Re: [Banana] Charter
<HeidemannC@telekom.de> Tue, 19 September 2017 07:15 UTC
Return-Path: <HeidemannC@telekom.de>
X-Original-To: banana@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: banana@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E80A813295C for <banana@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Sep 2017 00:15:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=telekom.de
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 ZYC2WUb0Rloi for <banana@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Sep 2017 00:15:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailout24.telekom.de (MAILOUT24.telekom.de [80.149.113.254]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 374C1132620 for <banana@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Sep 2017 00:15:07 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=telekom.de; i=@telekom.de; q=dns/txt; s=dtag1; t=1505805308; x=1537341308; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=oZixz8EBr+LTI56X6/ephkpWBcDXLTdBurA5cRzEibU=; b=SAoOJmXDGSOY/bDQRQQSYliYHHxmFJwDABLkNpSifUW1GM3IhB4xd+hq LYH3I8OsI/0tO4kk4vR3c/ZxeIliPDps/KGMKHO+Me/gX15waehL/3AfA /DndAJhqB+At7rnN1QoYxKliP4F7hk7B3hofcb2LPL0TtRiv1pt6EfKr4 fRIIPUgeAFFD92IihNZc8fIpbb01veHADAZKxsPuMa8nB44OHzVntLEtE LOVsW4NwZsvWdHk6JaF5A8lUm2TdQXkz5LY05nmlcGuCmevHvpE7e/nfS kUwj2pPgxe33fprllKXjcmwUnU0dkNrHGtnIvsO9ZKPzQjHiCrVmq7Xi9 Q==;
Received: from q4de8psa169.blf.telekom.de ([10.151.13.200]) by MAILOUT21.telekom.de with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 19 Sep 2017 09:15:01 +0200
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.42,416,1500933600"; d="scan'208";a="1388857221"
Received: from he105826.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([10.169.118.48]) by q4de8psazkj.blf.telekom.de with ESMTP/TLS/AES256-SHA; 19 Sep 2017 09:14:59 +0200
Received: from HE105824.EMEA1.cds.t-internal.com (10.169.118.46) by HE105826.emea1.cds.t-internal.com (10.169.118.48) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1293.2; Tue, 19 Sep 2017 09:14:57 +0200
Received: from HE105824.EMEA1.cds.t-internal.com ([fe80::e949:ec1c:44ee:1b1]) by HE105824.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([fe80::e949:ec1c:44ee:1b1%26]) with mapi id 15.00.1293.002; Tue, 19 Sep 2017 09:14:57 +0200
From: HeidemannC@telekom.de
To: sgundave@cisco.com, mrcullen42@gmail.com, wim.henderickx@nokia.com
CC: zhangmingui@huawei.com, alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com, banana@ietf.org
Thread-Topic: [Banana] Charter
Thread-Index: AQHS/w5o9FzuX+2yA0aXr1WdJ93Td6KzKkuZgAAXGACAAKwfgIABq/MAgAC0nwCABJoqgIAAXfwAgAAHCACAAN3lUA==
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2017 07:14:57 +0000
Message-ID: <3557bafd09794fdc98e6581cf8094f63@HE105824.emea1.cds.t-internal.com>
References: <96A7BC33-FB64-487A-A60D-7AB8504C9DDF@gmail.com> <a1df884a51f246a7969c0057ff78d807@BTWP000357.corp.ads> <C3A4BFB9-EAD7-4B32-90C1-248D6D74ECD1@gmail.com> <9A767D1D-C6CA-4C7D-A281-7150E259881D@gmail.com> <DB5PR07MB13998EE07C5B5D5DBACED79C9B1A0@DB5PR07MB1399.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <7ED94797-5E72-4191-B861-4CD2F410BBD5@gmail.com> <7i60gox0c8.wl-jch@irif.fr> <DB5PR07MB1399FEDB262E0205457EA8AB9BFC0@DB5PR07MB1399.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <87bmqgov69.wl-jch@irif.fr> <DB5PR07MB1399977AFFE9FA7D19A2D34D9BFC0@DB5PR07MB1399.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <0d8ce583860345b89020113f1239be5d@BTWP000357.corp.ads> <21BD0F20-9CE5-466B-992E-93F6D84DB7D4@gmail.com> <95788B92-E8C1-4FE6-9B0C-7F29361D9297@trammell.ch> <d3759d89-9f6e-bcf4-8c44-32f3f435d784@gmail.com> <01e83ac6-0bd0-e7c7-01e4-0ffb7af73034@gmail.com> <4B6D7CF5-E6BC-4ECA-9299-7458A624320B@nokia.com> <B31BA5EB-7369-4B49-B240-AA6C3E653231@gmail.com> <2F216DBC-43EE-45AC-AAB8-68C81A14AD73@nokia.com> <4552F0907735844E9204A62BBDD325E7A65EC703@NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com> <260086DD-D245-46EF-89E2-308D5A58AAFB@nokia.com> <5FECB6A6-41B7-41D1-A8B8-B7BCE8474F90@gmail.com> <2CD45C9D-41FB-425F-946E-D3AE47C9B000@nokia.com> <6A618A1C-92FB-467F-8F7D-6A9B40FC191E@gmail.com> <D5E56BEA.28AE8D%sgundave@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <D5E56BEA.28AE8D%sgundave@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: de-DE
