Skip to main content

Dynamic-Anycast (Dyncast) Problem Statement and Use Cases
draft-liu-dyncast-ps-usecases-04

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Authors Peng Liu , Philip Eardley , Dirk Trossen , Mohamed Boucadair , Luis M. Contreras , Cheng Li , Yizhou Li
Last updated 2022-07-08
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats
Stream Stream state (No stream defined)
Consensus boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Telechat date (None)
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
draft-liu-dyncast-ps-usecases-04
rtgwg                                                             P. Liu
Internet-Draft                                              China Mobile
Intended status: Informational                                P. Eardley
Expires: 9 January 2023                                               BT
                                                              D. Trossen
                                                     Huawei Technologies
                                                            M. Boucadair
                                                                  Orange
                                                           LM. Contreras
                                                              Telefonica
                                                                   C. Li
                                                                   Y. Li
                                                     Huawei Technologies
                                                             8 July 2022

       Dynamic-Anycast (Dyncast) Problem Statement and Use Cases
                    draft-liu-dyncast-ps-usecases-04

Abstract

   Many service providers have been exploring distributed computing
   techniques to achieve better service response time and optimized
   energy consumption.  Such techniques rely upon the distribution of
   computing services and capabilities over many locations in the
   network, such as its edge, the metro region, virtualized central
   office, and other locations.  In such a distributed computing
   environment, providing services by utilizing computing resources
   hosted in various computing facilities (e.g., edges) is being
   considered, e.g., for computationally intensive and delay sensitive
   services.  Ideally, services should be computationally balanced using
   service-specific metrics instead of simply dispatching the service
   requests in a static way or optimizing solely connectivity metrics.
   For example, systematically directing end user-originated service
   requests to the geographically closest edge or some small computing
   units may lead to an unbalanced usage of computing resources, which
   may then degrade both the user experience and the overall service
   performance.  We have named this kind of network with dynamic sharing
   of edge compute resources "Computing-Aware Networking" (CAN).

   This document provides the problem statement and the typical
   scenarios of CAN, which is to provide the service equivalency by
   steering traffic dynamically to the appropriate service instance
   based on the basic edge computing deployment.

Liu, et al.              Expires 9 January 2023                 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft  Dynamic-Anycast (Dyncast) Problem Statem       July 2022

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on 9 January 2023.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2022 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
   license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
   Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
   and restrictions with respect to this document.  Code Components
   extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
   described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
   provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.1.  Multi-deployment of Edge Sites and Service  . . . . . . .   5
     3.2.  Traffic Steering among Edges Sites  . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   4.  Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     4.1.  Computing-Aware AR or VR  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     4.2.  Computing-Aware Intelligent Transportation  . . . . . . .  13
     4.3.  Computing-Aware Digital Twin  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   5.  Conclusion  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   7.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   8.  Contributors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   9.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17

Liu, et al.              Expires 9 January 2023                 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft  Dynamic-Anycast (Dyncast) Problem Statem       July 2022

   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17

1.  Introduction

   Network and Computing convergence has been evolving in the Internet
   for considerable time.  With Content Delivery Networks (CDNs)
   'frontloading' access to many services, over-the-top service
   provisioning has become a driving force for many services, such as
   video, storage and many others.  In addition, network operators have
   extended their capabilities by complementing their network
   infrastructure by developing CDN capabilities, particularly in edge
   sites.  Compared to a CDN-based content cache capability, more
   diverse computing resource need to be provided for general edge
   computing in an on-demand manner.

   The reason of the fast development of this converged network/compute
   infrastructure is user demand.  On the one hand, users want the best
   experience, e.g., expressed in low latency and high reliability, for
   new emerging applications such as high-definition video, AR and VR,
   live broadcast and so on.  On the other hand, users want the stable
   experience when moving to different areas.

   Generally, edge computing aims to provide better response times and
   transfer rates compared to Cloud Computing, by moving the computing
   towards the edge of a network.  Edge computing can be built on
   embedded systems, gateways, and others, all being located close to
   end users' premises.  There are millions of home gateways, thousands
   of base stations, and hundreds of central offices in a city that can
   serve as candidate edges for behaving as service nodes.

   That brings about the key problem of deploying and scheduling traffic
   to the most suitable computing resource in order to meet the users'
   (service-specific) demand.

