Re: [Pidloc] [DMM] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-herbert-intarea-ams-00.txt
"Templin (US), Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> Tue, 29 January 2019 20:14 UTC
Return-Path: <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
X-Original-To: pidloc@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pidloc@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C80E130EBA; Tue, 29 Jan 2019 12:14:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 UVb9_EBol5KC; Tue, 29 Jan 2019 12:13:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from clt-mbsout-02.mbs.boeing.net (clt-mbsout-02.mbs.boeing.net [130.76.144.163]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D2079130EAE; Tue, 29 Jan 2019 12:13:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by clt-mbsout-02.mbs.boeing.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/DOWNSTREAM_MBSOUT) with SMTP id x0TKDtPt011330; Tue, 29 Jan 2019 15:13:55 -0500
Received: from XCH16-07-08.nos.boeing.com (xch16-07-08.nos.boeing.com [144.115.66.110]) by clt-mbsout-02.mbs.boeing.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/UPSTREAM_MBSOUT) with ESMTP id x0TKDmeM010234 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 29 Jan 2019 15:13:48 -0500
Received: from XCH16-07-10.nos.boeing.com (144.115.66.112) by XCH16-07-08.nos.boeing.com (144.115.66.110) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384) id 15.1.1591.10; Tue, 29 Jan 2019 12:13:47 -0800
Received: from XCH16-07-10.nos.boeing.com ([fe80::e065:4e77:ac47:d9a8]) by XCH16-07-10.nos.boeing.com ([fe80::e065:4e77:ac47:d9a8%2]) with mapi id 15.01.1591.012; Tue, 29 Jan 2019 12:13:47 -0800
From: "Templin (US), Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
To: Tom Herbert <tom@quantonium.net>
CC: Vikram Siwach <vsiwach@gmail.com>, "pidloc@ietf.org" <pidloc@ietf.org>, dmm <dmm@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Pidloc] [DMM] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-herbert-intarea-ams-00.txt
Thread-Index: AQHUt2KfWlx/WWYcSkyzsVamPdto6KXGYSAAgACW14D//3tEQIAAljiA//98cnCAAKH8AP//gjmw
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2019 20:13:47 +0000
Message-ID: <f0e726bcc8ce49e5a5ff984e0b7191c4@boeing.com>
References: <154871730925.2863.111474039018096073.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAPDqMer2teQty5RU6GtMuW6sj_HgPHbVKUPcSvj=bWuRe2MCnw@mail.gmail.com> <7be91a164bda4144a12c6c693bae7106@boeing.com> <CAPDqMeqqLx42x_1c3=grWSoryGRS-v8xKP_yiXDO_cpB-JDYew@mail.gmail.com> <2e0c578499cb4761ac113a264f3992a0@boeing.com> <CAPDqMeqg3iRPZjw=sEGuXXeQiw9HVXUROep42Dhs16hgFkN5MA@mail.gmail.com> <47b7c55f5dfa4867ac1763e2c76f3ff0@boeing.com> <CAPDqMer=xm1CjkkS1EJAm22-rAzWvGHkzpOnbdiEX48gd73DNw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAPDqMer=xm1CjkkS1EJAm22-rAzWvGHkzpOnbdiEX48gd73DNw@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [137.137.12.6]
x-tm-snts-smtp: BBBECD70DA4ABB649BB5B329F3015BA2BD7354AC842289AA0513CC545C46928C2000:8
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pidloc/a2MP0JffKkkoEK0Hd-1G2uuQJY0>
Subject: Re: [Pidloc] [DMM] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-herbert-intarea-ams-00.txt
X-BeenThere: pidloc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: <pidloc.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pidloc>, <mailto:pidloc-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/pidloc/>
List-Post: <mailto:pidloc@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pidloc-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pidloc>, <mailto:pidloc-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2019 20:14:00 -0000
Hi Tom, > -----Original Message----- > From: Tom Herbert [mailto:tom@quantonium.net] > Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2019 11:25 AM > To: Templin (US), Fred L <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> > Cc: Vikram Siwach <vsiwach@gmail.com>; pidloc@ietf.org; dmm <dmm@ietf.org> > Subject: Re: [Pidloc] [DMM] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-herbert-intarea-ams-00.txt > > On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 10:25 AM Templin (US), Fred L > <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> wrote: > > > > Hi Tom, > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Pidloc [mailto:pidloc-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Tom Herbert > > > Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2019 9:36 AM > > > To: Templin (US), Fred L <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> > > > Cc: Vikram Siwach <vsiwach@gmail.com>; pidloc@ietf.org; dmm <dmm@ietf.org> > > > Subject: Re: [Pidloc] [DMM] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-herbert-intarea-ams-00.txt > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 