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 03:06:00PM -0700, Dino Farinacci wrote:
> > Right now we only have the disucss whether somehing works in forwading plane
> > individually in each protocol new field discuss, and that does not give us
> > good coverage. It also raises the risk that someone who does not like a
> > protocol uses the "not possible in forwarding plane" as a scapegoat
> > not having to say no on a protocol due to otherreasons (company policies etc..).
> 
> Let me try to be specific on your point. I could be completely misunderstand you. Here are some basic statements:

You make a lot of good observation to discuss below, but my comments
where not meant to be specific to ICN. Think about something
else, like BIER, or any other interesting new forwarding plane
features. Think about a vendor who might have stood up and 
said "BIER is nogo as my HW does not do it", but suspicion
could be that he just does not want to see devaluation of
investment into existing multicast forwarding plane.

If instead we had a broader agreed upon understanding of what
forwarding plane functionality we could expect upfront, this
could not happen. Think about defining some reference thats
maybe P4++ (we know its too limited, we don't know what an
acceptable ++ is). So you demonstrate that you can do your
forwarding plane feature in P4++ and that should settle the
"acceptable for forwarding plane in IETF" argument.

Just as a very rough idea on potential goals for forwarding
plane architecture.

Cheers
    Toerless

P.S.: If you want a discuss about ICN/NDN i am all game. Still trying to
figure out its benefits over PGM with DLR (kidding).

> (1) IP is a robust network layer that has proved to work for many applications.
> (2) ICN/NDN is a new data-plane paradigm that is designed for non-conversational flows.
> (3) It is not clear yet, if an ICN forwarding plane is faster than a IP forwarding plane. And it may not matter.
> (4) ICN can do source authentication for each packet. That is a nice feature at some cost.
> (5) IP cannot do packet source authentication.
> 
> So you might follow to say that IP can???t do source authenticaiton and therefore IP doesn???t have enough coverage for new features.
> 
> Is that what you are claiming?
> 
> Dino

-- 
---
[e-mail]