   Depending on the location of an edge and its capacity, different
   computing resources can be contributed by each edge to deliver a
   service.  At peak hours, computing resources attached to a client's
   closest edge may not be sufficient to handle all the incoming service
   requests.  Longer response times or even dropping of requests can be
   experienced by users.  Increasing the computing resources hosted on
   each edge to the potential maximum capacity is neither feasible nor
   economically viable in many cases.  Offloading computation intensive
   processing to the User devices would give the huge pressure of
   battery, and the needed data set (for the computation) that may not
   exist on the user device because of the size of data pool or due to
   data governance reasons.

Liu, et al.              Expires 9 January 2023                 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft  Dynamic-Anycast (Dyncast) Problem Statem       July 2022

   While service providers often have their own sites, which in turn
   have been upgraded to the edge sites, a specific service should be
   deployed in multiple edge sites to meet the users' demand.  However,
   only the deployment itself might not enough to fully guarantee the
   quality of service.  Instead, functional equivalency must be ensured
   by deploying instances for the same service across edge sites for
   better availability.  Furthermore, load is to be kept balanced for
   both static and dynamic scenarios.  For this, traffic needs to be
   dynamically steered to the "best" service instance.  For this,
   traffic must be delivered to optimal edge sites according to
   information that may need to include, e.g., computing information,
   where the notion of 'best' may highly depend on the application
   demand.

   A particular example is the popular and pervasive 5G MEC service.  In
   5G MEC, ULCL UPFs are deployed close to edge sites, which are capable
   of effectively classifying & switching uplink traffic to the suitable
   computing-resources that might be located either in local-area DNs,
   operators' DNs, or even 3rd-party's DNs.  Thru possibly using some
   'intelligent' criteria, this could warrant the selection of resources
   with either low-latency, high-throughput, high-computational power or
   all-involved requirements.

   This document describes sample usage scenarios as well as key areas
   in which current solutions lead to problems that ultimately affect
   the deployment (including the performance) of edge services, and
   proposes the desired features of the CAN system.  Those key areas
   target the identification of candidate solution components.

2.  Definition of Terms

   This document makes use of the following terms:

   CAN:  Aiming at computing and network resource optimization by
     steering traffic to appropriate computing resources considering not
     only routing metric but also computing resource metric and service
     affiliation.

   Service:  A monolithic functionality that is provided by an endpoint
     according to the specification for said service.  A composite
     service can be built by orchestrating monolithic services.

   Service instance:  Running environment (e.g., a node) that makes the
     functionality of a service available.  One service can have several
     instances running at different network locations.

   Service identifier:  Used to uniquely identify a service, at the same

Liu, et al.              Expires 9 January 2023                 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft  Dynamic-Anycast (Dyncast) Problem Statem       July 2022

     time identifying the whole set of service instances that each
     represent the same service behavior, no matter where those service
     instances are running.

3.  Problem Statement

3.1.  Multi-deployment of Edge Sites and Service

   Since edge computing aims at a closer computing service based on the
   shorter network path, there will be more than one edge sites with the
   same application in the city/province/state, a number of
   representative cities have deployed multi-edge sites and the typical
   applications, and our hypothetical model is based on that as figure 1
   shows.  Moreover, we assumes that the service deployment and service
   discovery has been done based on the hypothetical model, so the main
   problem is to steer traffic among multiple edge sites.

   Traffic needs to be steered to the appropriate edge sites to ensure
   the application demands, because in some cases, the 'closest' is not
   the 'best', there will be the variable statues of computing and
   network could be summarized as:

   o Closest site may not have enough resource, the load may dynamically
   change.

   o Closest site may not have related resource, heterogeneous hardware
   in different sites.

   Therefore, more enhancement based on edge computing is need.  Because
   for edge computing, the service request always be steered to the
   closest edge site.  Some existing methods allow to balance the load
   of edge sites but might not be enough to consider single factors,
   which will be described in Section 4.

   We assume that clients access one or more services with an objective
   to meet a desired user experience.  Each participating service may be
   realized at one or more places in the network (called, service
   instances).  Such service instances are instantiated and deployed as
   part of the overall service deployment process, e.g., using existing
   orchestration frameworks, within so-called edge sites, which in turn
   are reachable through a network infrastructure via an egress router.