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.157.167.200]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/banana/5BLVm-nEKQeydC3RMHqramGIRdg>
Subject: Re: [Banana] Charter
X-BeenThere: banana@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Bandwidth Aggregation for interNet Access: Discussion of bandwidth aggregation solutions based on IETF technologies." <banana.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/banana>, <mailto:banana-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/banana/>
List-Post: <mailto:banana@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:banana-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/banana>, <mailto:banana-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2017 07:15:12 -0000
Dear all, > Bottomline, this work has no support. There is no vendor, SDO or operator interest; we need to have additional discussions. This is a classic case for IESG Appeal. At this point I can tell you that there is an operator interest to work on it. As we have a running solution, we had and have dialogs with several operators in Europe. I would say that there is a need to develop something like BANANA. The interest from all parties to support BBF was very high to define the "Hybrid Access Broadband Network architecture" TR-348. That should also give us hints that there is a potential interest on the BANANA topic. Cornelius Deutsche Telekom Technik GmbH Fixed Mobile Engineering Deutschland Cornelius Heidemann www.telekom.de Erleben, was verbindet. Die gesetzlichlichen Pflichtangaben finden Sie unter: www.telekom.de/pflichtangaben-dttechnik Hi Margaret, It is not just the question of counting hands in the room, I do not think that¹s the criteria for ³consensus² determination. We all have been in IETF long enough and we know that does not mean any thing. Sure, there may be few excited researchers/students who have no skin in the game to express interest in the work, but Standardization should have a product path. Are the key network vendors who have skin in the game have expressed interest for this work? Is there SDO interest from 3GPP, Wireless or Broadband guys? Clearly, I do not see that and there is no support for this work. Also, many folks asked why there is a need for a new signaling protocol. When I asked this question, some explicit text was added to say something along the lines, ³WG will not define a new signaling protocol, unless the existing protocols do not meet the requirement². I remember Mirja commenting on that and the chairs editing the text (Mirja can comment if I am wrong here). But, the below charter text conveniently removed that entire text and now shows a milestone for the signaling work. So, the work is getting steered not based on consensus, but on a pre-determined path. Bottomline, this work has no support. There is no vendor, SDO or operator interest; we need to have additional discussions. This is a classic case for IESG Appeal. ‹- € Specify a signalling protocol that can be used to send control information between BANANA Boxes, including: € IP Prefixes of access links € Information about link status and properties (including congestion) € Information needed by BANANA Encapsulations € Determining which flows are/are not eligible for BANANA Encapsulation € Select (and extend, if necessary) an existing tunneling encapsulation (e.g. GRE) for sending traffic between BANANA Boxes. € Feb 2019 WGLC on signaling protocol ‹- Sri > Feb 2019 WGLC on signaling protocol On 9/18/17, 12:18 PM, "Banana on behalf of Margaret Cullen" <banana-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of mrcullen42@gmail.com> wrote: >Hi Wim, > >I have heard and understand that you do not feel that we should proceed >with this work without a (potentially lengthy) process to document the >requirements, do gap analysis, etc. That opinion was raised at the BOF >meeting in Prague, as well, where several people said that they did not >support going through that sort of process, and our AD, Suresh, told us >that he wouldn¹t charter this group to go through that sort