(It took me a minute to find this to respond, as you left the old
subject line in place.)
The most interesting thing I can see in the gap analysis is the
expectation that applications will explicitly indicate the affinity
grouping of packets. I can understand wanting such, although there is a
complexity cost in doing that. But the bigger question I see is whether
there is any indication that applications are willing and able to
provide such indications.
Yours,
Joel
On 6/27/2023 3:33 AM, Dirk Trossen wrote:
Dear all,
This is to announce (to the dedicated ROSA list and the wider RTG WG list) that
we have now submitted the gap analysis and requirements as well as the arch
draft for ROSA as companion documents to the already submitted use cases and
problem statement draft.
The gap analysis draft includes a more comprehensive analysis of other works
compared to the previous standalone draft, including the question that Eric
raised in CATS. The drafts are available at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-contreras-rtgwg-rosa-gaar/
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-trossen-rtgwg-rosa-arch/
Any comments and thoughts are welcome on either mailing list; for a wider
discussion, using the ROSA list may help limiting traffic on the RTG WG list.
Thanks,
Dirk (on behalf on the co-authors)
-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <[email protected]>
Sent: 26 June 2023 17:43
To: Dirk Trossen <[email protected]>; RTGWG <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: New Version Notification for
draft-mendes-rtgwg-rosa-use-cases-00.txt
Hello Dirk,
Obviously writing this email without any hat, I did not find any reference to
the CATS WG [1] in the ROSA draft. While CATS has already a good direction on
what to do, it seems to me that ROSA and CATS are addressing very similar
problems.
Do you intend to work within the CATS WG ? Else, what are the big differences ?
Regards and thanks for educating me,
-éric
[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/cats/about/
On 26/06/2023, 16:08, "rtgwg on behalf of Dirk Trossen" <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]> on behalf of [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Dear all,
Please find below the link to our submission of the ROSA use cases and problem
statement draft. This draft has been split out of the originally single ROSA
draft and is now revised in the use cases and includes, as the title suggests,
the suggested problem statement for ROSA, replacing thus the longer draft
originally submitted and presented to the RTG WG during IETF115 and 116.
We plan on submitting the separate gap analysis and requirements as well as the
architecture drafts tomorrow.
We would welcome any comments from your side on this update, specifically on the use
cases, the observed pain points and derived issues as well as the problem statement.
For the discussions around ROSA and its related drafts, a non-WG mailing list at
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> has been established. Please use this list
for your comments so as to reduce traffic from the wider RTG WG list. In case you
have not yet subscribed to this new list, we'd welcome you doing so!
Looking forward to receiving your comments!
Best,
Dirk (on behalf of the co-authors)
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
Sent: 26 June 2023 15:53
To: Luis M. Contreras <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>; Dirk
Trossen <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>; Jens Finkhaeuser <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>; Luis Contreras <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>; Paulo Mendes <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
Subject: New Version Notification for draft-mendes-rtgwg-rosa-use-cases-00.txt
A new version of I-D, draft-mendes-rtgwg-rosa-use-cases-00.txt
has been successfully submitted by Dirk Trossen and posted to the IETF
repository.
Name: draft-mendes-rtgwg-rosa-use-cases
Revision: 00
Title: Use Cases and Problem Statement for Routing on Service Addresses
Document date: 2023-06-26
Group: Individual Submission
Pages: 33
URL: https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-mendes-rtgwg-rosa-use-cases-00.txt
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-mendes-rtgwg-rosa-use-cases-00.txt>
Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mendes-rtgwg-rosa-use-cases/
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mendes-rtgwg-rosa-use-cases/>
Htmlized: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-mendes-rtgwg-rosa-use-cases
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-mendes-rtgwg-rosa-use-cases>
Abstract:
The proliferation of virtualization, microservices, and serverless
architectures has made the deployment of services possible in more
than one network location, alongside long practised replication
within single network locations, such as within a CDN datacentre.
This necessitates the potential need to coordinate the steering of
(client-initiated) traffic towards different services and their
deployed instances across the network.
The term 'service-based routing' (SBR) captures the set of mechanisms
for said traffic steering, positioned as an anycast problem, in that
it requires the selection of one of the possibly many choices for
service execution at the very start of a service transaction,
followed by the transfer of packets to that chosen service endpoint.
This document provides typical scenarios for service-based routing,
particularly for which a more dynamic and efficient (in terms of both
latency and signalling overhead) selection of suitable service
execution endpoints would not exhibit the overheads and thus latency
penalties experienced with existing explicit discovery methods.
Related drafts introduce the design for an in-band service discovery
method instead, named Routing on Service Addresses (ROSA), based on
the insights from the use case and problem discussion in this draft.
The IETF Secretariat
_______________________________________________
rtgwg mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg>
_______________________________________________
rtgwg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
