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

[Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>]

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 <[e-mail]>
> *Date:* 2023-01-28 05:35
> *To:* Linda Dunbar <[e-mail]>
> *CC:* John Scudder <[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
>
>