Re: [Spud] No. Operators don't need SPUD for mobile network management

Frode Kileng <frodek@tele.no> Thu, 21 July 2016 13:57 UTC

Return-Path: <frodek@tele.no>
X-Original-To: spud@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spud@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA83512D5CE for <spud@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Jul 2016 06:57:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.187
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.187 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.287] 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 wKRz5IxLEeiU for <spud@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Jul 2016 06:57:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gorgon.tele.no (gorgon.tele.no [193.156.17.70]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF19712D5D2 for <spud@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Jul 2016 06:56:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=[IPv6:::1]) by gorgon.tele.no with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <frodek@tele.no>) id 1bQEUP-0006oN-Kq; Thu, 21 Jul 2016 15:58:13 +0200
To: Toerless Eckert <eckert@cisco.com>
References: <43a39476-9327-87ef-204c-d7c614a80669@tele.no> <20160721133602.GY7377@cisco.com>
From: Frode Kileng <frodek@tele.no>
Message-ID: <149f1b85-ddbe-bf9e-fab5-9e09f7dc2bc5@tele.no>
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 15:54:46 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20160721133602.GY7377@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spud/jnhrKGsxQ2vMBBjumsdvDSt92zo>
Cc: spud@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Spud] No. Operators don't need SPUD for mobile network management
X-BeenThere: spud@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Session Protocol Underneath Datagrams <spud.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/spud>, <mailto:spud-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/spud/>
List-Post: <mailto:spud@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:spud-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spud>, <mailto:spud-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 13:57:02 -0000

On 21.07.2016 15:36, Toerless Eckert wrote:
> I haven;t talked much with mobile network operators. One data
> point a US mobile operator gave me was about recognizing certain
> type p2p traffic that had real bad congestion control and was
> monopolizing congested links. And then counter that. I am not sure
> if this policing happened on some mobile link/path-segment or at
> the edge to the non-mobile core.

Not sure about how relevant this example is for PLUS or for enabling 
mechanisms for helping traffic management in mobile networks. We could 
of course define a "Bad Congestion Implementation" path signal.... Or 
just ask such P2P apps to set the evil bit... :-)

IMHO we are at a state where we should demand facts and details to 
address features related to mobile network traffic management.

frodek