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

[Dino Farinacci <[e-mail]>]

> 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”.

>> You can only do this with an overlay so the edge of the network can select different paths by simply changing the destination address (either with tunneling or translation). But its a hard problem that may be unsolvable. You would have to set expectations very clearly what this new architecture provides and how and when it fails.
> 
> 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. ;-)

Dino