of process. >At the end of the BOF, when we asked the questions, a large majority of >the people who responded indicated that they thought the problem was >clear and well understood, and that the charter represented work we >should do in the IETF. I understand that there are a few of you who >feel differently, and you are welcome to express your opinions, but I >would say that there was a fairly strong agreement of the people in the >room in Prague _not_ to change the charter to include a >requirements/gap analysis phase, so I am not planning to do so. > >Margaret > > >> On Sep 18, 2017, at 9:42 AM, Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp) >><wim.henderickx@nokia.com> wrote: >> >> Margaret, GRE is one thing, but on top is the deliverables as >>outlined in the charter. >> >> In a situation like this we should first do requirements and check >>gaps with existing protocols to ensure we go down the right direction. >>Given the scope is specified as multi-operator OTT deployment we need >>to ensure we understand all these implications. >> >> Referring to this: >> Milestones >> € Apr 2018 Adopt WG draft for provisioning/configuration mechanism >> € Apr 2018 Adopt WG draft for signaling protocol >> € Apr 2018 Adopt WG draft(s) for tunnel encapsulation(s) >> € Feb 2019 WGLC on provisioning/configuration mechanism >> € Feb 2019 WGLC on signaling protocol >> € Feb 2019 WGLC on tunnel encapsulation(s) >> € Aug 2019 Send provisioning/configuration mechanism to the IESG >> € Aug 2019 Send signalling protocol to the IESG >> € Aug 2019 Send tunnel encapsulation(s) to the IESG >> >> On 15/09/2017, 17:25, "Margaret Cullen" <mrcullen42@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> Given the concerns about GRE and NATs, perhaps it would make sense >>to remove the explicit mention of GRE from the charter and add some >>wording about traversal of NATs and other middle boxes? Maybe >>something along these lines? >> >> OLD: >> The Bandwidth Aggregation solutions developed in this group will >>be designed to work in multi-provider scenarios (i.e. they will not >>depend on all of the aggregated links being provided by a single >>Internet access provider). >> >> NEW: >> The Bandwidth Aggregation solutions developed in this group will >>be designed to work in multi-provider scenarios (i.e. they will not >>depend on all of the aggregated links being provided by a single >>Internet access provider, and they will be designed to work across >>NATs and other middle boxes, as needed). >> >> OLD: >> Select (and extend, if necessary) an existing tunneling >>encapsulation (e.g. GRE) for sending traffic between BANANA Boxes. >> >> NEW: >> Select (and extend, if necessary) an existing tunneling >>encapsulation for sending traffic between BANANA boxes. >> >> Do people think these changes would be an improvement to the >>existing charter text? If there are no objections over the next few >>days, I will make these changes to the online charter text. >> >> Margaret >> >> >>> On Sep 15, 2017, at 12:39 AM, Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp) >>><wim.henderickx@nokia.com> wrote: >>> >>> The issue I have here is the following. We are chartering a new WG >>>to solve a certain problem. >>> The charter already hints to GRE while we have not understood the >>>requirements and have looked at what the best solution would be to >>>accommodate these requirements. The environment in the charter is >>>multi-operator, which means we will have to deal with NAT in multiple >>>ways as long as we intend to use v6. >>> >>> So, the issue I have with the charter in general is that we are >>>trying to define a protocols/signalling extensions, while we have not >>>understood the requirements and have done a gap analysis regarding >>>this. The first thing that should happen is look at the requirements >>>and more importantly look at the algorithms we would need to >>>accommodate these requirements. After do gap analysis for the >>>existing protocols and then define the potential extensions. In the >>>last step we should even see if other WG are not already suited to >>>handle this activity. >>> >>> On 14/09/2017, 07:07, "Zhangmingui (Martin)" >>><zhangmingui@huawei.com> >>>wrote: >>> >>> Hi Alex, >>> >>> If "GRE passthrough NAT" was proved to be really required, there >>>are two options: >>> 1. GRE in UDP while the UDP provides you the port number. >>> 2. The GRE Key field to be used to carry the port number. >>> For the second option, there are some existing implementations. >>>But it is not an option if the Key field has already used for other >>>purpose, e.g., security. >>> >>> However, I would say the popular usage is that the NAT happens >>>just before the GRE tunnel. Why do we have to insert a NAT device in >>>between two GRE tunnel endpoints? