Subject: [NSIS] Revised NSIS minutes (including outline of slides)

From: Allison Mankin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 11:47:37 -0400

BOF Minutes: Next Steps in Signaling (NSIS)

The Transport Area Directors held a Next Steps in Signaling birds of
a feather session during the 50th IETF meeting in Minneapolis,
Minnesota.  The aim of the session was to garner an initial set of
requirements for a next generation Internet signaling protocol.

Allison Mankin was the chair of the BOF and introduced the BOF topic
and format.  The slides used in the intro are included (in outline
form) at the end of these minutes.

A number of individuals were asked to express one requirement for
signaling in the Internet that they have a unique perspective on.
After the invited speakers were done the microphone was opened for
additional requirements.  Following are summeries of what each 
speaker had to say.

Jon Crowcroft
Signaling for QoS and path setup must interact with routing. You
cannot layer signaling on routing or routing on signaling. We have L2
mechanisms for signaling but no routing, and L3 mechanisms for
routing, but no signaling. So we must think recursively about
planning and topology.

Bruce Davie
We need better support for Qos, specifically, for voice applications.
2 examples: (1) Call-waiting support: you would like to only have to
reserve *one* set of resources, since you can only talk to one person
at a time. RSVP can't do that today  (2) You might (in fact, probably
would) like to *request* resources before dialing, but not but not
actually use those resources until the call is answered.

Christian Huitema
I'm not a believer in signaling, especially in the core. Concentrate
signaling where it is most useful: in the access (last but one hop in
network) Today, in the access loop the outbound (sending) direction
is already under the user's control. But the other direction is not,
and this creates problems sometimes (e.g. denial-of-service).
Specifically, a receiver should be able to control what it RECEIVES
from the network, and it should be able to do this without having to
cooperate with the sender.  This is important for handling Denial-of-
Service attacks.

Georgios Karagiannis
Need to introduce IP based transport in mobile access networks. Must
support resource reservation signaling that take into account network
and radio characteristics in 2G and 3G networks. Examples are bi-
directional reservation, edge to edge, reservations, scalability,
unicast transmission, and efficient bandwidth utilization to minimize
transmission costs. Note that radio access may be very delay
sensitive even if the application itself is NOT delay sensitive.

James Kempf
Radio access networks - air is expensive.  Optimize by using less
bandwidth and more (for example) CPU cycles. Whatever the signaling
protocol is, it must be very efficient for mobility. Providers pay
big $$ for the airwaves, they don't want  to use it for signaling,
but for user data.  Best: do the signaling through the backbone, and
not over the air if possible.  The signaling must be efficient for
mobility to minimize signaling while moving from area to area.
Mobility signalling should be directly coupled to the traffic.

Kireeti Kompella
From the Sub-IP point of view the two biggest requirements are for
fast notification of errors in a previously set up path and fast
rerouting of paths.

Rajiv Koodli
When a mobile node changes its IP point of attachment, the path that
packets take will change. Nodes in new path may need to be signaled.
Any mobility-aware signaling protocol should be able to make use of
intrinsic IP mobility signaling.  Any such protocol must limit
signaling to only those parts of the network that are affected.

Ping Pan
The real scalability problem is "manageability":
- need to shrink the number of reservations to be managed;
- need to avoid manual configuration;
- need to interface with policy and accounting;
- need good measurements and instrumentation.

This implies that no "manual configuration", a smaller number of
states, the use of policy, and having good measurement
instrumentation are the requirements for the new signaling protocol.

Brian Rosen
There is a need to support signaling for large numbers of call
reservations where the bandwidth for signaling is restricted.
Signaling for 2000-3000 calls per second using end-to-end signaling
over low-bit-rate hops is one such requirement.  We need resource
reservations to support audio and video pipes. The network has
multiple millions of end points and is bandwidth-limited at the
edges.  The reservations have to be hard end-to-end reservations.

Henning Schulzrinne
We might want a new signaling protocol to do the sorts of things MPLS
is being used for, such as setting up paths independent of what
routing says on the global scale.  Signaling state should be able to
dip into the path of IP packets and dip out. The end system should
not have to be involved. We need the ability to transparently carry
objects such as pricing detail without the IETF worrying about
business policies outside it's control.

Melinda Shore
So any signaling protocol we design needs to be able to handle
signaling to or from a middleboxes in transport layer e.g. firewalls
and NATs. Either the middlebox needs to be aware of applications or
vice versa. We've been doing the former -- it doesn't scale, things
break, etc.

Data and control paths are separated in apps -- people know this.
But in many cases the control path is mediated by some third party
(e.g. an ALG or a Call Center or something).  Whatever we do here
needs to be aware of that fact.

Mark Stevens
Rather than designing new signaling protocols, what we really need to
do is better define the interfaces for existing protocols.  What has
been seen so far is the requirement for real time feedback into
network that runs today without any process control, flat out.  We
should think about defining and developing descriptions of
interfaces, starting with underlying data that needs to be
manipulated in this network

Michael Thomas
A good QoS signaling protocol for a mobile environment should exhibit
good local convergence after topology changes.  Also, there is a need
to understand how Cross-Realm Admission Control / Policy should work.

The above were "non-talks" prepared by the speakers with a day or two
of notice.  We thank folks for their collaboration.

The following are additional "non-talks" offered inpromptu, and we thank
these folks as well.

Dan Grossman
There exists a rich, multidimensional space at performance
parameters, security, and "cost" (proxy for resources).  There needs
to be a way to express this tradeoff in a reasonable way that conveys
what both sides need (assuming that the resources are not in infinite
supply, so that cost is not a consideration, so that billing can be
more intelligent.

