Re: [PANRG] An earlier draft on signaling between network and end-hosts

Todd Hubers <todd.hubers@gmail.com> Mon, 12 November 2018 23:54 UTC

Return-Path: <todd.hubers@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 C46BC130E68; Mon, 12 Nov 2018 15:54:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.998 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, FREEMAIL_REPLY=1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 tRRbgWUfEu1e; Mon, 12 Nov 2018 15:54:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-it1-x12e.google.com (mail-it1-x12e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::12e]) (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 3B4EA130DFC; Mon, 12 Nov 2018 15:54:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-it1-x12e.google.com with SMTP id r12-v6so15402702ita.3; Mon, 12 Nov 2018 15:54:34 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=TBoNB3vQ2+9n81WjWTh+ByZi0gWsp2ckwBmbmoZw0nk=; b=bM3GGwMmNVWzp7KAnGMFqDImWccgG1e8FzioTP1kv0lq0ThQKX5RkQ33pGnje2LK/i xvMZxi6AO8r6k1tjxvSztbxIl4cvpMTY7H88KUFQBgLnHn9lly8zcaeFScx07XbIxVTk bsKfR+Uamwak04IOY5ycDo+ppTlOHClgIul/KvkrcYHLkqZejlw4x5wM1OmRODDl7OMK YeT7gNfz3QneSPH8leABJI1HGpNDuEI/M132xPcjmdtA5J1Ko8/Ah2l9SkO2nCORa8f2 RXBx46hFz1OyyFUokBXQbHPiTcy4NYP4lVWL/DujDCKBHDB5PZgLfbxGMU9kKLVnXYke PbHg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=TBoNB3vQ2+9n81WjWTh+ByZi0gWsp2ckwBmbmoZw0nk=; b=VfJB16samogQ3AwbVc66iKD2OvexfhBwKJJLcH7s/OcjxmrmrkWQ2ouz3Bla8qL8Kj Xa1COKt9WeRJ8ROUfd/+pkTWuafLzWQtJCRTigAB6M7c8lLz1937BFSBQjDcupVJCix4 +TEjqt1XkyWaRqphZJWDT5Xy5WQTImSmNKYUlx5K+0X1ogjF7x+RRrXp3gqp8zvBgL9Q HIsrHYUP34etKrEDQriHtzMLQi1OOgGWY0rH6SuQTTGsmnTFF1jWN0U0OJOrCpuJ1Uil 027sEO40GtescXL3660SW0XxnR/xyFtJ+qFIHh/qURmAVJ1iI1++dhxpTFJg09YkTEMj sRcg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AGRZ1gIV9lAg2sGa2Aw7IEvnJJrS2Tf4bRZqCAF8xcj4qa0NRcpd3tfP Msuw5XVDP84ABoLVPU1sMj/+cJkehSPla2hEuFc=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AJdET5cUg7tvkpuzGh249du8pKQNepGaq56jxBHmex9QKRY9LXyq0hSuGONXYg76GfhinTRYEWtpIgOqzvK32sr7nXA=
X-Received: by 2002:a24:cec6:: with SMTP id v189-v6mr1783914itg.125.1542066873340; Mon, 12 Nov 2018 15:54:33 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1811081147180.10713@hp8x-60.cs.helsinki.fi> <CAKKJt-eO2HiJLu3hw=ZFAgQ+panNw=3PrqV2N8EYM4eoL=ZLsA@mail.gmail.com> <CABO3BC1Sy36YLvRowQPRW6gg7W3+vrCDcUZGWp8s5GmT1=riRw@mail.gmail.com> <6EC6417807D9754DA64F3087E2E2E03E2D152C26@rznt8114.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de> <CABO3BC2Oqr=Fyou8n+L8384eHrWm0_xBgkw07MVy0pMTPYtjSA@mail.gmail.com> <CAKKJt-dVVbvAeFhEiN+m=G2KrEGJaEnotp9Sm397LXPAK=ARwA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKKJt-dVVbvAeFhEiN+m=G2KrEGJaEnotp9Sm397LXPAK=ARwA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Todd Hubers <todd.hubers@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2018 10:54:20 +1100
Message-ID: <CABO3BC0a2kc+ubm8xHPzqgjNVP+Y=OTBtPP=Sv=wc_0MAqNKtA@mail.gmail.com>
To: spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com
Cc: Michael.Scharf@hs-esslingen.de, panrg@irtf.org, nmrg@irtf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000003496e5057a806c20"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/panrg/Q-nFij21fVuO1Og11P0YMw0lgJc>
Subject: Re: [PANRG] An earlier draft on signaling between network and end-hosts
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: Mon, 12 Nov 2018 23:54:37 -0000

Hi Spencer,

I was planning to work primarily with NMRG when I complete the initial
draft. I have started a GIT repo, and some mock code. I'm a software and a
network engineer. I would love to have standards and code developed side by
side.

I think the whole domain that I'm looking at will prove to be quite
interesting to tease out. Standardisation of a range of solution options is
certainly important, but I will be excited to venture into the unknowns of
new engineering, by focusing to remove remaining obstacles.

Regards,

Todd.



