Re: [Banana] Proposed Charter for BANANA WG
Florin Baboescu <florin.baboescu@broadcom.com> Mon, 02 October 2017 23:28 UTC
Return-Path: <florin.baboescu@broadcom.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 DC929134910 for <banana@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Oct 2017 16:28:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 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_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=broadcom.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 UyVYd8AEY7JQ for <banana@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Oct 2017 16:28:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io0-x22c.google.com (mail-io0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::22c]) (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 394681342F6 for <banana@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Oct 2017 16:28:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io0-x22c.google.com with SMTP id g32so6159254ioj.2 for <banana@ietf.org>; Mon, 02 Oct 2017 16:28:15 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=broadcom.com; s=google; h=from:references:in-reply-to:mime-version:thread-index:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=2FENu0T8UDh2ilINpPklt0HZun1Vs3Ue5OsxMx0tUFU=; b=Ic+60qN0X9MoT0GH4onc1GBBwsjTO88sOquucp591lB6KyYHC/s8mfbaSsnGwXT5br 4cSuwCF1Mj6bEWrwTReTEAGULas2IFMguoJn5wphiptdBEz06IYyTCxsgPCEN4QDG1DZ oCUvH11usAiwz9JiNTLsA4i3VnZ6u0Up69ZjU=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:references:in-reply-to:mime-version :thread-index:date:message-id:subject:to:cc :content-transfer-encoding; bh=2FENu0T8UDh2ilINpPklt0HZun1Vs3Ue5OsxMx0tUFU=; b=Cbmabm1NbSf4pGnIEuBYFqZm7v97ijg3w5hGKmhqI+KLbA7ZoKlc8LxCvfyVkQjQg7 KcB4BUEFUFXc+v1kOJiIOY7Huhal13COo/q78BGy1HwTHivMMHcgJBy2Pej9BHyex1vN tLS8LSZdXiRnLWDPCAxtsghGHVNyBsNKf9ifArGf8bFqETnOidlyM71Rwr7gzLVLvXo9 8smm7bprO9bNIx79QtoYTe/7sfUXh07wZYvWYKtuRDM89sDhXj4BmJT+kekNdvTvuWqk 5mWlOFPZOxu2OkLZxerONU9LixIAP+Ese+5620NGfnXC6u4f6RDNjQWlYgvdKf/4+EkG S9Cw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMCzsaWSCIVnm9lZZd460/L52MfCsis82QIReUcv1jiJPe/BrSSjb9y+ BvTpMtBZWVvEzKlw9DpFT1tPguZk9Nz32BtnmXmQiQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AOwi7QCioyDpQp8KVmhYaJGKEgnI7EQ7JqMAKN/EOvgOvYwqekuCqAALteUKrTO4h38u3sZFJNuLY7uP7+LfYiR7yxo=
X-Received: by 10.107.69.20 with SMTP id s20mr28665544ioa.113.1506986894384; Mon, 02 Oct 2017 16:28:14 -0700 (PDT)
From: Florin Baboescu <florin.baboescu@broadcom.com>
References: <0A934354-150E-4E34-8090-9BB94BBB7F61@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <0A934354-150E-4E34-8090-9BB94BBB7F61@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 15.0
Thread-Index: AQJnDZDyU692h+LF8Hpj0LXRQ2ctUaGphMbA
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2017 16:28:11 -0700
Message-ID: <8ceb5011343e656b2b0069493f9f5846@mail.gmail.com>
To: Margaret Cullen <margaretw42@gmail.com>, Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@gmail.com>
Cc: banana@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/banana/hfXkQ4utWhidzjwrad7mDi8gpOY>
Subject: Re: [Banana] Proposed Charter for BANANA WG
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: Mon, 02 Oct 2017 23:28:19 -0000
Hi Margaret/Suresh, I guess that I happen to be one of the dissenters in this case, so please let me explain my reasons of dissent here. First of all, I happen to be one of the co-authors an IETF draft for which I believe BANANA may be a good fit, once we actually have a clear understanding what this group goals are supposed to be. Unfortunately, at this stage, this is unclear, at least in my view. Furthermore, the current discussions seems to be very much a "deja-vu" of how things happened in another organization, in which a couple of companies succeeded to propose a solution, to a problem that has not been fully identified/defined, use cases have never been properly identified, etc. More unfortunate is that in the end, many companies wasted 3-4 years of standardization time, and the final result is that: 1. No one deploys it, and 2. Major terminal vendors do not want to implement it due to major hardware architectural impacts in the devices; 3. Other potential solutions, that could have been better options, and how can one compare one solution vs another once you do not have clear evaluation criteria. And, how can you have clear evaluation criteria without clear requirements, use cases, etc. Going now a little bit on the technical details, although as I indicated earlier I resent doing this without proper requirements and use cases. You state that " Bandwidth Aggregation consists of splitting local traffic across multiple Internet access links on a per-packet basis, including the ability to split a single flow across multiple links when necessary." Are you very sure that this is needed? What is the bottleneck that you are trying to address? The over the air connectivity (cellular, WiFi) or the backhaul capacity? If you are addressing the over the air connectivity, an .ac pipe to an end user is by one-two order of magnitude different that an LTE pipe. Why do you want to do link aggregation in this case? If I can give an analogy, it is like you are trying to use a straw to re-direct the water when your toilet is flooding. If your cellular connectivity is improved to higher data rate to make it comparable with the over the air capacity of the WiFi connectivity, why do you need the aggregation in the first place? And I can continue. What I want to point out is that per-packet load balancing comes at a very high cost on the end nodes from both an architectural point of view(high memory bandwidth between different components, large memory buffer requirements, which in the end also translate into high power consumption) as well as from a pure functional view (large re-order buffer, large jitter) Accepting a solution that proposes per-packet load balancing need to be very clearly justified as there are other options almost as good as per-packet load balancing, without the burdens that the former one introduce. This is why, I reiterate my original position " that