[Stackevo-discuss] Scope of stackevo and ossification in DC

Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com> Tue, 17 November 2015 18:49 UTC

Return-Path: <tom@herbertland.com>
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 C12F31B32ED for <stackevo-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 10:49:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.278
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.278 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622] autolearn=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 q_048J80zkGg for <stackevo-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 10:49:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ig0-x233.google.com (mail-ig0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1AF1D1B3334 for <stackevo-discuss@iab.org>; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 10:49:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: by igcph11 with SMTP id ph11so85411691igc.1 for <stackevo-discuss@iab.org>; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 10:49:26 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=herbertland_com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=wyhP5f9ddGZWHTqM2NeWhq453U+ZuDNDSLqtbIrCJk4=; b=yEMp7EdgnoAVkUw2zTQpZVlazZTtYw24CJ2kJkZe4Kthtwt0BoQz9Yg5kvDVM9ErTe y5AaIVbu7aUE8CNf5qgMdk2XvgKpD+5kjvHWZYTuc7EpMTiDUbJlLVTj9bP5J4ptxkLH kK+E60F+xH5LwH9gHa+U41dAT6cT+1EAT/kiuR7iuFqIQXO66KtVKi2OSP0M5oTfXQf1 mU8enk/soFx5MjVWxrqyqeS4r5Vx077+1w51xtg4xrP4xn9H+VdiGqlXRBSKHZr80AJd +FxoCvkW+GaiuZ0hM6DmhgyQzucgsY/+iOxiFeNXpCgvQw8+bflnmb5iQ3yRBaatvOWu 2dKA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=wyhP5f9ddGZWHTqM2NeWhq453U+ZuDNDSLqtbIrCJk4=; b=edsIGOcqjL9pNysHq0I5cmezvtT2nr+8h085flDCYiVTRVAHIeZENFmeHKtC6DZD8n rpzHTtP37NSX8nCrCal+UaYy5nY+xKGLTNRJiGknOZj9LfjG7PvTmUg44n4nH4o9u8VE t9V0cdmlTJTInwUo/y2EqsqrKJqt2z8xux+jWuq7e4o1jCIhZICT1xglmNq8O7UkYmHW DvID3Kp+MuC8hp40gC5ZsK9i38cboD44hIJ9tzezlvCZ2+kXsPDCEzI43YAeKhLPMwbR yJE8XJcpNrF6zZchnA4J/SCgapnhi74BtpxQR3uidpzZvwQMYZFC11bv81Lu+R+xa6XB KN+Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmrZb7mTVuEsNuJJTzuVi14w0BM0pG89jRZXTgyoWoDwxNi7CQyBPCfCNsM8+lCQF1SGBqj
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.8.72 with SMTP id p8mr3678749iga.65.1447786166522; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 10:49:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.107.41.70 with HTTP; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 10:49:26 -0800 (PST)
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 10:49:26 -0800
Message-ID: <CALx6S37p4aXhhXf0THRFde8R6Vaf+ouYO2jDz+pKWiXbAa5w4Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>
To: stackevo-discuss@iab.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/stackevo-discuss/PlPEKAhFIhzFFcxyON9TdfBHwYY>
Subject: [Stackevo-discuss] Scope of stackevo and ossification in DC
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, 17 Nov 2015 18:49:31 -0000

[ Reposting from stackevo list]

Hello,

Similar to the use of protocols on the Internet we are hitting the
transport protocol ossification problem in the data center.
Specifically, performance optimizations in networking devices only
support TCP or UDP, and without these optimizations this negatively
impacts our use of other protocols. One example of this is the need
for fine grained ECMP which has become driver behind many of the
foo-over-UDP proposals (e.g. MPLS/UDP, GRE/UDP, ...).

This problem is likely a proper subset of the general problem, but
might be more amenable to some "simpler" solutions. Is this within
scope of stackevo?

Thanks,
Tom