[Marnew] Marnew reflections
Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> Thu, 24 September 2015 01:12 UTC
Return-Path: <bclaise@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: marnew@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: marnew@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1])
by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC33F1B2FF2
for <marnew@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Sep 2015 18:12:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.511
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1,
DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001,
T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
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 vn6-vlpeD4sA for <marnew@ietfa.amsl.com>;
Wed, 23 Sep 2015 18:12:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.86.74])
(using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F3CB01B2FF1
for <marnew@iab.org>; Wed, 23 Sep 2015 18:12:39 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;
d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2633; q=dns/txt; s=iport;
t=1443057161; x=1444266761;
h=from:subject:to:message-id:date:mime-version:
content-transfer-encoding;
bh=MoMe/uK4XuwS/BQpjlHxuL6xHWe2rURtvZ9jBdjXrZk=;
b=ZFdr/fEnESxbU3txaquCZwiFLMj5CGNreLXPL1nCtxzPxeFI9XiIGghb
A/K0uSz9GVG8IjStz+FJmjiYAdtWExbl8TvxPtHxIlUU9slyuXC2vQ5lt
3kRkU1u2HrBwcK3arznrBAjtYI9hNoDfw86k51/ddVpjleMo6xPoElM1N c=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0BeBQDLTANW/5JdJa1dgyRUaQGDKbo/gXqHQjkTAQEBAQEBAYEKhE4VMg42AgUUAgsCCwMCAQIBWAgBAReIEw2nQo9qlGOBIoVRiTF3glKBQwEElWd4hBqHeYFPRoZuI5IEIwI+gUqCOTw0iCOBSAEBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.17,579,1437436800"; d="scan'208";a="35010500"
Received: from rcdn-core-10.cisco.com ([173.37.93.146])
by rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 24 Sep 2015 01:12:40 +0000
Received: from [10.82.214.170] (rtp-vpn4-1706.cisco.com [10.82.214.170])
by rcdn-core-10.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t8O1CcP1004322
for <marnew@iab.org>; Thu, 24 Sep 2015 01:12:38 GMT
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
To: marnew@iab.org
Message-ID: <56034E06.7080505@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2015 03:12:38 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/38.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/marnew/HxUD9-VXjSJcwSA7gHOKN9tGT8Q>
Subject: [Marnew] Marnew reflections
X-BeenThere: marnew@iab.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Managing Radio Networks in an Encrypted World <marnew.iab.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.iab.org/mailman/options/marnew>,
<mailto:marnew-request@iab.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/marnew/>
List-Post: <mailto:marnew@iab.org>
List-Help: <mailto:marnew-request@iab.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/marnew>,
<mailto:marnew-request@iab.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2015 01:12:41 -0000
Dear all,
With a long flight, I've been having some time to think about MARNEW,
and read some papers.
So here is a list of questions and reflections in preparation for the
workshop.
- My first point is: what is specific to radio networks?
Fluctuating/unknown bandwidth, limited cellular capacity, maybe more
caching? IMO, the problem space is not specific to radio networks,
specifically if we have QoE in mind. We can think of it as "Managing
Networks in an Encrypted World". I would be happy to learn about the
radio network specifics during the workshop.
- Clarifying question: Is this workshop focusing on encrypted web
traffic only, or all traffic/applications encryption?
- IMO, there are three aspects to encryption:
1. As an end user, I want privacy
2. As an employee, I require privacy, but I also require the right QoE
for my business applications
3. As an operator, I'm not interested to look at the unencrypted
packets, but I need to manage the networks. Everybody blames the network
(even if it's not the network, but the servers ... but that's a
different story). One aspect to provide the right QoE/QoS has been DPI.
With the increase of encryption, that will not be a solution any longer.
- In terms of mechanism to provide the right QoS/QoE, there are two ways:
1. the operator is able to deduce the information. This is the DPI
story. With encryption, that will be a challenge as mentioned.
2. the end-user communicate its QoS requirements to the network. Ex: hey
mister operator, treat this series of packets (and I won't tell the
content) as real-time traffic.
- Here we have a series of questions wrt the end-user communicating its
requirements to the network.
- QoE/QoS per device, per user, per session, per flow, per
applications? Per application I guess, potentially per flow.
- Do the end users know what they need in terms of QoS parameters:
delay, packet loss, delay variation? Not sure...
Maybe the applications know, but won't they all the time require
the best QoS
- DSCP has not been used appropriately. Why would it work this
time? We could link this to some dollars: hey mister operator, treat
this series of packets as real-time traffic, and I will pay extra for
this. However, a complex billing system is ... costly.
- All these problems were discussed part of Application Enabled
Collaborative Network (AECON).
However, that BoF was not approved at IETF 90. See
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/bof/trac/wiki/BofIETF90 and review the
description. There are some similarities.
Regards, Benoit
- [Marnew] Marnew reflections Benoit Claise
- Re: [Marnew] Marnew reflections Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- Re: [Marnew] Marnew reflections Salvatore Loreto
- Re: [Marnew] Marnew reflections Smith, Kevin, (R&D) Vodafone Group