Bala Balagopan
I am at a loss to understand what is happening in this BOF.  Are we
planning to design a super protocol that satisfies all the varying
requirements? My foremost requirement is to clean up RSVP because it
is used  for purposes other than what it was defined for. I support
Kireeti's requirement of a lightweight protocol.

Kwok Chan
Signaling protocols have different time scale requirements
(milliseconds, microseconds, seconds etc). Knowing the time scale
requirement may solve the problem by enabling dynamic policies that
can be very fast, minimize complexity and are centrally controlled.

Ludier
A good requirement is the development of a generic QoS mechanism
similar to RSVP which is quite generic, unlike Intserv, which has two
specific QoS mechanisms. Generic service will rely only on "frame"
and is protocol agnostic.

John Loughney
Privacy and anonymity need to be taken into account.  We should be
able to deal with multiple "presentations" of an individual.

Mark Townsley
Close to what the previous speaker said but not exactly: ensure
security, integrity of packets.  Must be able to signal the security
requirements for packets

Ping Pan
We need to be flexible in our approach.  There is no one protocol
that is right for all purposes.  For example, a signaling protocol
involving an end user must be very fast.  But reliability/redundancy
issues are more important for a signaling protocol between backbone
routers.

Matt Holdredge
The tradeoff is between stateful vs stateless protocols. We don't
have to argue for stateful as we know the cons. We do have the
capability of building stateless protocols - and that should be the
requirement.

Bob Braden
I've been thinking about the RSVP mess, and have ideas that to do
with implementations, not requirements.  It may be useful to learn
from experience of RSVP to have a proper interpretation of
requirements.

Jim Kempf
There is a need for simple authentication If you look at signaling in
RSVP/mobility, it's not good. But if you look at what's required to
do authentication in RSVP, it's even worse.  We need "extremely
lightweight authentication."

Melinda Shore
Concealing the network topology from the end user is nice, if/when it
is possible.  But midcom requires exposing network topology to apps.
We need on-the-path signaling, without exposing topology to the edge
host.

Henning Schulzrinne
We need both sender-oriented and receiver-oriented protocols.  We
need both soft state and hard state protocols, and protocols with in-
between state (e.g., "ice cream state", that starts off hard and
softens over time), especially. for voice over IP.

Jon Crowcroft:
Don't fix signaling protocols via new requirements, but give a new
direction in signaling requirements.  PNNI specifications are
excellently written, 3G handoff is excellent, Q.2931 is excellent.
Don't start fixing RSVP until you have read all these protocols. We
should not reinvent the wheel and waste the time of the IETF.

Tim Shepherd:
The Internet, or rather the IP networking technology, has come to
dominate because of its superiority in one dimension of quality of
service over other competing technologies:  support of spontaneity.
A requirement for signaling, is that it not destroy the good quality
of service that raw IP networks already have.  I.e., it must still be
possible for things to be done between consenting end systems without
requiring them to first have a conversation with the network about
their intentions.

John Vollbrecht:
We need auditability and trackability.

Yves T'Joens
There should be a strict decoupling between protocol and the
information it is carrying.

Aaron Falk
Signaling should work over all kinds of networks, e.g., high error
networks, asymmetric networks, slow networks, broadcast networks,
unidirectional networks.

Charlie Perkins
We need to be able to do secure and reliable
signaling for anycast groups.

Acknowledgements
Thanks to the following people who sent us their notes of the
meeting.  They have been melded together to produce this memo: Steve
Berson, Bob Braden, Ken Calvert, John Loughney, Ellen L. Hahne, Matt
Holdrege, Ananth Nagaraja, and Jarno Rajahalme

Introductory Slides:
Next Steps in Signaling BOF - IETF 50
Allison Mankin
Transport Co-Area Director

Slide 1
Purpose of NSIS BOF
  Many signaling protocol developments at IETF
    RSVP (RFC 2205) 
    RSVP core protocol and QoS kids, e.g.
      Authentication (2347)
      DCLASS
    RSVP kids in other fields, e.g. RSVP-TE
    COPS

Slide 2
Purpose (cont)
  New signaling protocol discussions/developments
  Both general QoS signaling and RSVP use in mobile Internet
  Possible signaling protocol use for midcom
  Extended thinking about signaling in ccamp context

Slide 3
Requirements Process
  WG requirements development often isolated
  Requirements are gleaned not only from working group discussions but
    from informal and formal input from other groups (e.g. 3GPP et al)
  What are overarching requirements?

Slide 4
Interpretation of Requirements 
  Can benefit from whole-picture processing
  Whole-picture helps with scenarios such as:
    Here are the requirements. Thanks, they're impossible, 
    what can you do with what is possible?

    The requirements are to use this set of RFCs.  Mmm, what requirements
    are expressed by the technology in that set of RFCs?
  Etc.

Slide 5
This BOF Starts Requirements Gathering
  Assignment to about a dozen "non-speakers":

    State a requirement for signaling in the Internet that you have a
    unique perspective on (e.g. within sub-ip, in wireless, cellular,
    cable, ssm multicast distribution, content distribution, middle box
    control, policy as in RAP, as well as commodity QoS).

Slide 6
Rules
  No slides
  Three minutes only
  One requirement
  If your point has been made already, come up with another (you can do it)
  No endorsement or rebuttal of other non-talks

Slide 7
Audience Participation
  Need reporters (precise notes of the non-talks)
  Time at end for volunteered non-talks

Slide 8
Procedure
  Name of speaker will be projected (thus enforcing no-slides rule)
  Three minutes will be enforced
  No questions during non-talks, only non-talks at the mike after, 
    unless there are none.
  Understand at least enough requirements (and how many sets) so we can
    set some groups to developing useful requirements draft(s)

_______________________________________________
nsis mailing list
[email-masked]
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsis