[Banana] Reaching Consensus on Problem Statement

Margaret Cullen <margaretw42@gmail.com> Thu, 02 February 2017 16:48 UTC

Return-Path: <margaretw42@gmail.com>
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 8FA131294D3 for <banana@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Feb 2017 08:48:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.45
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.45 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-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 jU3jMwLhgo55 for <banana@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Feb 2017 08:48:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qt0-x236.google.com (mail-qt0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::236]) (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 731EF1294D7 for <banana@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Feb 2017 08:48:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qt0-x236.google.com with SMTP id v23so39985353qtb.0 for <banana@ietf.org>; Thu, 02 Feb 2017 08:48:40 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:content-transfer-encoding:subject:message-id:date:to :mime-version; bh=KNDQKpU+VklzvSFq/XwFx135Rg3F1nlWni0+ygq6nKw=; b=pchQy8x2RK7l2DdICx1c23po0t8OezWYV7+Qnz1lpxsx5gyWiXfqwf/22iw0L+68Go rlxFHbTCyc2cEDxMrUgtPWEymgCM3J9Df45O4x45owfWMH/GefkAKZudpKkgKJxgs9HV IvEFatcwyyWZBbZPWWil4lj4iy2BoIjT7s6VSajXsq0LCIuqqwWFJ2FrHNKw8mCyVZ9w xSagXC/GV1sG3sjyGDseNIwnHfMAagGzzmwQxPpAiCatYlj0sqBVNbmotFccE+XMYvp0 q3pJToz9tWZpykeouN3VDqCjSomLKOyit3NvEnKs7HQi0+Js9D4dClQCdoW09KvsLpPn PysQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:content-transfer-encoding:subject :message-id:date:to:mime-version; bh=KNDQKpU+VklzvSFq/XwFx135Rg3F1nlWni0+ygq6nKw=; b=esOrW/vBGBu1L2AWu8NEUjPgGEQXOq7JHMZQU+ZkwgO+AaeyNIR60bZlR1kFBGHuMq w7AinHCiwbFH07nBtMaOwi7IORD8X/6y7AtqhvlF13zEskiHdq2dVbfjt1WMdAKq/UXp ISCKp0lZCCSZFphxSj86A3ECY3XLXVzPhmzsioe+rEnixOaRIYJm1sK5keGiQYTTIHuu IEAeJQ/zaaMmj2irM1RYxaT2fkIZgIXtbHgHP2+MhwZ+PHXiysKtl6G8PM5SJKjb3kxj e3hfUmUitcvT5BfXdXzoXpjTVoTw4NdWpoumLGq5Aveyl4kluYWYAGljl5kPyZEg6psI JAWg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39miUoPcKwgW7VfpXZm1HcGIuHCI7L83IVmQISJNAikz8GHi13LCX1JUcj04DTzXDA==
X-Received: by 10.55.89.196 with SMTP id n187mr8985164qkb.17.1486054119281; Thu, 02 Feb 2017 08:48:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2601:18d:4700:100:1129:fdad:3d0a:3ad7? ([2601:18d:4700:100:1129:fdad:3d0a:3ad7]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id o7sm21768928qte.30.2017.02.02.08.48.36 for <banana@ietf.org> (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 02 Feb 2017 08:48:38 -0800 (PST)
From: Margaret Cullen <margaretw42@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <EE162993-F96F-458A-846C-D722EEF7A3B8@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2017 11:48:34 -0500
To: banana@ietf.org
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/banana/7euPQDajR4g-tnIohHRwtDVeeag>
Subject: [Banana] Reaching Consensus on Problem Statement
X-BeenThere: banana@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Thu, 02 Feb 2017 16:48:41 -0000

At the BANANA BOF in November, we did not seem to have clear consensus on a concise problem statement.  So, I’d like to try to reach consensus on a problem statement on this list, in the hopes that we can (finally!) move forward towards work on solutions.   To that end, I’ve been working with multiple people over the past few weeks to come up with a concise problem statement for our expanded BANANA effort (as represented at the BOF), and I have determined that the main aspects of the problem we are trying to solve are:

(1) Unmanaged networks (i.e. homes or small offices) often have more than one point of attachment to the Internet (DSL, Cable, LTE, etc).  We call these networks “multi-access networks”.  In multi-access networks, it is desirable to utilize the bandwidth of all attached networks to increase performance.  We call this “bandwidth aggregation”.

(2) An unmanaged multi-access network may have multiple links from a single provider (e.g. DSL/LTE, or two LTE links), or multiple links from different providers (e.g. Cable & LTE, or DSL and LTE from different providers).   We need a solution that will work in both cases, without requiring cooperation between multiple providers.  Therefore, our solution needs to work with existing IP address assignment, ingress filtering, and reverse path routing mechanisms.

(3) In these environments, the available paths to the Internet may change over time due to changing conditions and/or service outages.  It would be desirable for all existing sessions to continue using the remaining link(s) when a link becomes unavailable or unreliable.  We call this “failover”.  [Note:  This is especially true when you consider the possibility that, using this mechanism, people could increase the bandwidth available wherever they are by routinely using their smart phones as Wifi access points accessible to their home or office CPE, PCs or laptops.]

(4) Homes and small offices tend to have few simultaneous sessions active at any given time, and may often have only one large, relatively long-lived session in use for an online game or media download.  Despite the fact that only one session may be active, end-users would still benefit from increased bandwidth and reliability for that single session.  It is therefore important to support bandwidth aggregation and failover for a single session (i.e. a single TCP connection or UDP flow).  This is a key point that distinguishes the BANANA problem from other flow-based load sharing and site multihoming problems.

Thoughts?  Comments?  Do you think this problem statement is clear and understandable?  If not, in what way is it unclear?  All comments from major rewrites to word-smithing are welcome!

I’ll wait a week for feedback, then I’ll update this problem statement based on any comments I have received from this list.  After that, I will make a formal consensus call on the list, in the hope of confirming that we have consensus, among ourselves at least, regarding the problem we are trying to solve.

Margaret