Re: [icnrg] arguments for Edge

Aaron Ding <aaron.ding@tum.de> Sat, 03 July 2021 07:15 UTC

Return-Path: <aaron.ding@tum.de>
X-Original-To: icnrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: icnrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 720973A1DA6; Sat, 3 Jul 2021 00:15:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.531
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.531 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
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 Ak2_otDrLzhH; Sat, 3 Jul 2021 00:15:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-out2.informatik.tu-muenchen.de (mail-out2.in.tum.de [131.159.0.36]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9830F3A1DA5; Sat, 3 Jul 2021 00:15:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailrelay1.rbg.tum.de (mailrelay1.in.tum.de [131.159.254.14]) by mail-out2.informatik.tu-muenchen.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5A412400FB; Sat, 3 Jul 2021 09:15:12 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by mailrelay1.rbg.tum.de (Postfix, from userid 112) id C1113DD7; Sat, 3 Jul 2021 09:15:12 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from mailrelay1.rbg.tum.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailrelay1.rbg.tum.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19B4EDD6; Sat, 3 Jul 2021 09:15:12 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from vmrbg463.in.tum.de (vmrbg463.in.tum.de [131.159.0.13]) by mailrelay1.rbg.tum.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 145E1DD2; Sat, 3 Jul 2021 09:15:12 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from webmail.in.tum.de (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by vmrbg463.in.tum.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0418B1001B3; Sat, 3 Jul 2021 09:15:12 +0200 (CEST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Sat, 03 Jul 2021 09:15:11 +0200
From: Aaron Ding <aaron.ding@tum.de>
To: Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>, dave.taht@gmail.com
Cc: IETF QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>, icnrg@irtf.org, t2trg@irtf.org
In-Reply-To: <CAMm+Lwgdcx_ak4HqJYxjKbE7tZ7eT4AEPX=hEt+oQDaStBMwcw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5907c434e2919aba66d5f4729f39571f@tum.de> <3dbaa780606f9b0aa4bdffd01fc9287f@tum.de> <CAMm+Lwgdcx_ak4HqJYxjKbE7tZ7eT4AEPX=hEt+oQDaStBMwcw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.4.11
Message-ID: <e7f4ea77f1f22820f15bf58dc9396db7@tum.de>
X-Sender: aaron.ding@tum.de
Organization: TU Munich
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/icnrg/wWAnsvYy88uLkckQuQLaG57T9gY>
Subject: Re: [icnrg] arguments for Edge
X-BeenThere: icnrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Information-Centric Networking research group discussion list <icnrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/icnrg>, <mailto:icnrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/icnrg/>
List-Post: <mailto:icnrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:icnrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/icnrg>, <mailto:icnrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 03 Jul 2021 07:15:21 -0000

Nice deduction and bufferbloat hint.

For colleagues interested, this 'Revisit Edge' is now on IEEE Internet 
Computing:
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9470987

Aaron

On 27.06.2021 13:10, Dave Taht wrote:
> I think the arguments for re-invigorating the edge are stronger than 
> ever.
> 
> But first up, we gotta fix the bufferbloat everywhere.
On 27.06.2021 17:20, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> The paper states typical latency is 30ms
> 
> Thus we are limited to 15 round trips per second.
> 
> I have a 960Gbs = 120 GBs Internet connection
> 
> Assuming 1260 byte packets, that means 95238 packets a second
> 
> So we must have an average of 3174 packets unacknowledged at 30ms 
> latency
> 
> Get latency down to 1ms and the number of unacknowledged packets goes 
> down
> to 100.
> 
> On Sun, Jun 27, 2021 at 5:15 AM Aaron Ding wrote:
>> 
>> Is the motive for Edge (i.e., latency) diminishing since its first
>> concepts were formulated more than a decade ago?
>> 
>> A recent work to share on "Revisiting the Arguments for Edge Computing
>> Research":
>> https://arxiv.org/pdf/2106.12224.pdf