Dyncast (dynamic anycast)
Liyizhou <liyizhou@huawei.com> Mon, 02 November 2020 09:16 UTC
Return-Path: <liyizhou@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C04C3A0C1F for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Nov 2020 01:16:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 s2Y3EOXwbB9R for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Nov 2020 01:16:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (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 3F8363A0B83 for <rtgwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Nov 2020 01:16:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lhreml731-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.107]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id CDA78FD7C86C1CE1841A for <rtgwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Nov 2020 09:16:47 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from nkgeml709-chm.china.huawei.com (10.98.57.40) by lhreml731-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.82) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1913.5; Mon, 2 Nov 2020 09:16:46 +0000
Received: from nkgeml707-chm.china.huawei.com (10.98.57.157) by nkgeml709-chm.china.huawei.com (10.98.57.40) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1913.5; Mon, 2 Nov 2020 17:16:44 +0800
Received: from nkgeml707-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.98.57.157]) by nkgeml707-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.98.57.157]) with mapi id 15.01.1913.007; Mon, 2 Nov 2020 17:16:44 +0800
From: Liyizhou <liyizhou@huawei.com>
To: "rtgwg@ietf.org" <rtgwg@ietf.org>
CC: Peng Liu <liupengyjy@chinamobile.com>, "gengliang@chinamobile.com" <gengliang@chinamobile.com>, "Lifeng (Frank)" <frank.lifeng@huawei.com>
Subject: Dyncast (dynamic anycast)
Thread-Topic: Dyncast (dynamic anycast)
Thread-Index: Adaw85mZT+IigZ8FSy2X6wB9JyF7TQ==
Date: Mon, 02 Nov 2020 09:16:44 +0000
Message-ID: <6f368da21dcb47809123c1f532de3a0c@huawei.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.136.98.176]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_6f368da21dcb47809123c1f532de3a0chuaweicom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/zgm_YEyZsY_PiJPpMIF0mWkkzhg>
X-BeenThere: rtgwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area Working Group <rtgwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtgwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtgwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Nov 2020 09:16:52 -0000
Hi folks, We submitted two drafts about dyncast (dynamic anycast). draft-geng-rtgwg-cfn-dyncast-ps-usecase<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-geng-rtgwg-cfn-dyncast-ps-usecase/> draft-li-rtgwg-cfn-dyncast-architecture<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-li-rtgwg-cfn-dyncast-architecture/> Edge computing puts the potential requirements on better load balancing among the computing resources hosted on different edges. The number of such edges could be thousand or even more depending on where the computing resources are located. The expected approach is to consider both network status and computing resources at the same time to determine the best place to forward a new computing demand to. Current solution usually uses DNS-like approach, select the service instance first (the lowest load or roughly the geographically closest instance) and then direct the demand to it regardless how good or bad the network path reaching it. Anycast based service addressing methodology could be used here to reach the best edge in terms of both computation resource and network status at the same time. Flow affinity and computing aware routing needs to be enhanced in such an anycast architecture. It is called dynamic anycast in the drafts. If you have any comments or suggestions, please drop us an email. Appreciated. Regards, Yizhou
- Dyncast (dynamic anycast) Liyizhou