Re: [arch-d] ETSI launches new group on Non-IP Networking addressing 5G new services

[Toerless Eckert <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Apr 09, 2020 at 04:54:24PM -0700, Dino Farinacci wrote:
> > I would alredy be happy if we had a better overall system standard
> > to simply operationale path diversity. distributed MRT IGP
> > extensions was the only thing i rememer we did, and while
> > its cool, it doesn't offer lowest latency (shorted path
> > length compared to centralized diverse path calculation).
> > Hence also proposal from our side like PPR for easier
> > forwarding plane agnostic path engineering.
> 
> Then why don???t you write a solutions draft that says ???use X, Y, and Z protocols that allows near-zero packet loss and probablisic delays???.

There is always more drafts one could write than time. We
presented PPR drafts as a generic concept, its benefits and
maybe even specific details for disjoint paths is still
one some Todo list.

> > The simple n-path diverse pathset calculation is easy to
> > use in any network, thats why its a good starting point
> > the more dynamic mechanisms you mention are still good
> > research topics IMHO. At least for quantitive evaluations.
> 
> That???s right. So write a draft that starts out using IP. It will go a long way and you can test it sooner. ;-)

I am not even sure that something that improves IPv4 value
equal to IPv6 would be welcome by part of the community ;-)

But i think there are a lot more pieces to the puzzle
than path diversity, and those othre pieces would
require additional header info, and thats where we
run into 8200 and other issues.

Cheers
    Toerless