8:46 AM Templin (US), Fred L > > > <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi Tom, > > > > > > > > Please read 'draft-templin-rtgwg-scalable-bgp' (only 7 pages). It emphasizes > > > > the scalability considerations from 'draft-templin-intarea-6706bis' that we > > > > omitted from 'draft-ietf-rtgwg-atn-bgp', and also shows that the use cases > > > > are not limited to civil aviation. The purpose is to present a condensed > > > > version of the AERO routing system that has been around for many years. > > > > > > > > In 'draft-templin-rtgwg-scalable-bgp', we show that a BGP overlay can be > > > > organized to support 1B or more de-aggregated MNP prefixes. So, please > > > > have a look at that with the mindset that we are not addressing just the > > > > civil aviation use case but are broadly considering other use cases. > > > > > > > Okay, thanks for the explanation. It might be helpful if you could > > > recast draft-ietf-rtgwg-atn-bgp to be more of a general solution. > > > > Good input, but for that one we really were chartered to focus specifically > > on the aviation use case. Even so, the document says: > > > > "In this way, each set of c-ASBRs maintains > > separate routing and forwarding tables so that scaling is distributed > > across multiple c-ASBR sets instead of concentrated in a single > > c-ASBR set. For example, a first c-ASBR set could aggregate an MSP > > segment A::/32, a second set could aggregate B::/32, a third could > > aggregate C::/32, etc. The union of all MSP segments would then > > constitute the collective MSP(s) for the entire ATN/IPS." > > > > The A::/32, B::/32, C::/32 I think correspond to what your document calls > > "shards", but there is no implied maximum number in the doc so there > > could be thousands. But, in terms of the architecture, all three documents > > ('scalable-bgp', 'atn-bgp' and AERO) really say the same thing - scalable > > deaggregation. > > > I see. I think the atn may be nicely describing the sharding referred > to in AMS. AMS employs caches to ensure direct path for critical > communications. But, what do you do with arriving packets while there is a cache miss and you need to go out and fill the cache? Drop them on the floor? Hold them in a queue? With the BGP arrangement, packets are forwarded normally even if initial packets end up taking a somewhat longer route. > From that POV maybe they are complementary. I think examining the elements that would be at work within the stub AS makes sense, and I haven't gone to that level of examination in the *rtgwg* docs. But, intra- stub AS candidate solutions already include MIPv6, LISP and AERO - so, you may need to look for overlaps with those as well. > > > I looked at draft-templin-rtgwg-scalable-bgp. There's a lot discussion > > > about scalability of c-ASBR but not so much about s-ABSR. I'm > > > primarily interested in the latter because that is where the solution > > > will be providing the oprimizations we want for low latency. While > > > with c-ASBRs we could expect them to have scaling properties similar > > > core routers, I would expect that s-ASBR devices will exhibit a lot > > > more variety and have a wider range of scalability. > > > > The document is very careful to differentiate scaling considerations of > > s-ASBRs independently of the scaling considerations of the stub AS. > > The s-ASBR is the entity that connects the stub AS to the overlay, but > > there may be many other entities inside the stub AS whose job it is > > to coordinate with the mobile nodes. > > > > > For instance, it's > > > conceivable that we might want the functionality incorporated into a > > > low powered device in the base station of a microcell, or incorporated > > > into MEC servers as I mentioned previously. I assume a BGP solution > > > would require all s-ASBRs to hold all the routes for the sub-MNPs as > > > well as being able to consume the rate of mobile events within the > > > sub-MNP. > > > > Other elements inside the stub AS can do the fine-grained mobility > > signaling with the mobile nodes, while the s-ASBR can be deployed in > > such a fashion that all it ever does is send unidirectional BGP updates > > to c-ASBRs. > > > > > So to me, the obvious question is if such a device were only > > > communicating with, say, a 1000 nodes at any givent time, then does it > > > really make sense to give them all the information about the 1M or so > > > nodes in the sub-MNP, or can we just give them the information that is > > > currently useful to them? > > > > The stub ASes accept mobile node customers up to a certain maximum. > > So, if there are currently only 1K customers then there are currently only > > 1K routes. But, let's assume that each stub AS can