Liu, et al.              Expires 9 January 2023                 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft  Dynamic-Anycast (Dyncast) Problem Statem       July 2022

   When a client issues a service request to a required service, the
   request is being steered by its ingress router to one of the
   available service instances that realize the requested service.  Each
   service instance may act as a client towards another service, thereby
   seeing its own outbound traffic steered to a suitable service
   instance of the request service and so on, achieving service
   composition and chaining as a result.

   The aforementioned selection of one of candidate service instances is
   done using traffic steering methods , where the steering decision may
   take into account pre-planned policies (assignment of certain clients
   to certain service instances), realize shortest-path to the 'closest'
   service instance, or utilize more complex and possibly dynamic metric
   information, such as load of service instances, latencies experienced
   or similar, for a more dynamic selection of a suitable service
   instance.

   It is important to note that clients may move throughout the
   execution of a service, which may, as a result, position other
   service instance 'better' in terms of latency, load, or other
   metrics.  This creates a (physical) dynamicity that will need to be
   catered for.

   As a summary, Figure 1 outlines the main aspects of the assumed
   system model for realizing the use cases that follow next.

Liu, et al.              Expires 9 January 2023                 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft  Dynamic-Anycast (Dyncast) Problem Statem       July 2022

        +------------+      +------------+       +------------+
      +------------+ |    +------------+ |     +------------+ |
      |    Edge    | |    |    Edge    | |     |    Edge    | |
      |   Site 1   |-+    |   Site 2   |-+     |   Site 3   |-+
      +-----+------+      +------+-----+       +------+-----+
            |                    |                    |
       +----+-----+        +-----+----+         +-----+----+
       |  Egress  |        |  Egress  |         |  Egress  |
       | Router 1 |        | Router 2 |         | Router 3 |
       +----+-----+        +-----+----+         +-----+----+
            |                    |                    |
            |           +--------+--------+           |
            |           |                 |           |
            +-----------|  Infrastructure |-----------+
                        |                 |
                        +--------+--------+
                                 |
                            +----+----+
                            | Ingress |
            +---------------|  Router |--------------+
            |               +----+----+              |
            |                    |                   |
         +--+--+              +--+---+           +---+--+
       +------+|            +------+ |         +------+ |
       |Client|+            |Client|-+         |Client|-+
       +------+             +------+           +------+

                        Figure 1: CAN Use Case Model

3.2.  Traffic Steering among Edges Sites

   This section shows the necessity of traffic steering among different
   edges in the real city, considering the mobility of the people in
   different time slot, events, etc.

   Figure 2 shows a common way to deploy edge sites in the metro.  There
   is an edge data center for metro area which has high computing
   resource and provides the service to more UEs at the working time.
   Because more office buildings are in the Metro area.  And there are
   also some remote edge sites which have limited computing resource and
   provide the service to the UEs closed to them.

   The application such as the AR/VR, video recognition could be
   deployed in both the edge data center in metro area and the remote
   edge sites.  In this case, the service request and the resource are
   matched well.  Some potential traffic steering may needed just for
   special service request or some small scheduling demand.

Liu, et al.              Expires 9 January 2023                 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft  Dynamic-Anycast (Dyncast) Problem Statem       July 2022

        +----------------+    +---+                  +------------+
      +----------------+ |- - |UE1|                +------------+ |
      | +-----------+  | |    +---+             +--|    Edge    | |
      | |Edge server|  | |    +---+       +- - -|PE|            | |
      | +-----------+  | |- - |UE2|       |     +--|   Site 1   |-+
      | +-----------+  | |    +---+                +------------+
      | |Edge server|  | |     ...        |            |
      | +-----------+  | +--+         Potencial      +---+ +---+
      | +-----------+  | |PE|- - - - - - -+          |UEa| |UEb|
      | |Edge server|  | +--+         Steering       +---+ +---+
      | +-----------+  | |    +---+       |                  |
      | +-----------+  | |- - |UE3|                  +------------+
      | |  ... ...  |  | |    +---+       |        +------------+ |
      | +-----------+  | |     ...              +--|    Edge    | |
      |                | |    +---+       +- - -|PE|            | |
      |Edge data center|-+- - |UEn|             +--|   Site 2   |-+
      +----------------+      +---+                +------------+
      High computing resource              Limited computing resource
      and more UE at Metro area            and less UE at Remote area

                 Figure 2: Common Deployment of Edge Sites

   Figure 3 shows that when it goes to non working time, for example at
   weekend or daily night, more UEs move to the remote area that are
   close to their house or for some weekend events.  So there will be
   more service request at remote but with limited computing resource,
   while the rich computing resource might not be used with less UE in
   the Metro Area.  It is possible for so many people request the AR/VR
   service at remote are but with the limited computing resource,
   moreover, as the people move from the metro area to the remote are,
   the edge sites served the common service such as intelligent
   transportation will also change, so it need to steer some traffic
   back to Metro center.

