Re: [Idr] [Can] Proposed CAN WG charter for discussion

[Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>]

Hi Joel,

I am not sure what is not obvious here for you (and Dirk) ?

I think we all agree that the principle of operation of network centric CAN
is based on anycast address per given compute service.

Functionally you need /32 or /128.

But the Internet rightfully is not going to carry anything more specific
then /24 or /48 (maybe /64) respectively.

So now to realize 10 services you must waste 10 min routable blocks.

This also goes against hyperscalers injecting just /16 or /18 into the
global Internet.

So my comment in respect to applicability was not as much about dynamic
load to the control plane introduced as it was just an observation on what
subject solution requires vs current Internet operational rules.

To summarize I do not think that bending or breaking those rules would be
subject to analysis of this WG.

Kind regards,
R.



On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 12:45 AM Joel Halpern <[e-mail]> wrote:

> My inclination would be to leave the analysis of the public cloud
> applicability to the working group.  Whether it is or is not applicable is
> not obvious.
>
> Yours,
>
> Joel
> On 1/29/2023 6:40 PM, Linda Dunbar wrote:
>
> Robert,
>
>
>
> You said:
>
> *“Also note that while you could perhaps make option 1 work in your (say
> 5G) network for your service it does not sound like it would be applicable
> to access public clouds compute cluster based on the actual load in the
> same way over  the Internet.” *
>
>
>
> I think that is a very good point. Making CAN applicable to access public
> clouds might not be wise. Maybe we should add this point to the CAN scope?
>
>
>
> My two cents,
>
> Linda
>
>
>
>