Re: [Stackevo-discuss] When provider networks don't t trust the stack set by the end points ....

[Szilveszter Nadas <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

Regarding the trust issue in the SPUD signaling, that can be solved by having consequences of a choice and communicating that to an endpoint. Though that is not really declarative communication anymore but at least it is safe to ignore. We summarized such considerations in this position paper:
https://www.iab.org/wp-content/IAB-uploads/2015/08/MaRNEW_1_paper_16.pdf

When it comes to multiple layers in SPUD, I am not sure I understand your point. I do not see a problem with middleboxes adding additional information to e.g. the CBOR map in the SPUD header (as long as that does not cause MTU problems). With a well-defined key any header can be added, it is quite flexible. If there are MTU issues then a separate SPUD signaling PDU can be created. This is valid for the SPUD prototype protocol, when it comes to the general SPUD concept there is no consensus: some people think that we shall limit the possible types (and length) of metadata as much as possible.

Cheers,
Szilveszter

From: Stackevo-discuss [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Linda Dunbar
Sent: Monday, December 07, 2015 23:31
To: [e-mail]
Subject: [Stackevo-discuss] When provider networks don't t trust the stack set by the end points ....

I find the use cases for SPUD are very real and definitely need a good approach to make it happen.

However, a lot of discussions have been centered around the SPUD layer being encoded by End Points, and expect the network to apply certain rules for those traffic. Having an In-band standard signaling among end points and network has its advantages: allowing network to treat packets without getting into the encrypted payload, and not requiring any  extra components across the networks between the end points.

However,  Virtually all traffic today go through provider networks (most likely multiple). Provider network usually don't (can't) trust the signaling or requests from end points because any end points can set their own traffic as "requiring the least latency" or "passing through the network".  Provider network set traffic based on the SLA clients pay.  For example all the DiffServ set by the endpoints are ignored by the provider network, instead Provider Network set its own DiffServ based on the SLA from the customers.

The Network Service Header (NSH) introduced by SFC (http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sfc-nsh/ ) is effectively another layer of stack added to the packets (added by the ingress node).

My question is:
Should SPUD allow multiple types of layer added to data packets? Or only focusing on the layer end points can add?

My two cents.

Linda Dunbar