Liu, et al.              Expires 9 January 2023                 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft  Dynamic-Anycast (Dyncast) Problem Statem       July 2022

        +----------------+                           +------------+
      +----------------+ |                         +------------+ |
      | +-----------+  | |  Steering traffic    +--|    Edge    | |
      | |Edge server|  | |          +-----------|PE|            | |
      | +-----------+  | |    +---+ |           +--|   Site 1   |-+
      | +-----------+  | |- - |UEa| |    +----+----+-+----------+
      | |Edge server|  | |    +---+ |    |           |           |
      | +-----------+  | +--+       |  +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+
      | +-----------+  | |PE|-------+  |UE1| |UE2| |UE3| |...| |UEn|
      | |Edge server|  | +--+       |  +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+
      | +-----------+  | |    +---+ |          |           |
      | +-----------+  | |- - |UEb| |          +-----+-----+------+
      | |  ... ...  |  | |    +---+ |              +------------+ |
      | +-----------+  | |          |           +--|    Edge    | |
      |                | |          +-----------|PE|            | |
      |Edge data center|-+  Steering traffic    +--|   Site 2   |-+
      +----------------+                           +------------+
      High computing resource              Limited computing resource
      and less UE at Metro area            and more UE at Remote area

                Figure 3: Steering Traffic among Edge Sites

   There will also be the common variable of network and computing
   resources, for someone who is not moving but get a poor latency
   sometime.  Because of other UEs' moving, a large number of request
   for temporary events such as vocal concert, shopping festival and so
   on, and there will also be the normal change of the network and
   computing resource status.  So for some fixed UEs, it is also
   expected to steer the traffic to appropriate sites dynamiclly.

   Those problems indicate that traffic needs to be steered among
   different edge sites, because of the mobility of the UE and the
   common variable of network and computing resources.  Moreover, some
   apps in the following Section require both low latency and high
   computing resource usage or specific computing HW capabilities (such
   as local GPU); hence joint optimization of network and computing
   resource is needed to guarantee the QoE.

4.  Use Cases

   This section presents a non-exhaustive list of scenarios which
   require multiple edge sites to interconnect and to coordinate at the
   network layer to meet the service demands and ensure better user
   experience.

Liu, et al.              Expires 9 January 2023                 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft  Dynamic-Anycast (Dyncast) Problem Statem       July 2022

4.1.  Computing-Aware AR or VR

   Cloud VR/AR services are used in some exhibitions, scenic spots, and
   celebration ceremonies.  In the future, they might be used in more
   applications, such as industrial internet, medical industry, and meta
   verse.

   Cloud VR/AR introduces the concept of cloud computing to the
   rendering of audiovisual assets in such applications.  Here, the edge
   cloud helps encode/decode and render content.  The end device usually
   only uploads posture or control information to the edge and then VR/
   AR contents are rendered in the edge cloud.  The video and audio
   outputs generated from the edge cloud are encoded, compressed, and
   transmitted back to the end device or further transmitted to central
   data center via high bandwidth networks.

   Edge sites may use CPU or GPU for encode/decode.  GPU usually has
   better performance but CPU is simpler and more straightforward to use
   as well as possibly more widespread in deployment.  Available
   remaining resources determines if a service instance can be started.
   The instance's CPU, GPU and memory utilization has a high impact on
   the processing delay on encoding, decoding and rendering.  At the
   same time, the network path quality to the edge site is a key for
   user experience of quality of audio/ video and input command response
   times.

   A Cloud VR service, such as a mobile gaming service, brings
   challenging requirements to both network and computing so that the
   edge node to serve a service request has to be carefully selected to
   make sure it has sufficient computing resource and good network path.
   For example, for an entry-level Cloud VR (panoramic 8K 2D video) with
   110-degree Field of View (FOV) transmission, the typical network
   requirements are bandwidth 40Mbps, 20ms for motion-to-photon latency,
   packet loss rate is 2.4E-5; the typical computing requirements are 8K
   H.265 real-time decoding, 2K H.264 real-time encoding.  We can
   further divide the 20ms latency budget into:

   (i) sensor sampling delay(client), which is considered imperceptible
   by users is less than 1.5ms including an extra 0.5ms for
   digitalization and end device processing.

