from DGGEMM532-MBX.china.huawei.com ([]) by DGGEMM403-HUB.china.huawei.com ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0487.000; Thu, 17 Sep 2020 20:06:21 +0800
From: Lizhenbin <lizhenbin@huawei.com>
To: "apn@ietf.org" <apn@ietf.org>
CC: "architecture-discuss@ietf.org" <architecture-discuss@ietf.org>, "network-tokens@ietf.org" <network-tokens@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Clarification on Question #1 and #2//Question List for APN
Thread-Index: AdaMCkelsxu5vPOYQGOf2/vsWxQt3AA4I4/A
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2020 12:06:21 +0000
Message-ID: <5A5B4DE12C0DAC44AF501CD9A2B01A8D93871995@DGGEMM532-MBX.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_5A5B4DE12C0DAC44AF501CD9A2B01A8D93871995DGGEMM532MBXchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/architecture-discuss/dPc8sRyPUlS9_y_hNcEfcIZ3pOg>
Subject: [arch-d] Clarification on Question #1 and #2//Question List for APN
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: Thu, 17 Sep 2020 12:07:15 -0000

Hi Folks,
The network token and architecture discussion mailing list are added.

I would like to add some points for the clarification. Please refer to the text inline.

Best Regards,

From: Apn [mailto:apn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Pengshuping (Peng Shuping)
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2020 10:07 AM
To: apn@ietf.org<mailto:apn@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Apn] Question List for APN

Dear all,

I am going to start posting the answers to the listed questions based on the previous work and discussions. If you have any comments please let us know. Thank you!

#1. Which layer is for APN to do the application-aware work?
Answer: The IP network layer. When the application-information is carried on this layer, it can be read by the routers along the path as well as the middle boxes, which makes the network aware of the applications in a native manner.
[Robin] The application information may be carried with SRv6/IPv6, MPLS, VXLAN, etc.

#2. Does APN provide services within a limited-domain or Internet?
Answer: The main purpose of APN is to provide application-aware network services to the customers within the controlled operators’ networks. Therefore, it is within a limited domain.
[Robin] Later we will propose more description on the application scenarios about the limited domains when discuss the security and privacy issues. Here just briefly introduce two existing examples:
1. Fixed broadband access: The operators will use a C-VLAN to identify the user and a S-VLAN to identify the service for the users to access the fixed network. The C-VLAN + S-VLAN composes the QinQ encapsulation.
2. Mobile broadband access: GTP-U tunnel will be setup according to the user and service requirement information in the 5G mobile service for the user to access mobile network.
The QinQ identification and GTP-U tunnel are the typical application-aware cases using in the limited domains without leak to the open internet. APN work is to provide more application-aware services based on the network layer using for the limited domains.

Best regards,

From: Lizhenbin
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2020 10:35 PM
To: apn@ietf.org<mailto:apn@ietf.org>
Cc: Pengshuping (Peng Shuping) <pengshuping@huawei.com<mailto:pengshuping@huawei.com>>
Subject: Question List for APN

Hi Folks,
Thanks very much for your attention to APN work. After much preparation work, we summarized the key questions to be clarified for APN which also were always asked. In fact in the past discussion and the APN side meeting of IETF108, many of these questions were discussed and clarified. Here we propose these questions together for your convenience.

The questions to be clarified are as follows:
#1. Which layer is for APN to do the application-aware work?
#2. Does APN provide services within a limited-domain or Internet?
#3. Which area in IETF would the APN work fit better?
#4. What is the relationship between APN and other attempts in IETF’s history?
#5. What are the valuable use cases/usage scenarios of APN?
#6. Is the fine-granularity operations needed/desired in the network?
#7. Why not just use DSCP?
#8. Does APN violate network neutrality?
#9. Will APN raise security issues since application-aware information is carried in the APN packets?
#10. Will APN raise privacy issues since application-aware information is carried in the APN packets?

Shuping Peng will send the detailed answers for these questions in the mailing list in the following one or two weeks. The questions and answers may be not only be sent in the APN mailing list, but also be copied to the architecture discussion mailing list and the network token mailing list for more cross-area feedback if necessary.

If you have any comments on these questions and answers, we can go on to discuss through the mailing list.

Best Regards,
Zhenbin (Robin)

From: Apn [mailto:apn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Lizhenbin
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2020 7:22 PM
To: apn@ietf.org<mailto:apn@ietf.org>
Subject: [Apn] Welcome to APN Mailing List

Hi Folks,

Welcome to join the APN mailing list. We are glad to have more discussion through the mailing list as the follow-up of the IETF108 APN side meeting.
In the process of APN work, many historic work items such as SPUD, PLUS, etc. have been proposed. It has been tried to be clarified that APN focuses
on the network layer and limited domains. Concerns on the security and privacy issues also have been proposed many times about the work. It also
has been tried to be clarified that in the trustable limited domains the security and privacy issues can be under control. These are the reasons why APN
work is based in the RTG area instead of ART/TSV areas.

But because of too much historic work to be clarified and its proposing the cross-area discussion for which RTG/APP/TSV/INT/SEC/IRTF are involved, it is
necessary to have more discussion to clarify the scope and work items for APN. We wish the mailing list would be helpful to the work and promoting the
cross-area communication to understand each other better.

You can get yourself up to speed with our discussions so far by seeing the materials at < https://github.com/APN-Community/>gt;, especially the materials
From the virtual IETF 108  APN side meeting at < https://github.com/APN-Community/IETF108-Side-Meeting-APN>gt;. This link also gives you pointers to
some of the relevant Internet-Drafts.

Over the next few weeks we will try to guide discussion by introducing some questions for debate. But please also raise your own issues and concerns
and contribute to the exchanges on this list.

Look forwarding to have more fun discussion in the mailing list.

Best Regards,
Dan & Zhenbin