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

[Joel Halpern <[e-mail]>]

I would put it a  little differently.  The application-centric approach 
is clearly valid.  It is clearly currently practiced. the application 
folks have not, to my knowledge, asked for any improvements in the 
information they have.  If they do, we would have to work out what they 
need / want, etc.

There is also a valid network-service centric approach in which the 
network offers a service for delivering the application traffic well.  
That is the service that the CAN work enables. Whether applications 
choose to use the application-centric approach, or the network-centric 
approach will likely depend upon whether we can build a network-centric 
approach that works, whether operators choose to offer it, and other 
similar issues. It seems to me it is worth trying to build the 
technology so that the operators can decide if they want to offer it, 
and the applications can decide if they want to use it.

The important evolution in the discussion was that the network-centric 
approach can (and by the charter we are discussing should) be built in 
such a way as to avoid burdening the network infrastructure.

Yours,

Joel

On 1/28/2023 6:40 AM, Robert Raszuk wrote:
> Hello Peng,
>
> > So CAN won't impact every routers but just egress and ingress
>
> That's true. But here we are essentially talking about completely 
> different directions/architectures and considering the selection on 
> which one to take. Both are vastly different and pretty orthogonal to 
> each other.
>
> *Option 1 - network centric -* the one you are suggesting -
>
> * Use anycast /32 or /128 as destination address
> * Enable reception and installation of multiple paths for each anycast 
> address
> * Push tons of very dynamic data to each ingress router from behind 
> egress routers **
> * Associate that dynamic data with specific active path or subset of 
> paths of subject anycast addresses
> * Pre resolve in real time (continued FIB churn) all of the paths of 
> anycast addresses in respect to load behind them  - and that must be 
> done irrespective of any interest for that data
> * Make egress selection based on that state.
>
> ** - I realize that you will contest this and say that there is going 
> to be a very small amount of relatively static data to start with. But 
> I can rest assure you that even if you start wil small and static 
> inputs this will grow fast as compute selection will require to 
> accommodate new data points as we go along.
>
> *Option 2 - application centric - *
>
> * Do not use anycast
> * Do not put any of the dynamic state of the compute/content 
> load/state to the network
> * When application is trying to resolve address of the compute/content 
> cluster just be smart of what address is returned to it
> * No touch to the network - letting it do what it is good to do - take 
> your packet and deliver it to the dst address in the packet
> * Load information is not broadcasted anywhere - can stay local and 
> only the resolvers need to be aware of it
>
>
> 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.
>
> So bottom line is that while I have been working on network centric 
> services for nearly 25 years now in this very case I do believe we 
> should really focus on option 2 for addressing CAN's requirements.
>
> Kind regards,
> Robert
>
>
> On Sat, Jan 28, 2023 at 3:48 AM Peng Liu <[e-mail]> 
> wrote:
>
>     Hi Robert,
>
>     There might be OTT based solutions that don't involve
>     ingress/egress routers . But some environments, like in our 5G
>     edge network, OTT method is more expensive than a mechanism for
>     egress routers to distribute the information to ingress routers so
>     that path selection engines can consider both. CAN aims at the
>     case where the operator wants to offer the selection service from
>     its edge devices.
>
>     In the charter, 'The assumed model for the CAN WG is an overlay
>     network, where an ingress routing node makes a forwarding decision
>     based on the metrics of interest, and then steers the traffic to
>     an egress node that serves the selected service instance, for
>     example using a tunnel. Architectures that require the
>     underlay network to be service-aware are out of scope.'
>     So CAN won't impact every routers but just egress and ingress,
>     before the architecture, it is a little early to determine which
>     protocol could be used. But for the directions, I think IETF is
>     for building various tools. like one person can use  knife to peel
>     an apple doesn’t mean peeler shouldn’t be invented.
>
>     Regards,
>     Peng
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     [e-mail]
>
>         *From:* Robert Raszuk <mailto:[e-mail]>
>         *Date:* 2023-01-28 05:35
>         *To:* Linda Dunbar <mailto:[e-mail]>
>         *CC:* John Scudder <mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail];
>         [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>         *Subject:* Re: [Can] [Idr] Proposed CAN WG charter for discussion
>         Hi Linda,
>
>         But why do we need to do that within the underlay network vs
>         Over The Top (OTT) way ?
>
>         Why network needs to be at all involved in distribution of the
>         load information if we could solve it at the application level
>         and keep network lean and as much stateless as possible ?
>         Simple mapping plane will work just fine for this resulting in
>         OTT Compute Aware Load Balancer (for the lack of the better
>         name).
>
>         Why bring this "awareness" to BGP or IGP or even routers in
>         general ?
>
>         Isn't the draft
>         https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-kjsun-lisp-dyncast-03.html a
>         possible solution ?
>
>         Many thx,
>         R.
>
>
>         On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 9:43 PM Linda Dunbar
>         <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>             John,
>
>             Oh, I guess I have over-thought of the "Architecture &
>             framework".
>             The proponents' wanting a mechanism for egress routers to
>             distribute computing resources to ingress routers can be
>             considered as one rough architecture.
>
>             Thank you.
>
>             Linda
>
>             -----Original Message-----
>             From: John Scudder <[e-mail]>
>             Sent: Friday, January 27, 2023 12:06 PM
>             To: Linda Dunbar <[e-mail]>
>             Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>             Subject: Re: Proposed CAN WG charter for discussion
>
>             Hi Linda,
>
>             I didn't mean to say that the architecture would have to
>             be completed to the point of RFC publication before that
>             step could be started! But of course, anyone studying the
>             applicability of a mechanism, has to be thinking,
>             "applicable for what purpose"? So I think that studying
>             applicability presupposes that the person doing the study
>             has an architecture in mind.
>
>             Your summary seems about right, and I think it
>             demonstrates that those in the side discussion *do* have
>             at least a rough architecture in mind. My point is,
>
>             a. It's important to write that rough architecture down,
>             to make the assumptions transparent to all WG
>             participants, and b. It's important that when listing work
>             items, we do not lose sight of the fact that this is one
>             work item.
>
>             I don't see the bullet list as comprising a strictly
>             ordered list of tasks that have to be completed in the
>             order listed, I'm sure some will be worked on in parallel
>             or even out of order.
>
>             I hope that helps?
>
>             -John
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr