Michael, Closed Loop Networks still have nodes from different vendors, like UPFs can be from vendor A and B, routers connecting the edge servers to UPFs can be from Vendor X/Y/Z. Therefore, Closed Loop Networks still need standardization. E.g. IETF DETNET is used for closed loop networks.
If using RSVP+Diffserv, extension is needed to represent finer grade of services. I assume that APN is meant to address those extensions. The draft-peng-apn-scope-gap-analysis has more detailed analysis. Linda Dunbar -----Original Message----- From: Michael Richardson <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, June 5, 2021 12:41 PM To: Linda Dunbar <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: [Apn] why it is necessary to differentiate the security concern for 5G Vertical Networks from the grand Internet ( was RE: Application-Aware Networking (APN) focused interim Linda Dunbar <[email protected]> wrote: > I meant to say that APN is useful in those "Closed Loop Networks", > which are becoming more common for the 5G enabled special services. So what parts of the Close Loop Network needs standards work? > The "end user" or services that need APN are the one who have special > contracts with the operators. Not all services. I'm rather convinced that you could use RSVP+Diffserv (aka "diffedge") to do this then. diffedge did not, AFAIK, ever make it out of ID. https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-bernet-diffedge-01.txt While Joel mentioned many things that made "Intserv" (just RSVP) undeployable in the Internet, it was deployable within Enterprises, and there are now 20+ years of improvements to forwarding plane and control plane CPUs. Given that you have a closed environment, it seems like diffedge + SDN ought to do what you want. -- Michael Richardson <[email protected]> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting ) Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
