Re: [middisc] Wan Optimization standardization problem statement/analysis?

Anantha Ramaiah <ananth@nttmcl.com> Tue, 26 February 2013 07:12 UTC

Return-Path: <ananth@nttmcl.com>
X-Original-To: middisc@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: middisc@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20AA421F9652 for <middisc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Feb 2013 23:12:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xmCvkyF7I3lc for <middisc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Feb 2013 23:12:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-we0-x229.google.com (mail-we0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c03::229]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08EC021F95DA for <middisc@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Feb 2013 23:12:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-we0-f169.google.com with SMTP id t11so3276243wey.0 for <middisc@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Feb 2013 23:12:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=Oavj3n1SivVUFKJbIAlbFUUistFoUYymyfnb4LHT4J8=; b=fQ91Ih+sCdmsUDee7NeXb/eApit8iK0af69ACQCKZTfSO5yCCYz+bzJ8iKS005Djs2 IKv1OunWdVlaGzgDm0F1hajivtK3QcdPjM1BJhTdbsZ0irW9znZXG717b4ThfdbOLhs5 SYfnZ5avnurAjYvltC1Pnz1faHJtoZLgMs8znEhmbLNlpwkqWABqqyeAtyrHAP35s3pf hqal1Ek3fFl/slSkQ+Va4q+aTJ8MBP2VO8IesuBtslIZH8UgnVxXmMtuddU86DP5WzEZ FHMsgGBV19pK5R+P9XWVxt6+UpZBbK6gclcJp5zCVPw6bItQx8G/+b0WkJL3H7gVFUHG GsNQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.8.4 with SMTP id n4mr17049382wia.13.1361862720445; Mon, 25 Feb 2013 23:12:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.194.221.228 with HTTP; Mon, 25 Feb 2013 23:12:00 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <72381AF1F18BAE4F890A0813768D9928FCBE5B@sdcexchms.au.logicalis.com>
References: <72381AF1F18BAE4F890A0813768D9928FCBE5B@sdcexchms.au.logicalis.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2013 23:12:00 -0800
Message-ID: <CAFZUbheuSM7O-s9mQ9EZ4-DLVkviCX4Ti0S_1e19JRCisi2ChQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Anantha Ramaiah <ananth@nttmcl.com>
To: Greg Daley <gdaley@au.logicalis.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d04428f18b476a304d69b5f71
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmYo3Wqb54dv7IY/Y5wdS6GyAFCGjBzgPvxxHvh1EJtEIgoIc/8+tpfTbInRKuBkC1kijgP
Cc: "middisc@ietf.org" <middisc@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [middisc] Wan Optimization standardization problem statement/analysis?
X-BeenThere: middisc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussions on TCP option for middlebox discovery." <middisc.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/middisc>, <mailto:middisc-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/middisc>
List-Post: <mailto:middisc@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:middisc-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/middisc>, <mailto:middisc-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 07:12:03 -0000

Greg,

I no longer work with the same company when I initially participated during
writing this draft and hence these are just my personal opinions. Comments
inline :-

On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 4:34 PM, Greg Daley <gdaley@au.logicalis.com>; wrote:

> Dear Middisc list,
>
>
> Thanks for your work on the Middlebox Negotiation Option draft.
>
> I understand that this list and the draft are not focussed upon
> standardization of intercompatibility between Middleboxes, but I see it as
> a positive first step.
>

Yes, I think so too.


>
>
> Working within the System Integration space, we are seeing significant
> impact upon customers due to incompatibilities between WAN optimization
> systems, particularly.
> Our company resells platforms from two Wanopt vendors, and several of our
> long term customers have deployments from further vendors.
>
> We are seeing increased operational expenses for customers from managing
> incompatible systems, and difficulties in managing mergers of networks with
> different heritages.


Doesn't  come as a surprise esp., since the solutions are incompatible.


>


>
> Has anyone undertaken a review within the IETF of the general problem and
> scope of standardized WAN optimization?
>

Not that I am aware of.


>
> Are there any organizations other than under IETF guise where this work is
> being done?
>

I don't think so.


>
>
> I understand that there are several legal issues associated with the work,
> and that some of this is before the courts.
>

Well, you probably hit the nail on the head.  I guess, even though there
are technical benefits of standardizing the protocol, lets take the case in
point : auto-discovery.  Firstly the legal issues needs to be sorted out
and enough interest needs to be there to standardize this aspect, then
running code needs to be updated, or at least the companies should be
willing to accept this fact an have this factored in their development
plans.

>
> Please let me know if you are interested in furthering this work, and if
> you would be except for current legal circumstances.
>

Well, I may be able to provide some review/comments if there happens to be
some consensus among the leading vendors to undertake this project, but in
any case cannot take any active role here since this work item is of no
direct benefit to my current employer.

thanks,
-Anantha


>
> Sincerely,
>
> Greg Daley
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> middisc mailing list
> middisc@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/middisc
>