   (ii) display refresh delay(client), which take 7.9ms based on the
   144Hz display refreshing rate and 1ms extra delay to light up.

   (iii) image/frame rendering delay(server), which could be reduced to
   5.5ms.

Liu, et al.              Expires 9 January 2023                [Page 10]
Internet-Draft  Dynamic-Anycast (Dyncast) Problem Statem       July 2022

   (iv) network delay(network), which should be bounded to
   20-1.5-5.5-7.9 = 5.1ms.

   So the the budgets for server(computing) delay and network delay are
   almost equivalent, which make sense to consider both of the delay for
   computing and network.  And it can't meet the total delay
   requirements or find the best choice by either optimize the network
   or computing resource.

   Based on the analysis, here are some further assumption as figure 4
   shows, the client could request any service instance among 3 edge
   sites.  The delay of client could be same, and the differences of
   differente edge sites and corresponding network path has different
   delays:

   o Edge site 1: The computing delay=4ms based on a light load, and the
   corresponding network delay=9ms based on a heavy traffic.

   o Edge site 2: The computing delay=10ms based on a heavy load, and
   the corresponding network delay=4ms based on a light traffic.

   o Edge site 3: The edge site 3's computing delay=5ms based on a
   normal load, and the corresponding network delay=5ms based on a
   normal traffic.

   In this case, we can't get a optimal network and computing total
   delay if choose the resource only based on either of computing or
   network status:

   o If choosing the edge site based on the best computing delay it will
   be the edge site 1, the E2E delay=22.4ms.

   o If choosing the edge site based on the best network delay it will
   be the edge site 2, the E2E delay=23.4ms.

   o If choosing the edge site based on both of the status it will be
   the edge site 3, the E2E delay=19.4ms.

   So, the best choice to ensure the E2E delay is edge site 3, which is
   19.4ms and is less than 20ms.  The differences of the E2E delay is
   only 3~4ms among the three, but some of them will meet the
   application demand while some doesn't.

Liu, et al.              Expires 9 January 2023                [Page 11]
Internet-Draft  Dynamic-Anycast (Dyncast) Problem Statem       July 2022

   The conclusion is that it requires to dynamically steer traffic to
   the appropriate edge to meet the E2E delay requirements considering
   both network and computing resource status.  Moreover, the computing
   resources have a big difference in different edges, and the 'closest
   site' may be good for latency but lacks GPU support and should
   therefore not be chosen.

        Light Load          Heavy Load           Normal load
      +------------+      +------------+       +------------+
      |    Edge    |      |    Edge    |       |    Edge    |
      |   Site 1   |      |   Site 2   |       |   Site 3   |
      +-----+------+      +------+-----+       +------+-----+
   computing|delay(4ms)          |           computing|delay(5ms)
            |           computing|delay(10ms)         |
       +----+-----+        +-----+----+         +-----+----+
       |  Egress  |        |  Egress  |         |  Egress  |
       | Router 1 |        | Router 2 |         | Router 3 |
       +----+-----+        +-----+----+         +-----+----+
     newtork|delay(9ms)   newtork|delay(4ms)   newtork|delay(5ms)
            |                    |                    |
            |           +--------+--------+           |
            +-----------|  Infrastructure |-----------+
                        +--------+--------+
                                 |
                            +----+----+
                            | Ingress |
            +---------------|  Router |--------------+
            |               +----+----+              |
            |                    |                   |
         +--+--+              +--+---+           +---+--+
       +------+|            +------+ |         +------+ |
       |Client|+            |Client|-+         |Client|-+
       +------+             +------+           +------+
                      clien delay=1.5+7.9=9.4ms

                     Figure 4: Computing-Aware AR or VR

   Furthermore, specific techniques may be employed to divide the
   overall rendering into base assets that are common across a number of
   clients participating in the service, while the client-specific input
   data is being utilized to render additional assets.  When being
   delivered to the client, those two assets are being combined into the
   overall content being consumed by the client.  The requirements for
   sending the client input data as well as the requests for the base
   assets may be different in terms of which service instances may serve
   the request, where base assets may be served from any nearby service
   instance (since those base assets may be served without requiring
   cross-request state being maintained), while the client-specific

Liu, et al.              Expires 9 January 2023                [Page 12]
Internet-Draft  Dynamic-Anycast (Dyncast) Problem Statem       July 2022

   input data is being processed by a stateful service instance that
   changes, if at all, only slowly over time due to the stickiness of
   the service that is being created by the client-specific data.  Other
   splits of rendering and input tasks can be found in[TR22.874] for
   further reading.