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Mingui >>> >>> ________________________________________ >>> From: Banana [banana-bounces@ietf.org] on behalf of Henderickx, >>>Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp) [wim.henderickx@nokia.com] >>> Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2017 0:51 >>> To: mrcullen42@gmail.com >>> Cc: Alexandre Petrescu; banana@ietf.org >>> Subject: Re: [Banana] Charter >>> >>> How will you sent GRE through NAT. GRE has no port number >>> >>> On 13/09/2017, 17:27, "mrcullen42@gmail.com" >>><mrcullen42@gmail.com> >>>wrote: >>> >>> Hi Wim, >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>>> If I hear GRE as a proposal it is very NAT unfriendly and the >>>>solution need to work across multiple providers, so this is an >>>>important consideration. >>> >>> Sorry, I somehow dropped this thread while I was in vacation... >>> >>> Why do you think that (all) GRE-based proposal(s) would be NAT >>>unfriendly? >>> >>> Margaret >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Banana mailing list >>> Banana@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/banana >>> >> >> >> >> >> > >_______________________________________________ >Banana mailing list >Banana@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/banana _______________________________________________ Banana mailing list Banana@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/banana
- Re: [Banana] Charter Text w/Milestones Juliusz Chroboczek
- Re: [Banana] Charter Text w/Milestones Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)
- Re: [Banana] Charter Text w/Milestones Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)
- Re: [Banana] Charter Text w/Milestones Juliusz Chroboczek
- Re: [Banana] Charter Text w/Milestones Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)
- Re: [Banana] Charter Text w/Milestones Juliusz Chroboczek
- Re: [Banana] Charter Text w/Milestones Flinck, Hannu (Nokia - FI/Espoo)
- Re: [Banana] Charter Margaret Wasserman
- Re: [Banana] Charter N.Leymann
- Re: [Banana] Charter Text w/Milestones Margaret Cullen
- Re: [Banana] Charter Text w/Milestones Flinck, Hannu (Nokia - FI/Espoo)
- [Banana] Charter Text w/Milestones Margaret Cullen
- Re: [Banana] Charter Text w/Milestones Margaret Cullen
- Re: [Banana] Charter Text w/Milestones Dave Dolson
- Re: [Banana] Charter Text w/Milestones philip.eardley
- Re: [Banana] Charter Text w/Milestones Dave Dolson
- Re: [Banana] Charter Text w/Milestones Jordan Melzer
- Re: [Banana] Charter Text w/Milestones Margaret Cullen
- Re: [Banana] Charter Text w/Milestones Margaret Cullen
- Re: [Banana] Charter Text w/Milestones Margaret Cullen
- Re: [Banana] Charter Text w/Milestones David Allan I
- Re: [Banana] Charter Text w/Milestones Jordan Melzer
- Re: [Banana] Charter Text w/Milestones David Allan I
- Re: [Banana] Charter Text w/Milestones Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)
- Re: [Banana] Charter Text w/Milestones David Allan I
- Re: [Banana] [ALU] Re: Charter Text w/Milestones Muley, Praveen (Nokia - US/Mountain View)
- Re: [Banana] [ALU] Re: Charter Text w/Milestones Zhangmingui (Martin)
- Re: [Banana] [ALU] Re: Charter Text w/Milestones Philipp S. Tiesel
- Re: [Banana] [ALU] Re: Charter Text w/Milestones Muley, Praveen (Nokia - US/Mountain View)
- Re: [Banana] Charter Text w/Milestones Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)
- Re: [Banana] [ALU] Re: Charter Text w/Milestones Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)
- Re: [Banana] Charter Text w/Milestones Jordan Melzer