the problem statement is not clear. From this point of view, I would like to suggest the group to meet and spend time in coming up with an agreeable problem statement. ". Thank you. -Florin -----Original Message----- From: Banana [mailto:banana-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Margaret Cullen Sent: Monday, October 2, 2017 2:34 PM To: Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@gmail.com> Cc: banana@ietf.org Subject: [Banana] Proposed Charter for BANANA WG [Resending to Suresh’s actual address] Hi Suresh, I think we have reached the point where there are no more constructive comments on the proposed BANANA charter, so I have included the final text below for your consideration. There continue to be a small group of people who do not think that this work is necessary, or who don’t think it should be chartered in the IETF for various reasons. Discussions with those people are not moving towards agreement, so we will have to leave it up to you to decide if we have sufficient interest and support to charter this work in the IETF. Please let us know whether you are willing to bring this charter to the IESG and IAB for consideration. Thanks, Margaret Proposed Charter: BANdwidth Aggregation for Network Access WG The BANdwidth Aggregation for Network Access (BANANA) Working Group is chartered to specify protocols and mechanisms to support dynamic path selection on a per-packet basis in networks that have more than one point of attachment to the Internet. The protocols and mechanisms produced by this WG will be designed to work in situations where Internet access is provided by more than one Internet Service Provider, and without cooperation between a set of Internet Service Providers (i.e. they will be Over-The-Top (OTT) mechanisms). Bandwidth Aggregation consists of splitting local traffic across multiple Internet access 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 Bandwidth Aggregation mechanisms with the following benefits: • Higher Per-Flow Bandwidth: Many Internet links available to homes and small offices (DSL, Cable, LTE, Satellite, VPNs, 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 mechanism 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 Bandwidth Aggregation mechanisms use different techniques (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 multiple-access network, a remote component within the Internet or at the remote end, and ways for those components to find each other, exchange control information, and direct packets to each other. We refer to the functional components at each end as the Local and Remote “BANANA Boxes”, and we refer to the ways they direct traffic to each other as “Bandwidth Aggregation mechanisms”. [Note: Despite our use of the term “Boxes”, it should be understood that a “BANANA Box” might be a software component running on a piece of hardware with another primary purpose (e.g. a CPE router).] The Bandwidth Aggregation mechanism(s) developed in the BANANA working group will be designed to work in scenarios where Internet access links from multiple, independent Internet access providers are being aggregated (i.e. where the aggregated Internet access links are not provided by a single Internet access provider, nor by a set of cooperating providers). Any protocols defined by this working group will be IP-based, link-layer-independent solutions, and they will be designed to work across NATs and other middle boxes, as needed. The BANANA WG is chartered to complete the following work items: • Informally document/discuss a BANANA problem statement and usage scenarios in a non-archival document (e.g. Wiki, etc.) • Determine how Local and Remote BANANA Boxes find each other (i.e. describe how BANANA boxes will be provisioned/configured). • Select or specify protocol(s) 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 the Bandwidth Aggregation mechanism(s) in use • Determining which flows are/are not eligible for Bandwidth Aggregation • Select (and extend, if necessary) a tunnel-based method for sending traffic between BANANA Boxes (i.e. specify a tunnel-based Bandwidth Aggregation mechanism). When applicable, the BANANA WG will use existing IETF protocols, or extensions to existing IETF protocols, as the basis for the work items listed above. When an existing protocol is used, the WG deliverable will be a document describing the use of that protocol for Bandwidth Aggregation and/or a set of options or extensions to an existing IETF protocol to make it useful for Bandwidth Aggregation. The BANANA WG will work with other IETF WGs that define "Bandwidth Aggregation mechanisms" (as defined above), to ensure that protocols selected or specified by the BANANA WG for provisioning and the exchange of control information will work for those Bandwidth Aggregation mechanisms. The BANANA WG will also work with other SDO(s) that are defining Bandwidth Aggregation solutions (e.g. Broadband Forum TR-378) to ensure that there are no conflicts between our work, and to ensure that there are no negative consequences for users when multiple Bandwidth Aggregation technologies are available in a single environment. Milestones • Apr 2018 Adopt WG draft on provisioning/configuration protocol(s) • Apr 2018 Adopt WG draft on protocol(s) to send control information • Apr 2018 Adopt WG draft on tunnel-based BA mechanism(s) • Feb 2019 WGLC on provisioning/configuration protocol(s) • Feb 2019 WGLC on protocol(s) to send control information • Feb 2019 WGLC on tunnel-based BA mechanism(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 _______________________________________________ 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] Proposed Charter for BANANA WG Margaret Cullen
- Re: [Banana] Proposed Charter for BANANA WG Florin Baboescu
- Re: [Banana] Proposed Charter for BANANA WG Suresh Krishnan
- Re: [Banana] Proposed Charter for BANANA WG Margaret Wasserman
- Re: [Banana] Proposed Charter for BANANA WG Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [Banana] Proposed Charter for BANANA WG Florin Baboescu
- Re: [Banana] Proposed Charter for BANANA WG Alexandre Petrescu