   When it comes to the service instances themselves, those may be
   instantiated on-demand, e.g., driven by network or client demand
   metrics, while resources may also be released, e.g., after an idle
   timeout, to free up resources for other services.  Depending on the
   utilized node technologies, the lifetime of such "function as a
   service" may range from many minutes down to millisecond scale.
   Therefore computing resources across participating edges exhibit a
   distributed (in terms of locations) as well as dynamic (in terms of
   resource availability) nature.  In order to achieve a satisfying
   service quality to end users, a service request will need to be sent
   to and served by an edge with sufficient computing resource and a
   good network path.

4.2.  Computing-Aware Intelligent Transportation

   For the convenience of transportation, more video capture devices are
   required to be deployed as urban infrastructure, and the better video
   quality is also required to facilitate the content analysis.  So, the
   transmission capacity of the network will need to be further
   increased, and the collected video data needs to be further
   processed, such as for pedestrian face recognition, vehicle moving
   track recognition, and prediction.  This, in turn, also impacts the
   requirements for the video processing capacity of computing nodes.

   In auxiliary driving scenarios, to help overcome the non-line-of-
   sight problem due to blind spot or obstacles, the edge node can
   collect comprehensive road and traffic information around the vehicle
   location and perform data processing, and then vehicles with high
   security risk can be warned accordingly, improving driving safety in
   complicated road conditions, like at intersections.  This scenario is
   also called "Electronic Horizon", as explained in[HORITA].  For
   instance, video image information captured by, e.g., an in-car,
   camera is transmitted to the nearest edge node for processing.  The
   notion of sending the request to the "nearest" edge node is important
   for being able to collate the video information of "nearby" cars,
   using, for instance, relative location information.  Furthermore,
   data privacy may lead to the requirement to process the data as close
   to the source as possible to limit data spread across too many
   network components in the network.

Liu, et al.              Expires 9 January 2023                [Page 13]
Internet-Draft  Dynamic-Anycast (Dyncast) Problem Statem       July 2022

   Nevertheless, load at specific "closest" nodes may greatly vary,
   leading to the possibility for the closest edge node becoming
   overloaded, leading to a higher response time and therefore a delay
   in responding to the auxiliary driving request with the possibility
   of traffic delays or even traffic accidents occurring as a result.
   Hence, in such cases, delay-insensitive services such as in-vehicle
   entertainment should be dispatched to other light loaded nodes
   instead of local edge nodes, so that the delay-sensitive service is
   preferentially processed locally to ensure the service availability
   and user experience.

   In video recognition scenarios, when the number of waiting people and
   vehicles increases, more computing resources are needed to process
   the video content.  For rush hour traffic congestion and weekend
   personnel flow from the edge of a city to the city center, efficient
   network and computing capacity scheduling is also required.  Those
   would cause the overload of the nearest edge sites if there is no
   extra method used, and some of the service request flow might be
   steered to others edge site except the nearest one.

4.3.  Computing-Aware Digital Twin

   A number of industry associations, such as the Industrial Digital
   Twin Association or the Digital Twin Consortium
   (https://www.digitaltwinconsortium.org/), have been founded to
   promote the concept of the Digital Twin (DT) for a number of use case
   areas, such as smart cities, transportation, industrial control,
   among others.  The core concept of the DT is the "administrative
   shell" [Industry4.0], which serves as a digital representation of the
   information and technical functionality pertaining to the "assets"
   (such as an industrial machinery, a transportation vehicle, an object
   in a smart city or others) that is intended to be managed,
   controlled, and actuated.