- Re: [Banana] Charter Text w/Milestones Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)
- Re: [Banana] [ALU] Re: Charter Text w/Milestones pierrick.seite
- Re: [Banana] Charter Text w/Milestones Juliusz Chroboczek
- Re: [Banana] Charter Text w/Milestones Flinck, Hannu (Nokia - FI/Espoo)
- Re: [Banana] Charter Text w/Milestones Juliusz Chroboczek
- Re: [Banana] Charter Text w/Milestones Flinck, Hannu (Nokia - FI/Espoo)
- Re: [Banana] Charter Text w/Milestones Jordan Melzer
- Re: [Banana] Charter Text w/Milestones Margaret Wasserman
- Re: [Banana] Charter Text w/Milestones Brian Trammell (IETF)
- Re: [Banana] Charter Text w/Milestones Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [Banana] Charter Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [Banana] Charter Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)
- Re: [Banana] Charter Muley, Praveen (Nokia - US/Mountain View)
- Re: [Banana] Charter mrcullen42
- Re: [Banana] Charter mrcullen42
- Re: [Banana] Charter Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)
- Re: [Banana] Charter Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)
- Re: [Banana] Charter Zhangmingui (Martin)
- Re: [Banana] Charter Brian Trammell (IETF)
- Re: [Banana] Charter Margaret Cullen
- Re: [Banana] Charter Muley, Praveen (Nokia - US/Mountain View)
- Re: [Banana] Charter Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)
- Re: [Banana] Charter Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)
- Re: [Banana] Charter Margaret Cullen
- Re: [Banana] Charter David Allan I
- Re: [Banana] Charter Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)
- Re: [Banana] Charter Margaret Cullen
- Re: [Banana] Charter Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)
- Re: [Banana] Charter Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)
- Re: [Banana] Charter Margaret Cullen
- Re: [Banana] Charter Margaret Cullen
- Re: [Banana] Charter Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)
- Re: [Banana] Charter Margaret Cullen
- Re: [Banana] Charter Margaret Cullen
- Re: [Banana] Charter Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)
- Re: [Banana] Charter Margaret Cullen
- Re: [Banana] Charter Margaret Cullen
- Re: [Banana] Charter Zhangmingui (Martin)
- Re: [Banana] Charter Suresh Krishnan
- Re: [Banana] Charter HeidemannC
- Re: [Banana] Charter N.Leymann
- Re: [Banana] Charter Margaret Cullen
- Re: [Banana] Charter Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)
- Re: [Banana] Charter Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)
- Re: [Banana] Charter Tommy Pauly
- Re: [Banana] Charter Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)
- Re: [Banana] Charter Margaret Wasserman
- Re: [Banana] Charter Margaret Wasserman
- Re: [Banana] Charter Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)
- Re: [Banana] Charter Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)
- Re: [Banana] Charter philip.eardley
- Re: [Banana] Charter Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)
- Re: [Banana] Charter David Sinicrope
- Re: [Banana] Charter Florin Baboescu
- Re: [Banana] Charter Margaret Cullen
- Re: [Banana] Charter Suresh Krishnan
- Re: [Banana] Charter Zhangmingui (Martin)
- Re: [Banana] Charter Margaret Cullen
- Re: [Banana] Charter Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)
- Re: [Banana] Charter Margaret Cullen
- Re: [Banana] Charter Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)
- Re: [Banana] Charter Margaret Cullen
- Re: [Banana] Charter David Sinicrope
- Re: [Banana] Charter Margaret Cullen
- Re: [Banana] Charter Margaret Cullen
- Re: [Banana] Charter Margaret Cullen
- Re: [Banana] Charter Joerg Deutschmann
- Re: [Banana] Charter N.Leymann
- Re: [Banana] Charter Mirja Kühlewind
- Re: [Banana] Charter Margaret Cullen
- Re: [Banana] Charter Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)
- Re: [Banana] Charter Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)
- Re: [Banana] Charter Margaret Cullen
- Re: [Banana] Charter Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)
- Re: [Banana] Charter David Sinicrope
- Re: [Banana] Charter Margaret Cullen
- Re: [Banana] Charter David Sinicrope