Re: [Idr] Proposed CAN WG charter for discussion

[Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>]

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