accept up to 1M mobile > > node customers at a time. Then, if there are 1K stub ASes we achieve our > > 1B MNP goal. > > > > It is also important to understand that the stub AS does not correspond to a > > single sub-MSP aggregated prefix (e.g., 2001:db8::/44). The stub AS will accept > > the MNPs of mobile nodes that are covered by any sub-MSP so routing in the > > stub AS (as well as in the system as a whole) is completely de-aggregated. > > > Sure, but isn't there sub-optimal routing when a node moves to an area > covered by a different stub AS. In that case wouldn't packets be > routed to the home s-ABSR and then forwarded to the remote location. In this model, there is no such notion as a "home" s-ASBR; mobile nodes are always "away from home", and there is no aggregation of any kind within any stub AS. Total de-aggregation instead. > And even if each stub AS were to support up to 1M nodes, a large > densely populated urban area might have an order of magnitude more > devices which means that the city needs to be divided up into several > areas corresponding to stub-ASs and MNPs. Yes, for very dense urban areas there could be many stub ASes - each one of which is capable of serving any mobile node that shows up. So there is natural load balancing and no aggregation of any kind. > Entropy of motion implies > that a steady state will be reached where a fairly large portion of > users are outside the geographic area corresponging to their MNP so > communications are subject to the triangular routing. Mobile nodes associate with a nearby stub AS from a regional perspective. If the mobile moves far away from its current stub AS, it can leave that one and associate with a new stub AS that is closer. But, it could instead remain with the old stub AS at the penalty of routing stretch as you say. > So I think the atn solution might be good to scale the number of > nodes, but sub-optimal routing is going to be problematic for critical > low latency applications. For those, I maintain we always want them to > the most direct route available (e.g. anchorless routing), hence the > value of a cache. Route optimization is used to avoid having to always go through an anchor - AERO is Asymmetric Extended Route Optimization, and LISP does a sort of route optimization in its xTR discovery process. Direct mobile-to-mobile route optimization may also be possible in some environments, but not all. Thanks - Fred > > Thanks for the questions, and let me know if you have any others. > > > > Regard s- Fred > > > > > Do you have any thoughts along these lines? > > > > > > Tom > > > > > > > Thanks - Fred > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: Tom Herbert [mailto:tom@quantonium.net] > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2019 8:33 AM > > > > > To: Templin (US), Fred L <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> > > > > > Cc: dmm <dmm@ietf.org>; pidloc@ietf.org; Vikram Siwach <vsiwach@gmail.com> > > > > > Subject: Re: [DMM] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-herbert-intarea-ams-00.txt > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 7:35 AM Templin (US), Fred L > > > > > <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Tom, > > > > > > > > > > > > I read it, and I do not think it is different from the system described > > > > > > in 'draft-ietf-rtgwg-atn-bgp'. > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Fred, > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the comment. I have read draft-ietf-rtgwg-atn-bgp also. I > > > > > think that the hub and spoke architecture will end up being similar, > > > > > but I'm not sure that this is exactly the same thing. One difference > > > > > is that draft-ietf-rtgwg-atn-bgp is targeted to particular > > > > > application, whereas draft-herbert-intarea-ams endeavours to be > > > > > general purposes. There are differences especially in scalability. For > > > > > instance, rtgwg-atn-bgp mentions network with millions of routes, and > > > > > in draft-herbert-intarea-ams the target is to support networks with > > > > > billions of active addresses for IoT networks. And if we do get to > > > > > unique address per flow, then the total number of addresses to be > > > > > managed is much more (hence why hidden aggregation becomes > > > > > interesting). > > > > > > > > > > Another consideration is MEC servers providing services to UEs at they > > > > > edge. If they participate in the routing/mapping system (as an ASBR-s > > > > > in draft-ietf-rtgwg-atn-bgp and AMS-F in AMS) then the end device can > > > > > perform overlay routing itself. That is very efficient for lowest > > > > > latency. There may be many MEC servers and each one might only be > > > > > communicating with a small subset