Re: [DMM] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-herbert-intarea-ams-00.txt

On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 8:46 AM Templin (US), Fred L
<Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Tom,
>
> Please read 'draft-templin-rtgwg-scalable-bgp' (only 7 pages). It emphasizes
> the scalability considerations from 'draft-templin-intarea-6706bis' that we
> omitted from 'draft-ietf-rtgwg-atn-bgp', and also shows that the use cases
> are not limited to civil aviation. The purpose is to present a condensed
> version of the AERO routing system that has been around for many years.
>
> In 'draft-templin-rtgwg-scalable-bgp', we show that a BGP overlay can be
> organized to support 1B or more de-aggregated MNP prefixes. So, please
> have a look at that with the mindset that we are not addressing just the
> civil aviation use case but are broadly considering other use cases.
>
Okay, thanks for the explanation. It might be helpful if you could
recast draft-ietf-rtgwg-atn-bgp to be more of a general solution.

I looked at draft-templin-rtgwg-scalable-bgp. There's a lot discussion
about scalability of c-ASBR but not so much about s-ABSR. I'm
primarily interested in the latter because that is where the solution
will be providing the oprimizations we want for low latency. While
with c-ASBRs we could expect them to have scaling properties similar
core routers, I would expect that s-ASBR devices will exhibit a lot
more variety and have a wider range of scalability. For instance, it's
conceivable that we might want the functionality incorporated into a
low powered device in the base station of a microcell, or incorporated
into MEC servers as I mentioned previously. I assume a BGP solution
would require all s-ASBRs to hold all the routes for the sub-MNPs as
well as being able to consume the rate of mobile events within the
sub-MNP. So to me, the obvious question is if such a device were only
communicating with, say, a 1000 nodes at any givent time, then does it
really make sense to give them all the information about the 1M or so
nodes in the sub-MNP, or can we just give them the information that is
currently useful to them?

Do you have any thoughts along these lines?

Tom

> Thanks - Fred
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Tom Herbert [mailto:tom@quantonium.net]
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2019 8:33 AM
> > To: Templin (US), Fred L <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
> > Cc: dmm <dmm@ietf.org>; pidloc@ietf.org; Vikram Siwach <vsiwach@gmail.com>
> > Subject: Re: [DMM] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-herbert-intarea-ams-00.txt
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 7:35 AM Templin (US), Fred L
> > <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Tom,
> > >
> > > I read it, and I do not think it is different from the system described
> > > in 'draft-ietf-rtgwg-atn-bgp'.
> > >
> > Hi Fred,
> >
> > Thanks for the comment. I have read draft-ietf-rtgwg-atn-bgp also. I
> > think that the hub and spoke architecture will end up being similar,
> > but I'm not sure that this is exactly the same thing. One difference
> > is that draft-ietf-rtgwg-atn-bgp is targeted to particular
> > application, whereas draft-herbert-intarea-ams endeavours to be
> > general purposes. There are differences especially in scalability. For
> > instance, rtgwg-atn-bgp mentions network with millions of routes, and
> > in draft-herbert-intarea-ams the target is to support networks with
> > billions of active addresses for IoT networks. And if we do get to
> > unique address per flow, then the total number of addresses to be
> > managed is much more (hence why hidden aggregation becomes
> > interesting).
> >
> > Another consideration is MEC servers providing services to UEs at they
> > edge. If they participate in the routing/mapping system (as an ASBR-s
> > in draft-ietf-rtgwg-atn-bgp and AMS-F in AMS) then the end device can
> > perform overlay routing itself. That is very efficient for lowest
> > latency. There may be many MEC servers and each one might only be
> > communicating with a small subset of all possible nodes. This seems to
> > motivate a working set cache to that limits the number of mappings as
> > well as the amount of control plane communications.
> >
> > Tom
> >
> > > Fred
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: dmm [mailto:dmm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Tom Herbert
> > > > Sent: Monday, January 28, 2019 3:36 PM
> > > > To: dmm <dmm@ietf.org>; pidloc@ietf.org
> > > > Cc: Vikram Siwach <vsiwach@gmail.com>
> > > > Subject: [DMM] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-herbert-intarea-ams-00.txt
> > > >
> > > > Hello,
> > > >
> > > > We've posted a first draft of Address Mapping System (AMS). We
> > > > anticipate that this can be applied to mobile networks to provide
> > > > optimized overlay routing. In particular, this design provides for
> > > > anchorless routing (in the form of anchor bypass) and otherwise
> > > > facilitates meeting several requirements for optimizing the mobile
> > > > user plane as described in section 1.0 of
> > > > draft-bogineni-dmm-optimized-mobile-user-plane-01.  AMS is agnostic to
> > > > the underlaying overlay protocol and should be compatible with most of
> > > > those being discussed. Another goal of AMS is to not require replacing
> > > > exsiting control planes, but can work in concert with them. For
> > > > example, the draft discusses how AMS might work with 5G.
> > > >
> > > > Tom
> > > >
> > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------
> > > > From: <internet-drafts@ietf.org>
> > > > Date: Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 3:15 PM
> > > > Subject: New Version Notification for draft-herbert-intarea-ams-00.txt
> > > > To: Vikram Siwach <tom@quantonium.net>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > A new version of I-D, draft-herbert-intarea-ams-00.txt
> > > > has been successfully submitted by Tom Herbert and posted to the
> > > > IETF repository.
> > > >
> > > > Name:           draft-herbert-intarea-ams
> > > > Revision:       00
> > > > Title:          Address Mapping System
> > > > Document date:  2019-01-28
> > > > Group:          Individual Submission
> > > > Pages:          47
> > > > URL:
> > > > https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-herbert-intarea-ams-00.txt
> > > > Status:         https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-herbert-intarea-ams/
> > > > Htmlized:       https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-herbert-intarea-ams-00
> > > > Htmlized:       https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-herbert-intarea-ams
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Abstract:
> > > >    This document describes the Address Mapping System that is a generic,
> > > >    extensible, and scalable system for mapping network addresses to
> > > >    other network addresses. The Address Mapping System is intended to be
> > > >    used in conjunction with overlay techniques which facilitate
> > > >    transmission of packets across overlay networks. Information returned
> > > >    by the Address Mapping System can include the particular network
> > > >    overlay method and instructions related to the method.  The Address
> > > >    Mapping System has a number of potential use cases networking
> > > >    including identifier-locator protocols, network virtualization, and
> > > >    promotion of privacy.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
> > > > until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
> > > >
> > > > The IETF Secretariat
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > dmm mailing list
> > > > dmm@ietf.org
> > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm