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

Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com> Fri, 10 April 2020 00:11 UTC

Return-Path: <farinacci@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFEAA3A15BB for <architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Apr 2020 17:11:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id a8fESTUXlfK7 for <architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Apr 2020 17:11:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf1-x42b.google.com (mail-pf1-x42b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::42b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6F0FA3A15BA for <architecture-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Apr 2020 17:11:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf1-x42b.google.com with SMTP id a13so323910pfa.2 for <architecture-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 09 Apr 2020 17:11:08 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=content-transfer-encoding:from:mime-version:subject:date:message-id :references:cc:in-reply-to:to; bh=XLC6fmtj3h3DMgFs41tvEof0jLeoV1vHCUXDsIHa9fg=; b=r3rrsFA9Rs9odO5oFLW5gVuXu/+NAdPxUfkY9pARFX4H7N+Ou8kuzby4HzX7syB4aV u/a5jwOhNy6J53dLZiJsQfzVE27oMgaaqADzpDiALL1mENH6LTsfVnhhuZBTs2P1RJal OPlDME5fj254qxVF0C2ZjAfQjXhkg1tUudFwA+IEf5voAoNJ/4Fm2KksjSwLirkaNYA4 iVHu3KKNtYzqBrc+7Tk5ikzyLyF8daqfHs5XFS8luajbBtvenAEfadtQKovc1yVIsqt3 aViMxrpCfJzXID8C+fgGe7CQ+IUGcClJqI49b/1t3EnrbaDBkWJKXhl5MnyPAjZtTpfL fuLg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:content-transfer-encoding:from:mime-version :subject:date:message-id:references:cc:in-reply-to:to; bh=XLC6fmtj3h3DMgFs41tvEof0jLeoV1vHCUXDsIHa9fg=; b=V1af1KSfJ+pBpQ0plKZx574M7/KyU4Cfjqi97tONiMZOs8AzBMEBLoRVuUrfHFtK3H +pEBSwpwSeeuCq7uw5G6LjuDXdCLvugPOUqpxuM9o6Xjw+QBSL5ci9Onob2qRXIo325R 0H4VnupkCw6rjM6Ets7cyZ5aOvtR35yg6VaLymYZ7l1XMylGGGXKSxTQqs0ByGIVtXS9 y24XNykGuXeI6p2nIhis2ui3F/wKboIHH6mRugiXDgTDYBJ16J3eoHSMyAPngOpwNKVZ K5e/tYMolcIU4NC8f7KbjRkB+lNDO0DKRJ6uegLnexA1B0P5pbYbuhS/UIMRqfNU5emt S3Wg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AGi0PuZqXFc+Kv4VFdyFWs2afQ+4dDHFh9vnYsTZIYX6jUzMepNQ6JSB TD0SoV+59HKlocN91/fnNv8=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypKUVjlcc614kzAiz2Yvn6W4FjWpJcfk2CxmSBn0xWn5t1NG6DD/z11c03yDDX/xU2qB1jgBiA==
X-Received: by 2002:a62:164a:: with SMTP id 71mr2136416pfw.273.1586477467887; Thu, 09 Apr 2020 17:11:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2600:380:442d:dd38:9809:8320:97e5:e834? ([2600:380:442d:dd38:9809:8320:97e5:e834]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id x186sm228719pfb.151.2020.04.09.17.11.07 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 09 Apr 2020 17:11:07 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2020 17:11:06 -0700
Message-Id: <FCF293B5-FE6B-47DE-97DA-6A22683EDEC1@gmail.com>
References: <20200409235935.GH44502@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
Cc: Tony Li <tony1athome@gmail.com>, architecture-discuss@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <20200409235935.GH44502@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
To: Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (17E255)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/architecture-discuss/rZJYh7Oem9tLTftmE0m-qRE42r4>
Subject: Re: [arch-d] ETSI launches new group on Non-IP Networking addressing 5G new services
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: Fri, 10 Apr 2020 00:11:10 -0000

Toerless, you (we) have to present a design. You gotta write it down in some form. How else do you get peer review?

Dino

> On Apr 9, 2020, at 4:59 PM, Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de> wrote:
> 
> 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
>