Hi Bhuvanesh , Thanks very much for taking time to read through the draft.
- Application based traffic offload/routing requirement most often comes from enterprise segment, never seen from service providers. Since BGP is proposed in the draft to achieve application based routing but BGP is most often used between Autonomous systems (between Service providers and Enterprise and Service Providers), Why widely accepted and deployed IGPs (OSPF and EIGRP) cannot work to achieve proposed functionality? If IGPs are supported to have application based routing it will great value add for large Enterprises segment without any major change in existing routing. <<ARUN>> My draft focus on Enterprise networks that are globally spread across . Typically they will go for MPLS or other forms of VPN technology with choice of Last miles. Invariably bottle neck or congestion will happen on the last mile and not the SP's core. Hence the draft focus on managing congestion on the last miles. This we do by offloading applications on to other available Paths to the SP's VPN cloud. Just to clarify , the draft does not care about load sharing with in LAN or Campus network. The Focus really on global Wan networks. BGP is the widely used protocol on the wan network (between the CE and PE devices) . Again , My draft does not suggest BGP for signalling. However I have mentioned BGP is used in the current implementations. In the current implementation of BGP available in market , there are enough flexibility to pass on signalling information directly to forwarding plane. That's was reason current implementations are done through BGP. Infact I have also posted another draft (draft-arumuganainar-rtgwg-dps-l4-ppn-00) exclusively on signalling . Here I have proposed to use the signalling to be done during TCP connection establishment phase( 3 way handshake ). When implemented this could result in more dynamic offloading then we can achieve today. To summarise , BGP is one way to do signalling for DPS. But other ways could be developed as well. I am always open for suggestion . I would be very happy if we could refine the signalling techniques. <<ARUN>> - Draft proposes static configuration to define application profile, how to achieve the routing for the applications dynamic in nature and use dynamic port numbers etc. ? <<ARUN>> Again I am from SP background with very little scope for modifying code and trying out new things. Our implementations are constrained by limitation of products currently available in the market . Current implementation allow only static definition. But the proposed frame work allows more dynamic path selection as well ( Pls. refer to use cases draft - draft-arumuganainar-rtgwg-dps-use-cases-00 ; where dynamic scenarios are discussed ). However most of use cases would require more development to be done . That was one of the reason I have come to IETF. Requirements Draft is more of a problem statement than proposed solution :-). <<ARUN>> Pls. let me know if you have any further clarifications. Thanks and Regards Arun Arun Arumuganainar CCIE#16918 ( R&S and SP ) Technical Design Authority Advanced Solution Delivery Tata Communications Limited Direct +44 207 029 9513 | Fax +44 207 519 4609 | Mobile +44 7771 831 052 | IP 709513 [email protected] -----Original Message----- From: rtgwg [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: 01 October 2014 20:01 To: [email protected] Subject: rtgwg Digest, Vol 118, Issue 2 Send rtgwg mailing list submissions to [email protected] To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to [email protected] You can reach the person managing the list at [email protected] When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of rtgwg digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Requesting Comments about the Draft : draft-arumuganainar-rtgwg-dps-requirements-00.txt (Bhuvanesh Rajput) 2. Re: Barry Leiba's No Objection on charter-ietf-rtgwg-04-02: (with COMMENT) (Alia Atlas) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2014 15:09:00 +0000 From: Bhuvanesh Rajput <[email protected]> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: Requesting Comments about the Draft : draft-arumuganainar-rtgwg-dps-requirements-00.txt Message-ID: <[email protected]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Hi, Dynamic path selections draft is well written to have application based flexibility in the routing. Seek clarification on following - Application based traffic offload/routing requirement most often comes from enterprise segment, never seen from service providers. Since BGP is proposed in the draft to achieve application based routing but BGP is most often used between Autonomous systems (between Service providers and Enterprise and Service Providers), Why widely accepted and deployed IGPs (OSPF and EIGRP) cannot work to achieve proposed functionality? If IGPs are supported to have application based routing it will great value add for large Enterprises segment without any major change in existing routing. - Draft proposes static configuration to define application profile, how to achieve the routing for the applications dynamic in nature and use dynamic port numbers etc. ? Regards Bhuvanesh Rajput -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtgwg/attachments/20141001/94dc8d35/attachment.html> ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2014 11:13:34 -0400 From: Alia Atlas <[email protected]> To: Barry Leiba <[email protected]> Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, The IESG <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Barry Leiba's No Objection on charter-ietf-rtgwg-04-02: (with COMMENT) Message-ID: <CAG4d1rfyR1WrUGCyiJxT25Mf4+6ZjtdKNj=67+m887hpw8a...@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 9:34 AM, Barry Leiba <[email protected]> wrote: > Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for > charter-ietf-rtgwg-04-02: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut > this introductory paragraph, however.) > > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-rtgwg/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > I agree with the comment that "optional" should be removed from the > first sentence. > Sure. It was put in to make it clear that RTGWG isn't a mandatory hurdle for work that is large/organized/ready for a BoF. Alia > > > _______________________________________________ > rtgwg mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtgwg/attachments/20141001/ded443d3/attachment.html> ------------------------------ Subject: Digest Footer _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg ------------------------------ End of rtgwg Digest, Vol 118, Issue 2 ************************************* _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