On Tue, 13 Nov 2018 at 10:19, Spencer Dawkins at IETF <
spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi, Todd,
>
> On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 7:16 PM Todd Hubers <todd.hubers@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Thanks Michael,
>>
>> At first glance, RFC 7971 is centralised around P2P data resource
>> sharing. I have another scheme in mind which I would like to draft one day
>> that may be superior in some cases. This RFC certainly does then propose
>> the use of multiple layers in the network to accomplish its goals. However,
>> it then lists problems that presumably a multi-layer solution would be
>> fixing.
>>
>
> Yes, I'd agree, and appreciate you sending the pointer.
>
> Mirja is (IIRC) the AD for ALTO now, but I had ALTO for a couple of years
> after joining the IESG, and this list was very much the result of looking
> at everything the ALTO working group wished they'd been able to know in
> order to select "best initial peers". Their use case is pretty different
> these days, but I don't think the list of what they wish they could know
> has changed very much at all.
>
> Somewhere between draft-irtf-panrg-what-not-to-do and solutions drafts
> (whether in IRTF or IETF), figuring out what has changed so  that obstacles
> to deployment aren't obstacles turns out to be really important.
>
> Spencer
>
>
>>  The discrepancies are due to various reasons, including, but not limited
>>> to the following facts:
>>>    o  The ALTO service is not an admission control system.
>>>    o  The ALTO service
>>>
>>> * **may not know the instantaneous congestion status      of the
>>> network.***
>>> *      of the network.***   o  The ALTO service
>>>
>>> * **may not know all link bandwidths**, i.e., where the      bottleneck
>>> really is, and there may be shared bottlenecks.*
>>> *      bottleneck really is, and there may be shared bottlenecks.*   o
>>>  The ALTO service
>>>
>>> ***may not have all information about the actual      routing***
>>> *      routing***   o  The ALTO service
>>>
>>> ***may not know whether the candidate endpoint      itself is
>>> overloaded***
>>> *      itself is overloaded***   o  The ALTO service
>>>
>>> ***may not know whether the candidate endpoint      throttles the
>>> bandwidth it devotes for the considered application***
>>> *      throttles the bandwidth it devotes for the considered
>>> application***   o  The ALTO service
>>>
>>>
>>> ***may not know whether the candidate endpoint will      throttle the
>>> data it sends to the client (e.g., because of some      fairness algorithm,
>>> such as tit for tat).***
>>> *      throttle the data it sends to the client (e.g., because of some**
>>>     fairness algorithm, such as tit for tat).***
>>
>>
>> For this reason, it is my opinion that the title of the RFC is a
>> misnomer: "Application-Layer Traffic Optimization...". However, I do expect
>> to find some useful ideas, references, and considerations, and I thank you
>> for bringing this to my attention.
>>
>> I hope to find as many similar RFCs as possible. I would very much like
>> to build upon a foundation of the hard work of others, and minimise the
>> need to re-invent anything.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, 9 Nov 2018 at 19:02, Scharf, Michael <
>> Michael.Scharf@hs-esslingen.de> wrote:
>>
>>> Todd,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I suggest to have a look at ALTO and specifically at RFC 7971, which
>>> discusses such use cases.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Please also have a look at the privacy implications of such information,
>>> which are mentioned therein.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Michael
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* Panrg [mailto:panrg-bounces@irtf.org] *On Behalf Of *Todd Hubers
>>> *Sent:* Friday, November 09, 2018 7:31 AM
>>> *To:* kojo=40cs.helsinki.fi@dmarc.ietf.org
>>> *Cc:* panrg@irtf.org; spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com
>>> *Subject:* Re: [PANRG] An earlier draft on signaling between network
>>> and end-hosts
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Markku,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I have a standard concept primarily focused on application-layer access
>>> to ISP broad contract information and status. However, I already flagged
>>> that may also benefit cross-layer collaboration. Please see attached. I'm
>>> trying to find collaborators to start an official draft. The draft document
>>> [https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sarolahti-tsvwg-crosslayer-01] is
>>> noteworthy.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Will you be wanting to help? Are you aware of any other similar IETF
>>> documents?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, 9 Nov 2018 at 12:32, Spencer Dawkins at IETF <
>>> spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi, Markku,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 5:15 PM Markku Kojo <kojo=
>>> 40cs.helsinki.fi@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi, all
>>>
>>> in the panrg session yesterday I pointed out an older draft that Pasi,
>>> Sally and I initiated some 10+ years back:
>>>
>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sarolahti-tsvwg-crosslayer-01
>>>
>>> Passing through the panrg email archieve after the meeting, I noticed
>>> that
>>> this draft as well as a few other useful docoments were already pointed
>>> out in the early days of the panrg list when the rg was about to be
>>> proposed (was not following the list at that time, sorry).
>>>
>>> Anyways, this draft started a discussion on existing mechanisms between
>>> the network and end-hosts and discusses also challenges with such
>>> mechanisms. Maybe still useful for panrg?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks for the reminder! I was vaguely following this research group
>>> when it was proposed, so probably noticed the discussion and then started
>>> doing telechat reviews and forgot everything except where my diet Pepsi
>>> was.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Spencer
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Panrg mailing list
>>> Panrg@irtf.org
>>> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/panrg
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Todd Hubers
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> --
>> Todd Hubers
>>
>

-- 
--
Todd Hubers