of all possible nodes. This seems to > > > > > motivate a working set cache to that limits the number of mappings as > > > > > well as the amount of control plane communications. > > > > > > > > > > Tom > > > > > > > > > > > Fred > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > > From: dmm [mailto:dmm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Tom Herbert > > > > > > > Sent: Monday, January 28, 2019 3:36 PM > > > > > > > To: dmm <dmm@ietf.org>; pidloc@ietf.org > > > > > > > Cc: Vikram Siwach <vsiwach@gmail.com> > > > > > > > Subject: [DMM] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-herbert-intarea-ams-00.txt > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We've posted a first draft of Address Mapping System (AMS). We > > > > > > > anticipate that this can be applied to mobile networks to provide > > > > > > > optimized overlay routing. In particular, this design provides for > > > > > > > anchorless routing (in the form of anchor bypass) and otherwise > > > > > > > facilitates meeting several requirements for optimizing the mobile > > > > > > > user plane as described in section 1.0 of > > > > > > > draft-bogineni-dmm-optimized-mobile-user-plane-01. AMS is agnostic to > > > > > > > the underlaying overlay protocol and should be compatible with most of > > > > > > > those being discussed. Another goal of AMS is to not require replacing > > > > > > > exsiting control planes, but can work in concert with them. For > > > > > > > example, the draft discusses how AMS might work with 5G. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tom > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > > > > > > > From: <internet-drafts@ietf.org> > > > > > > > Date: Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 3:15 PM > > > > > > > Subject: New Version Notification for draft-herbert-intarea-ams-00.txt > > > > > > > To: Vikram Siwach <tom@quantonium.net> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A new version of I-D, draft-herbert-intarea-ams-00.txt > > > > > > > has been successfully submitted by Tom Herbert and posted to the > > > > > > > IETF repository. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Name: draft-herbert-intarea-ams > > > > > > > Revision: 00 > > > > > > > Title: Address Mapping System > > > > > > > Document date: 2019-01-28 > > > > > > > Group: Individual Submission > > > > > > > Pages: 47 > > > > > > > URL: > > > > > > > https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-herbert-intarea-ams-00.txt > > > > > > > Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-herbert-intarea-ams/ > > > > > > > Htmlized: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-herbert-intarea-ams-00 > > > > > > > Htmlized: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-herbert-intarea-ams > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Abstract: > > > > > > > This document describes the Address Mapping System that is a generic, > > > > > > > extensible, and scalable system for mapping network addresses to > > > > > > > other network addresses. The Address Mapping System is intended to be > > > > > > > used in conjunction with overlay techniques which facilitate > > > > > > > transmission of packets across overlay networks. Information returned > > > > > > > by the Address Mapping System can include the particular network > > > > > > > overlay method and instructions related to the method. The Address > > > > > > > Mapping System has a number of potential use cases networking > > > > > > > including identifier-locator protocols, network virtualization, and > > > > > > > promotion of privacy. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission > > > > > > > until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The IETF Secretariat > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > > dmm mailing list > > > > > > > dmm@ietf.org > > > > > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm > > > > > > -- > > > Pidloc mailing list > > > Pidloc@ietf.org > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pidloc
- [Pidloc] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-… Tom Herbert
- Re: [Pidloc] [DMM] Fwd: New Version Notification … Templin (US), Fred L
- Re: [Pidloc] [DMM] Fwd: New Version Notification … Tom Herbert
- Re: [Pidloc] [DMM] Fwd: New Version Notification … Templin (US), Fred L
- Re: [Pidloc] [DMM] Fwd: New Version Notification … Tom Herbert
- Re: [Pidloc] [DMM] Fwd: New Version Notification … Templin (US), Fred L
- Re: [Pidloc] [DMM] Fwd: New Version Notification … Tom Herbert
- Re: [Pidloc] [DMM] Fwd: New Version Notification … Templin (US), Fred L
- Re: [Pidloc] [DMM] Fwd: New Version Notification … Tom Herbert
- Re: [Pidloc] [DMM] Fwd: New Version Notification … Templin (US), Fred L