[PANRG] Performance Implications of PATH CHaracteristics (PIPC) Brainstorming session at IETF 104
Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com> Thu, 28 March 2019 21:21 UTC
Return-Path: <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: panrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: panrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35F2E120324; Thu, 28 Mar 2019 14:21:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 J2tJwgcWDMsj; Thu, 28 Mar 2019 14:20:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-x230.google.com (mail-lj1-x230.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0A08612003F; Thu, 28 Mar 2019 14:20:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x230.google.com with SMTP id t4so143260ljc.2; Thu, 28 Mar 2019 14:20:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=+HEpgIaX55ukx9C3hJUhpRRSxspVWdbRHcwRa5NSTpI=; b=BGLT3KXIN3ZwAm9iiQAtpnA6jEIvGUHXwgwzoLLzE9cQtbf3b210WUNtbQbF5A/E7v kp4vYQX8vTuOj1NPR+HVygfjrSdf5Az6BxFTQCJSgEVAsyYMj2Jliu+0EjONizgd26gG MkMug1Lxdx/LHsM6VV/p5U0mdPM/4L7Itlia5KSqI4AGdf4h4Ch4NWjXySohaeesTpo0 ihWo4r+xwmqeRPpsK73ph9FRLRhjdIX0sQz3pOIOg5LtPx5/JGVnJYPFlYM9zKjA1Qno yMs/QoziUUU+caFuNPBtH6FaQdk/3slf4AWFyuJbITlWrMKgX9Rr6McdNb9RyNENPwjH wV2A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=+HEpgIaX55ukx9C3hJUhpRRSxspVWdbRHcwRa5NSTpI=; b=OqySE9J7OK2/TDyoHairU2NUpzVKk7TB5ZMhPW2vZJXnM8+ngiuq+qppVPmXelvjGI vmZ2peU3Mt0jXY/+kRHtp2ZrysdV8rDqx4OpNzS3EtbDNfzwAPO36CE2tbS+0zSAJP3/ OHiTjPcQatZs7CwCxsLe8ThN72ktT1UqOwOaF1qfINZQ3yo1LQQ/QnJ/3j96BNTPO4LT nK83psVFxzsTbaDwnT4cf0Sud13kCvwUL8AyIjn/F93UvGbku+m9QjEG/TwyfNs63EXf Th0RmUeHnaZD7Zaf2PWWUGEAuo+1rVGhsXQN4M+u74I+z2QyYPox6w1DrAlQ92G/A6zf 7kwg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXznKpj3elWTShDCMvjZJ/4qdGYax/Kk8WqdIi3s7kFwtzVy/Zz 8BtUFqxw92NOZtewzpOTz3St05qZ2Y2m0NoOK2KKX521
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyx+wg7HMxj927S8ByaavikQaJ6vuqsc5KkM0X9/tF+45MOp+iC1L90Fs/RAhWxEFjOggsVZCvuvklR+eWsFcU=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:7e0f:: with SMTP id z15mr3853105ljc.122.1553808055881; Thu, 28 Mar 2019 14:20:55 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2019 16:20:44 -0500
Message-ID: <CAKKJt-eoKTmSVEgQFFmCU+TXLDWbpDbtBAY059ThPaaadicBXQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: panrg-chairs@irtf.org
Cc: irtf-chair@irtf.org, panrg@irtf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000003853c205852e2178"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/panrg/6BJF3SiaJZ2Ie8TQdhN9z6YSfM8>
Subject: [PANRG] Performance Implications of PATH CHaracteristics (PIPC) Brainstorming session at IETF 104
X-BeenThere: panrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Path Aware Networking \(Proposed\) Research Group discussion list" <panrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/panrg>, <mailto:panrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/panrg/>
List-Post: <mailto:panrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:panrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/panrg>, <mailto:panrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2019 21:21:00 -0000
Earlier tonight, I held the brainstorming session on PIPC that I announced at HotRFC on Sunday night. Tl;Dr We have work to do. It's related to path awareness. We'd like to use the PANRG mailing list while we get organized. The details ... Co-conspirators: Spencer Dawkins Aaron Falk Marcus Ihlar JianJian Zhu Michael Scharf Joerg Deutschmann John Border Chi-Jiun Su Zaheduzzaman Sarker Anna Brunstrom Nicolas Kuhn Zhen Cao emile stephan Szilveszter Nadas Agenda, ripe for bashing We all know the story of the PILC working group, right? Questions I was hoping to check on for about 45 minutes Is it time for a discussion about paths and performance? Are path characteristics different from link characteristics? We think so. We were trying to give advice to link designers Pervasice encryption before we figure out how to delegate trust (network is potentially an attacker). Multipath protocols are a lOT more common, and different paths may have wildly different characteristics. Packet-level Network Coding/FEC is a lot more realistic than it was in 2002. We fixed satellites, but the wifi network in front of the satellite link is now where the packet loss is happening. How many levels are we having problems at? TLS means web acceleration stops working but TCP repair continues to work. Berkeley survey of middleboxes. CDNs are new Multipath plus TCP splitting on one path breaks things - window sizes are wrong, etc. Problematic path segments could be in series or in parallel, and collections of problematic segments could be in series or in parallel. What problems should be in scope? Worth cleaning up BCP advice from 20 years ago. But we do have new problems, too TAPS is starting to look at policy. Policies for path selection and usage is a general multipath problem. Are we talking about providing guidance on protocol use, or about inventing or extending protocols? Translation: are there gaps in protocols, or gaps in practice using those protocols? We think we could be producing BCPs. What is research, and what is engineering? Even figuring that out is probably research ... Which parts of the problem space fit in already-chartered WGs/RGs. We can figure that out as we go, as long as we have a place to start (PANRG, we hope you won't mind too much). What are next steps between IETF 104 and IETF 105? Request a new mailing list - actually we suspect that all this is in scope for PANRG Spencer to heads-up the PANRG chairs Spencer to do a write-up about this for PANRG list
- [PANRG] Performance Implications of PATH CHaracte… Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- Re: [PANRG] Performance Implications of PATH CHar… Markku Kojo