IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Stackevo] Comments about draft-hardie-path-signals

<mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> Thu, 07 December 2017 07:28 UTC

Return-Path: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
X-Original-To: stackevo@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: stackevo@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D66C126C3D for <stackevo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Dec 2017 23:28:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.617
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.617 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FREEMAIL_REPLY=1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 IRJCA8mvga60 for <stackevo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Dec 2017 23:27:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from orange.com (mta134.mail.business.static.orange.com [80.12.70.34]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2C296124C27 for <stackevo@iab.org>; Wed, 6 Dec 2017 23:27:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from opfednr05.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.69]) by opfednr22.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 7509D20D56; Thu, 7 Dec 2017 08:27:56 +0100 (CET)
Received: from Exchangemail-eme2.itn.ftgroup (unknown [xx.xx.31.31]) by opfednr05.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 5418C20068; Thu, 7 Dec 2017 08:27:56 +0100 (CET)
Received: from OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::60a9:abc3:86e6:2541]) by OPEXCLILM22.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::8c90:f4e9:be28:2a1%19]) with mapi id 14.03.0361.001; Thu, 7 Dec 2017 08:27:56 +0100
From: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
To: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>, Stackevo <stackevo@iab.org>
Thread-Topic: Comments about draft-hardie-path-signals
Thread-Index: AQHTbrvSdKpaW4lL9kC70H7+0Yt0+KM3b+oQ
Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2017 07:27:55 +0000
Message-ID: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93300A08FAB1@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93300A0870D5@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <CA+9kkMCCry9GMT9C05dLLfsNM4yx+K32xNJz1y4wOTjyCZ5-Tw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+9kkMCCry9GMT9C05dLLfsNM4yx+K32xNJz1y4wOTjyCZ5-Tw@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.168.234.6]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93300A08FAB1OPEXCLILMA3corp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/stackevo/QJU2GYs_Ao_eD8E6Bpywni2TDzQ>
Subject: Re: [Stackevo] Comments about draft-hardie-path-signals
X-BeenThere: stackevo@iab.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Stack Evolution Program Mailing List <stackevo.iab.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.iab.org/mailman/options/stackevo>, <mailto:stackevo-request@iab.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/stackevo/>
List-Post: <mailto:stackevo@iab.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stackevo-request@iab.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/stackevo>, <mailto:stackevo-request@iab.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2017 07:28:00 -0000

Hi Ted,

Please see inline.

Cheers,
Med

De : Ted Hardie [mailto:ted.ietf@gmail.com]
Envoyé : mercredi 6 décembre 2017 18:58
À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN; Stackevo
Objet : Re: Comments about draft-hardie-path-signals

Hi Med,

Thanks for the review; adding in the stack evo list, since there has also been past review there.
You're right that this document does not focus on out of band mechanisms, and I had not seen draft-penno-pcp-asdn-00.    I probably will not introduce a discussion of it here, but I would be interested to know if there are implementations
[Med] I’m aware of the following:

·         PoC code in Cisco ASR9K, Webex, Linux, ISR + NBAR, ISR + Firewall

·         MiniUPnP integration

·         Integration with Transmission Bittorrent Client
and which IETF groups are discussing it.
[Med] Actually, there is no home for that work.
I'm a little curious about the 3.1.x you proposed for Flow stability; are there topics outside path preservation you see in that bucket?
[Med] Path preservation is the main point here from a network provider perspective. Topics such as Proof of Transit and the like are not my concern.

There might be some “path preservation/selection” concerns from a user standpoint. For example let’s consider a host that is connected behind a home CPE. Let’s consider that CPE is connected to both a cellular network and a fixed network. For the sake of resource pooling, the CPE may distribute flows/packets among available paths, but blindly distributing packets may have some implications on the quality or may lead to consume quickly the volume quota of a given subscription (cellular, likely). Having a “transport signal” to assist the CPE to select the appropriate path(s) is worth to be investigated.

By any chance do you have a reference for the terms "Endpoint dependent filtering" and "Endpoint independent filtering"?

[Med] Sure. Please check Section 5 of RFC 4787.

Thanks again for the review,

Ted

On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 6:56 AM, <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com<mailto:mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>> wrote:
Dear Ted,

Please find some comments to this draft at:

https://github.com/boucadair/IETF-Drafts-Reviews/blob/master/draft-hardie-path-signals-02-rev%20Med.pdf

Cheers,
Med

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email