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

Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> Tue, 22 December 2015 17:30 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 5587A1A88CE; Tue, 22 Dec 2015 09:30:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.889
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.889 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MISSING_HEADERS=1.021, 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 w57wDOu1HexL; Tue, 22 Dec 2015 09:30:55 -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 236E51A88CF; Tue, 22 Dec 2015 09:30:55 -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 tBMHUT6C024001 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Tue, 22 Dec 2015 09:30:30 -0800 (PST)
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> <D29EAED8.2154%theodore.v.faber@aero.org>
From: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
Message-ID: <567988B4.3090001@isi.edu>
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2015 09:30:28 -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: <D29EAED8.2154%theodore.v.faber@aero.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
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/LOZdkf54o9tO6wtyQugyrlNJh0E>
Cc: "icnrg@irtf.org" <icnrg@irtf.org>, touch@isi.edu, gaia <gaia@irtf.org>, "stackevo-discuss@iab.org" <stackevo-discuss@iab.org>, "5gangip@ietf.org" <5gangip@ietf.org>, "dtn-interest@irtf.org" <dtn-interest@irtf.org>
Subject: Re: [Stackevo-discuss] [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 17:30:56 -0000


On 12/22/2015 7:48 AM, Theodore V Faber wrote:
> On 12/21/15, 15:55, "Stackevo-discuss on behalf of Joe Touch"
> <stackevo-discuss-bounces@iab.org on behalf of 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.
> 
> Just to defend my tribe a bit, I’d say more of a telco-view of the
> network.  Providing isolated strictly defined services - e.g. 3kHz voice
> channels - lets you reason about partitioning and service development both
> at the cost of maintaining a stranglehold on what gets deployed.  Slices
> only enforce their isolation and guarantees if all the equipment has
> capabilities and is management appropriate to it.
> 
> Yeah, there’s an OS/distributed systems feel to that, but because the
> constraints now extend out of a chassis and beyond a LAN, telco analogies
> make more sense to me.
> 
> I know you (Joe) know that, but I think it’s worth saying to the group
> because the more strictly you adhere to a slicing model the more
> constraints you put on your equipment and management. ...

That's true, but a separate issue of deployment feasibility.

Whether an overlay/virtual net has service guarantees or not, it's quite
different to have a model that ends in network addresses at interfaces
(overlay/VN) vs. ending in processes (typical of slice models).

When a network ends in a process, cross-network communication (gateways,
relays, application transits, or whatever) always become counterexamples
to the model rather than a natural part of it.

Joe