Subject: [Ideas] charter-ietf-ideas-00-06

From: AshwoodsmithPeter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2017 15:11:08 +0000

Agree with Stuart and Dino,

Mapping systems and other massively distributed noSQL databases are the reason why OTT applications exist and operate so well at such huge scales but they are mostly proprietary and often used for specific applications.

There is a great opportunity with 5G to bring a more modern and flexible routing architecture to life but it needs a standardized widely deployed low latency mapping system.

Peter Ashwood-Smith

----

Re: [Ideas] Alissa Cooper's Block on charter-ietf-ideas-00-06: (with BLOCK)
Stewart Bryant <[email-masked]> Thu, 12 October 2017 09:29 UTCShow header<https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?email_list=ideas>
I agree with Dino on this.

We need to find ways to lead and not follow, even if the technology and
the consequences are not to our taste. The market will do what makes
economic sense even if it is not "pure". Pursuit of purity in the face
of economics leads to irrelevance.

This seems a useful body of work to complement our traditional
approaches to this problem.

- Stewart

On 11/10/2017 20:30, Dino Farinacci wrote:
> I am reaching out to the SD-WAN community. There has been huge investment from the VC community in overlay startups. They are all using proprietary control-planes. There is no interoperability among them. The IETF should not ignore this market and should help shape it.
>
> This is VXLAN-in-the-data-center market all over again making IETF working group nvo3 irrelevant.
>
> Mapping Databases ARE being deployed under the auspices of SDN-controllers. There are high profile user-groups that endorse the activity. It is not going away.
>
> IETF needs to lead and not follow.
>
> Dino
>
>
>> On Oct 11, 2017, at 12:20 PM, Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]><mailto:[email-masked]&gt>; wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 12:07 PM, Dino Farinacci <[email-masked]><mailto:[email-masked]&gt>; wrote:
>>> (1) The work is insufficiently motivated. The claims about the need for the
>>> mapping system and the identity management system envisioned here do not appear
>>> to be backed up by those who have developed and deployed ID/LOC separation
>>> protocols. Nor do there seem to be compelling arguments that the framework that
>>> this proposed WG would produce would be the motivator for further interoperable
>>> deployments.
>> This is simply not true. The IETF mailing lists are not finding the reach of interest that exists in the industry
>>
>> Be that as it may, the determination of consensus and justification has to be made primarily on what appears on the mailing lists and at meetings.
>>
>> -Ekr
>>
>>
>> Dino
>>
>>