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

[Victor Reijs <[e-mail]>]

Indeed I was running the TUBA/CLNBS project worldwide😉


Victor Reijs
Research engineer: future internet

Attendance (CEST): Mon 8.15-16.45 | Tue 8.15-16.45 | Fri 9.00-17.30



SIDN | Meander 501 | 6825 MD | Postbus 5022 | 6802 EA | ARNHEM | The Netherlands
T [phone] | M [phone]
[e-mail] | www.sidn.nl

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Day <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Friday, 17 April 2020 16:31
> To: Victor Reijs <[e-mail]>
> Cc: S Moonesamy <[e-mail]>; Toerless Eckert <[e-mail]>;
> [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [arch-d] ETSI launches new group on Non-IP Networking addressing
> 5G new services
> 
> One minor correction.
> 
> TUBA/CLNS was an ISO effort. It is true that it does have a ITU number but nearly
> all OSI standards had both an ISO number and an ITU number.
> 
> The ITU consistently opposed connectionless and CLNP at every opportunity they
> had starting with the OSI Reference Model to keep connectionless out of OSI. The
> first amendment to the OSI Reference Model was to add connectionless and the
> ITU fought that tooth and nail.  It was only through the efforts of *computer
> companies,* not ITU members, that connectionless and CLNP was there and the
> work progressed.
> 
> The ITU never wanted CLNP and the IETF obliged them.
> 
> There was more CLNP deployed and operational in the Internet in 1992 than IPv6
> in 2014.
> 
> The ITU owes the IETF an immense debt of gratitude for keeping this issue
> uncertain for the past 28 years.  This has greatly facilitated the ITU's great success
> in bringing the IETF even closer to the ITU direction.
> 
> Congratulations.
> 
> John
> 
> 
> 
> > On Apr 17, 2020, at 06:45, Victor Reijs <victor.reijs=[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hello all of you,
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Architecture-discuss <[e-mail]> On
> >> Behalf Of S Moonesamy
> >> Sent: Friday, 17 April 2020 11:08
> >> To: Toerless Eckert <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> >> Subject: Re: [arch-d] ETSI launches new group on Non-IP Networking
> >> addressing 5G new services
> >>
> >> IPv6 was promoted as "secure by default" as IPsec was part of it.
> >
> > [Victor Reijs]
> > I can remember that when we together had a fully operational TUBA/CLNS
> service in Europe and US (really 90s). The missing of IPSec was one of the reason
> not to choose for TUBA/CLNS (beside that it was an ITU standard). TUBA/CLNS
> was only providing longer (flexible length) addresses. While IPv6 should do indeed
> secure stuff. Not much has materialise in all these years during which IPv6 needed
> to be developed/deployed...
> > But ok that is in the past.
> >
> > I now read in the ETSI ISG-NIN group that the major issues not to use IP inside
> B5G is de additional cost of spectrum (which is quite limited) due to the large
> headers in IPv4/v6 and many encapsulations happening. Furthermore congestion
> control and QoS are really not supported and that might cause problems for real-
> time or time critical applications. The ICANN report (5G Technology) says that IP
> can all do that, but why are the ICANN arguments not (yet) convincing the mobile
> operators?
> > I think the specifications are quite clear defined by ETSI NGP's KPI
> (https://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_gs/NGP/001_099/012/01.01.01_60/gs_NGP01
> 2v010101p.pdf ) so it must be 'easy' to determine if IP can or cannot do it.
> >
> >
> > All the best and stay healthy,
> >
> > Victor Reijs
> > Research engineer: future internet
> >
> > Attendance (CEST): Mon 8.15-16.45 | Tue 8.15-16.45 | Fri 9.00-17.30
> >
> >
> >
> > SIDN | Meander 501 | 6825 MD | Postbus 5022 | 6802 EA | ARNHEM | The
> > Netherlands T [phone] | M [phone]
> > [e-mail] | www.sidn.nl
> > _______________________________________________
> > Architecture-discuss mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss