Minutes IETF113: panrg
minutes-113-panrg-02

PANRG Agenda IETF 113
When: 13:00-14:00 CET Thu March 24th, 2022

Where: Meetecho

Chairs: Jen Linkova and Brian Trammell

Minutes Taker: Gorry Fairhurst, Carsten Bormann

Jabber Scribe: TBA

Jabber: panrg@jabber.ietf.org

13:00 Welcome, Note Well, Agenda Chairs

RFC9217 (current open questions) published
draft-irtf-panrg-path-properties active RG document

Brian: SCION side meeting Tue; will need to find out how to engage
with the IRTF/IETF.

Spencer: I think we should announce this meeting really soon, so we
have opportunity to better prepare.

13:05 A Vocabulary of Path Properties (draft-irtf-panrg-path-properties) R. Enghardt, C. Krähenbühl

Cyril presents updates (host -> endpoint, ...)

Brian Trammell: I quite like the endpoint definition. This seems
sufficient.

Discuss last-call on the list...
Show-of-hands:

• is path-properties ready for last call?
  12:2 (61 people in room)
  Spencer: +1 for Last Call (didn't find tab)

So what is missing?
Tianji Jiang: used "domain", is that term causing
conflict/ambiguity?
Cyrill: generic identifier, needs to be defined in terms of specific
routing protocol

Mohamed Boucadair_web_183 (in chat): I'm not sure to get the
comment. This is a generic abstract of a specific network permiter an
area can be an example of a domain for IGPs 1

• who's read path-properties?
  12:20
  Chairs encourage people to read the ID and comment, as they prepare
  for an RG last call.

13:20 15m Service Awareness rather than Path Awareness M. Welzl

How to use proxies
PEPs
are not strictly evil, good intentions, terrible outcomes

so QUIC does not work as well over satellite

retrofit proxies into QUIC?

ossification was due to PEPs being transparent; need to make assumptions
about headers that weren't justified

Suggestion:

separation of concerns: "sidecar"
opt-in
some compromise of anonymity is part of the contract

minimize changes to main protocol
ossifying the sidecar would lead to losing performance advantage worst
case
PEP as use case for sidecar

ACK hashes over transport
could be piggybacked using UDP options
using QUIC for exposition, could be TCP or SCTP

Example 1: link with fluctuating capacity (mmwave)

server picks service choice
SC gives QUIC an SC notification

CC requires control loop, needs to be on client side as well

Example 2: WiFi AP acks on behalf of host
server chooses to accept SC acks as client acks (but leave data in send
buffer)
PEPs sends hashes as ACKs
client probably should know that it doesn't need to ACK as much.

There is future research: how to limit SC ACK overhead;
rendezvous with SC proxy via sending hashes to sender
sender-side SC needs to "trust" proxy, which would need to guess hashes

Path change: some form of negotiation (hand-over)
Stuart Card (in chat): +1 to this sidecar idea
Carsten Bormann (in chat): This is Interesting stuff. (And I'm
already thinking how to put LOOPs in here :-)
Chris Box (BT): I like the idea.
Jake Holland: Ideas how to discover?

Marcus Ihlar: Ericsson is doing similar stuff; Light-weight PEP.

Mohamed Boucadair_web_183 (in chat): Is this another way to do
LOOPS?
Stuart Card_web_674: +1 to this sidecar idea
cabo: This is Interesting stuff.
Stuart Card_web_674: I am a long time PEP user/developer.
cabo: (And I'm already thinking how to put LOOPs in here :-)
Mohamed Boucadair_web_183: it is already some sort if LOOPS,
Cartsne ;-)
Stuart Card_web_674: ESP is essential but precludes what I have
always done.
Brian Trammell_web_735: it's like LOOPS + PLUS
Mohamed Boucadair_web_183: It isn't PLUS as the initial signal not
touched. No? this is more OOB

13:35 Wide Area Network Autoscaling for Cloud Applications B. Serracanta

13:45 PoLKA source routing intro R. Guimarães

13:50 Gateway Based Trust Relationship Between the Endpoint and the Intermediate Node (draft-du-panrg-gateway-based-trust-relationship) Zongpeng Du

No questions.

Chairs expect an Interim meeting, and will announce to the list. There
is likely to be a request for a meeting in Philadelphia.