Re: [Banana] Charter Text w/Milestones

[Jordan Melzer <[e-mail]>]

If MPTCP is any indicator, there are different use cases for multipath.  The top examples I have seen
	1) Path-rich data-center use cases
	2) Smart-phone: LTE+WiFi
	3) Residential / commercial multi-WAN -- the WT-378 hybrid access use case falls into this, but is only part of the category
	4) Multi-LAN: 2.4GHz + 5GHz + powerline / 60 GHz

None of these are boutique use cases.

If BANANA can produce an encapsulation technique that doesn't break higher layer protocols by doing packet retransmission but does rate control, maintains ordering across multiple links, and is reasonably robust to real internet environments (eg NAT, policers), that would be great.  To David's point, support mechanisms can come after, and there may be lots of ways to deliver them.

-----Original Message-----
From: Banana [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of David Allan I
Sent: March 30, 2017 02:13 PM
To: Margaret Cullen; [e-mail]
Cc: Mirja Kuehlewind; Suresh Krishnan
Subject: Re: [Banana] Charter Text w/Milestones

HI

I have to admit I have a few problems with this....

First, two items in the interest of full disclosure,

1) I'm focused on the converged operator case where this is likely to be a managed service, and my comments are a result of viewing the problem through that lens. As such, operators already have tools to do a chunk of this (e.g. policy and configuration) which they will simply extend as necessary vs. deploy new protocols.

2) I have a leadership position in Broadband Forum where we have been working this space for some time. We expect to do further work as part of efforts to add fixed access/hybrid access directly to a 5G core. This is to satisfy the aspirations of a number of European carriers of have both wireless and wireline offerings and wish to converge them. This is a project we are initiating in cooperation with 3GPP with deliverables to be complete for release 16(YE 2018), and I would expect this to address a chunk of the wishlist in the charter independently of any BANANA efforts. My reasons for thinking this outlined above, the bootstrapping and configuration I would expect to be achieved by augmenting already specified and deployed tools.

IF this were to go forward I would want to see the necessary functions decomposed, and separate out initial bootstrapping of the service from steady state operation. A toolbox of protocols that could be individually adopted would serve the industry better than a god protocol. That being said, if bootstrapping and initial configuration is taken off the table as not of use to my constituency,  I am highly skeptical that the steady state operation of any of a number of solutions can be genericized to be common to the set of approaches currently on the table... Off the top of my head I would characterize the steady state functions as:
	- routing to an off path proxy <-- property of the individual protocol solution
	- flow control <-- property of the individual protocol solution, e.g. TCP can be dealt with differently than UDP, differently than something like QUIC
	- maintaining ordering guarantees <-- property of the individual protocol solution
	- fault detection <-- COULD be separate OAM, or bundled into the individual solution's flow control, ergo part of the specific solution....

So before progressing, I think more effort needs to be put into demonstrating that there is a common problem to be solved that is any more than configuration of what I believe to be a boutique use case.

I hope this helps
Dave



-----Original Message-----
From: Banana [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Margaret Cullen
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 11:10 AM
To: [e-mail]
Cc: Mirja Kuehlewind <[e-mail]>; Suresh Krishnan <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Banana] Charter Text w/Milestones

Here is the (wordsmithed) charter text from last night.  I have also added milestones.

At this point, the text attempts to be neutral about the subject of whether there will be an MPTCP encapsulation (presumably done in the MPTCP WG) or not.  We might want to update the text based on the outcome of today’s MPTCP meeting if there is any clear conclusion.

Thoughts?  Comments?

Any feedback will be appreciated!

Margaret

The BANdwidth Aggregation for Network Access (BANANA) Working Group is chartered to develop solution(s) to support dynamic path selection on a per-packet basis in networks that have more than one point of attachment to the Internet.

Bandwith Aggregation consists of splitting local traffic across multiple Internet links on a per-packet basis, including the ability to split a single flow across multiple links when necessary.

It is the goal of this WG to produce a Bandwidth Aggregation solution that will provide the following benefits:

- Higher Per-Flow Bandwidth: Many Internet links available to homes
  and small offices (DSL, Cable, LTE, Satellite, etc.) have relatively
  low bandwidth.  Users may wish to run applications (such as
  streaming video, or content up/downloads) that require (or could
  benefit from) more bandwidth for a single traffic flow than is
  available on any of the local links.  A Bandwidth Aggregation
  solution could supply the needed bandwidth by splitting a single
  traffic flow across multiple Internet links.

- Reduced Cost: Traffic sharing on a per-packet basis allows the full
  bandwidth of the lowest-cost link to be used first, only using a
  higher-cost link when the lowest-cost link is full.

- Increased Reliability: When one Internet link goes down, ongoing
  application flows can be moved to another link, preventing service
  disruption.

Proposed BANANA solutions use different approaches (e.g. tunnels, proxies, etc.) to split and recombine traffic, but at an abstract level, they involve a local (hardware or software) component on the multi-access network, a remote component within the Internet, and mechanisms for those components to find each other, exchange signalling information, and direct traffic to each other.  We refer to these functional components as the Local and Remote "BANANA Boxes", and we refer to the method they use to direct traffic to each other as a "BANANA Encapsulation".

The Bandwidth Aggregation solutions developed in this group will work whether the attached links are provided by a single Internet Service Provider or multiple Providers.

The BANANA WG will have the following work items:

- Determine how Local and Remote BANANA Boxes find each other.

- Specify a signalling protocol that can be used to send configuration
  and control information between BANANA boxes, including:
    -  IP Prefixes of local links
    -  Information about link properties & status
    -  Information needed by the encapsulations

- Select (and extend, if necessary) an existing tunneling
  encapsulation for sending traffic between BANANA Boxes.

- Work with other IETF WGs defining BANANA encapsulations
  (if any) to ensure that the discovery mechanism and signalling
  protocol will meet their needs.  

BANANA Boxes will determine if a specific flow is eligible for Bandwith Aggregation. If a flow is not eligible, it will not be split across multiple attached links.

For this initial charter, we will focus on how Local BANANA Boxes communicate with Remote BANANA Boxes.  We will not address the topic of cooperation between multiple Local BANANA Boxes.

MILESTONES
(Assumes WG Chartering by May 2017)
Dec 2017 Adopt WG draft for discovery/configuration mechanism Dec 2017 Adopt WG draft for signalling proocol Dec 2017 Adopt WG draft for tunnel encapsulation Oct 2018 WGLC on discovery/configuration mechanism Oct 2018 WGLC on signalling protocol Oct 2018 WGLC on tunnel encapsulation Apr 2019 Send discovery/configuration mechanism to the IESG Apr 2019 Send signalling protocl to the IESG Apr 2019 Send tunnel encapsulation to the IESG

_______________________________________________
Banana mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/banana
_______________________________________________
Banana mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/banana