Re: [Stackevo-discuss] [5gangip] [gaia] 5G: It's the Network, Stupid

Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> Tue, 22 December 2015 17:17 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@isi.edu>
X-Original-To: stackevo-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: stackevo-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 781671A889D; Tue, 22 Dec 2015 09:17:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 JitjyVWTR-4S; Tue, 22 Dec 2015 09:17:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from boreas.isi.edu (boreas.isi.edu [128.9.160.161]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 04CCF1A21AC; Tue, 22 Dec 2015 09:17:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.189] (cpe-172-250-251-17.socal.res.rr.com [172.250.251.17]) (authenticated bits=0) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id tBMHGkIe022227 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Tue, 22 Dec 2015 09:16:51 -0800 (PST)
To: Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com>
References: <82AB329A76E2484D934BBCA77E9F5249A682F744@Hydra.office.hd> <CAEeTej+pHehyX7+qteogQcAkCcJKYhZoQKStuXGmAzWRj1_rXQ@mail.gmail.com> <F8355406-91C7-4B96-995C-1AD9D7997DC1@kcl.ac.uk> <4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F657DB3A7F@dfweml701-chm> <56789156.2020704@isi.edu> <6EE22057-5EB9-4489-A50D-7B92DA2B96AF@gmail.com>
From: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
Message-ID: <5679857D.9000602@isi.edu>
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2015 09:16:45 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <6EE22057-5EB9-4489-A50D-7B92DA2B96AF@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/stackevo-discuss/HnRZS0yCJ5Ie54_9Rg6VHiC5sEM>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 30 Dec 2015 05:00:44 -0800
Cc: "icnrg@irtf.org" <icnrg@irtf.org>, touch@isi.edu, gaia <gaia@irtf.org>, "stackevo-discuss@iab.org" <stackevo-discuss@iab.org>, Linda Dunbar <linda.dunbar@huawei.com>, Jon Crowcroft <jon.crowcroft@cl.cam.ac.uk>, "5gangip@ietf.org" <5gangip@ietf.org>, "marnew@iab.org" <marnew@iab.org>, Nishanth Sastry <nishanth.sastry@kcl.ac.uk>, Dirk Kutscher <Dirk.Kutscher@neclab.eu>, "dtn-interest@irtf.org" <dtn-interest@irtf.org>
Subject: Re: [Stackevo-discuss] [5gangip] [gaia] 5G: It's the Network, Stupid
X-BeenThere: stackevo-discuss@iab.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Stack Evolution Discussion List <stackevo-discuss.iab.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.iab.org/mailman/options/stackevo-discuss>, <mailto:stackevo-discuss-request@iab.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/stackevo-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:stackevo-discuss@iab.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stackevo-discuss-request@iab.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/stackevo-discuss>, <mailto:stackevo-discuss-request@iab.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2015 17:17:46 -0000

VPNs often have a lot of baggage, notably that an end system can belong
to only one at a time.

Slices have the baggage that a process can belong to only one slice at a
time.

I don't know if we strictly need a new term - virtual networks seems
fine to me (which, IMO, are synonymous with overlays) - but VPNs of all
types and slices have this baggage that is useful to avoid.

Joe

On 12/22/2015 8:57 AM, Dino Farinacci wrote:
> Why does yet another term need to be defined for what has been traditionally called a multi-tenant VPN. 
> 
> Dino
> 
>> On Dec 21, 2015, at 3:55 PM, Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 12/17/2015 9:49 AM, Linda Dunbar wrote:
>>> I strongly support the concept of network slicing for Applications or IoT networks. 
>>
>> FWIW, I do not - in specific, I support the notion of per-service
>> overlays, but would not call them "slices".
>>
>> Slices are an artifact of an OS-view of the network. It's a network
>> partitioning model that considers cross-overlay interaction only as a
>> violation of the model itself.
>>
>> We should be careful to consider that networks end at network interfaces
>> and network interface names, not OS partitions - and OS partitions are
>> the baggage that comes with the term "slice".
>>
>> Joe
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 5gangip mailing list
>> 5gangip@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/5gangip
>