Re: [Banana] Charter Text w/Milestones

["Flinck, Hannu (Nokia - FI/Espoo)" <[e-mail]>]

Hello 

I have comment related to the used terminology in the charter description. 

It talks about "BANANA boxes" which is a bit old fashioned and if taken too strictly limits the solution space to “boxes” of some sort. A more accurate and up-to-date term would be BANANA functions as you may then support virtualized functions that can be located more flexibly e.g. in a host device, or an enterprise could etc.  

Especially the configuration and control protocol part of the charter I find very much needed and an area where we could provide input and help.

Best regards
Hannu

-----Original Message-----
From: Banana [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Margaret Cullen
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 8:56 PM
To: Jordan Melzer <[e-mail]>
Cc: Mirja Kuehlewind <[e-mail]>; Suresh Krishnan <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [Banana] Charter Text w/Milestones

Perhaps it would make sense to write this charter in way that only references what this specific WG will do (choose one encapsulation, define a discovery/config mechanism, define a signaling protocol), and then do a minor re-charter to include adapting the signaling protocol to work with an MPTCP Proxy-based BANANA encapsulation if/when the MPTCP WG is chartered to produce one?  (And the same for any other group that produces one, I guess).

Thoughts?

Margaret


> On Mar 30, 2017, at 12:51 PM, Margaret Cullen <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 
> The ambiguity may be cleared up if/when we know what is happening in MPTCP.  The idea is that the BANANA group will define an encapsulation to tunnel packets between BANANA Boxes.  It is also possible that the MPTCP WG will define a “BANANA Encapsulation” using MPTCP proxies on both ends.  If there is more than one encapsulation, we would still like to have a single signaling protocol
> to communicate link information and status, as well as any signaling needed by the encapsulations.  
> 
> Does that make sense?  How do you think I could make that clearer without this charter talking too specifically about what another WG may or may not do?
> 
> Margaret
> 
>> On Mar 30, 2017, at 12:06 PM, Jordan Melzer <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> Thanks, Margaret.
>> 
>> The proposed text sometimes uses singular and sometimes uses plural when referring to encapsulation(s).  I am not sure if the goal is to arrive at one encapsulation or many, and if BANANA will define the negotiation.  If some of the encapsulations don’t fully meet BANANA's goals, will BANANA still allow them to be negotiated?  If the goal is a single encapsulation, is there consensus that a single encapsulation that meets all needs is likely through minor extensions of existing encapsulations?
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Banana [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Margaret Cullen
>> Sent: March 30, 2017 12:10 PM
>> To: [e-mail]
>> Cc: Mirja Kuehlewind; Suresh Krishnan
>> 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
> 

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