Liu, et al.              Expires 9 January 2023                [Page 14]
Internet-Draft  Dynamic-Anycast (Dyncast) Problem Statem       July 2022

   As an example for industrial control, the programmable logic
   controller (PLC) may be virtualized and the functionality aggregated
   across a number of physical assets into a single administrative shell
   for the purpose of managing those assets.  PLCs may be virtualized in
   order to move the PLC capabilities from the physical assets to the
   edge cloud.  Several PLC instances may exist to enable load balancing
   and fail-over capabilities, while also enabling physical mobility of
   the asset and the connection to a suitable "nearby" PLC instance.
   With this, traffic dynamicity may be similar to that observed in the
   connected car scenario in the previous sub-section.  Crucial here is
   high availability and bounded latency since a failure of the
   (overall) PLC functionality may lead to a production line stop, while
   boundary violations of the latency may lead to loosing
   synchronization with other processes and, ultimately, to production
   faults, tool failures or similar.

   Particular attention in Digital Twin scenarios is given to the
   problem of data storage.  Here, decentralization, not only driven by
   the scenario (such as outlined in the connected car scenario for
   cases of localized reasoning over data originating from driving
   vehicles) but also through proposed platform solutions, such as those
   in [GAIA-X], plays an important role.  With decentralization,
   endpoint relations between client and (storage) service instances may
   frequently change as a result.

5.  Conclusion

   This document presents the problem statement and use cases of CAN in
   which we observe the demand for considering the dynamic nature of
   service requests in terms of requirements on the resources fulfilling
   them in the form of service instances.  In addition, those very
   service instances may themselves be dynamic in availability and
   status, e.g., in terms of load or experienced latency.

   As a consequence, we can get two obvious conclusion.  One is that the
   traffic needs to be steered among different edge sites, another is
   that when steering traffic, the real-time network and computing
   resource status should be considered at the same time in an effective
   way.  The problem of satisfying service-specific metrics to allow for
   selecting the most suitable service instance among the pool of
   instances available to the service throughout the network is a
   challenge.

6.  Security Considerations

   TBD.

Liu, et al.              Expires 9 January 2023                [Page 15]
Internet-Draft  Dynamic-Anycast (Dyncast) Problem Statem       July 2022

7.  IANA Considerations

   TBD.

8.  Contributors

   The following people have substantially contributed to this document:

           Peter Willis
           BT

           Tianji Jiang
           China Mobile
           tianjijiang@chinamobile.com

           Markus Amend
           Deutsche Telekom
           Markus.Amend@telekom.de

9.  Informative References

   [RFC4786]  Abley, J. and K. Lindqvist, "Operation of Anycast
              Services", BCP 126, RFC 4786, DOI 10.17487/RFC4786,
              December 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4786>.

   [TR22.874] 3GPP, "Study on traffic characteristics and performance
              requirements for AI/ML model transfer in 5GS (Release
              18)", 2021.

   [TR-466]   BBF, "TR-466 Metro Compute Networking: Use Cases and High
              Level Requirements", 2021.

   [HORITA]   Horita, Y., "Extended electronic horizon for automated
              driving", Proceedings of 14th International Conference on
              ITS Telecommunications (ITST)", 2015.

   [Industry4.0]
              Industry4.0, "Details of the Asset Administration Shell,
              Part 1 & Part 2", 2020.

   [GAIA-X]   Gaia-X, ""GAIA-X: A Federated Data Infrastructure for
              Europe"", 2021.

   [MEC]      ETSI, ""Multi-Access Edge Computing (MEC)"", 2021.

Liu, et al.              Expires 9 January 2023                [Page 16]
Internet-Draft  Dynamic-Anycast (Dyncast) Problem Statem       July 2022

Acknowledgements

   The author would like to thank Luigi IANNONE, Christian Jacquenet,
   Kehan Yao and Yuexia Fu for their valuable suggestions to this
   document.

Authors' Addresses

   Peng Liu
   China Mobile
   Email: liupengyjy@chinamobile.com

   Philip Eardley
   BT
   Email: philip.eardley@bt.com

   Dirk Trossen
   Huawei Technologies
   Email: dirk.trossen@huawei.com

   Mohamed Boucadair
   Orange
   Email: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com

   Luis M. Contreras
   Telefonica
   Email: luismiguel.contrerasmurillo@telefonica.com

   Cheng Li
   Huawei Technologies
   Email: c.l@huawei.com

   Yizhou Li
   Huawei Technologies
   Email: liyizhou@huawei.com

Liu, et al.              Expires 9 January 2023                [Page 17]