All, I believe that we should be very careful here.
Adding more application awareness to the network layer means more state more complexity and much higher network cost (both OPEX and CAPEX). It also means in vast majority of cases more overhead for packets. The moment you cross network domain boundary it all breaks as this is purely unrealistic to synchronize how application A should be treated across N domains. IMO we should actually go in complete opposite direction. Instead of loading networks with application awareness let application to choose end to end path by themselves which meet their requirements. Keeping network primitive to allow basic IP forwarding while exposing different paths application packets may take will not only be much more scalable but will also allow application to adjust and tune its logic or buffering (which btw is already happening today anyway) to the actual needs. Some of this exposure is already taking place today. But there is still room for improvement. And let's keep it in mind that current networks both open as well as internal do struggle to offer end to end 8 classes of basic QoS. Thinking that bunch of IETF drafts or RFCs will suddenly allow it to properly handle lot's of Application_IDs or Slice_IDs seems to me like a wish (at best). Regards, Robert On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 7:15 PM Jeff Tantsura <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear RTGWG, > > > > > > APN has been presented at RTGWG multiple times, and we see the evolution > of the > > documents, including the scope of the problem and framework. This topic > needs > > collaboration across WGs; we can foresee that not all issues to be > addressed are > > within the charter of RTGWG and would span beyond the Routing area. > > > > RTGWG is chartered to provide a venue for new work, there are a couple of > different options and one option for handling > > such new work would be to recommend the development of a new WG. > > The Chairs would then want to recommend that the ADs consider forming a > focus WG, with a set of well defined deliverables and milestones (after > delivery the group would be shut down) to work on a framework for APN. > > > > We would like to solicit the WG for opinions. Please note that comments > about > > existing APN documents should be sent to [email protected]. This thread > focuses on > > support or objection to recommending that the ADs consider the formation > of a > > new WG. > > > > Please send your comments, support, or objectiond. > > Thanks! > > > > > > Cheers, > > Yingzhen Jeff > > > _______________________________________________ > rtgwg mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg >
_______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
