Subject: [Stackevo] STACKEVO folks following BANANA?

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2016 12:18:22 -0500

Dear Stack Evolvers,

I'm looking at the entry for BANANA in
https://trac.tools.ietf.org/bof/trac/wiki, and thinking that I'm not seeing
a lot of names on their mailing list or drafts from STACKEVO.

(Short summary of BANANA - "Services that provide coordinated Internet
Access to a home network or mobile device over multiple links of different
types can be used to provide a better customer experience and lower
operator costs by allowing increased bandwidth utilization, load-balancing
and/or higher reliability. Examples include: combining Broadband (DSP or
Cable) and LTE links for home network connectivity, or combining WiFi and
LTE links for mobile devices. Although this problem space has some
commonality with the broader site-multihoming problem, the fact that both
links are provided by a single operator makes this particular problem space
considerably more tractable, because network solutions can be deployed that
involve controlling the flow of traffic from both links.")

Are there people from the program who have been participating in BANANA?
I'd like to get their perspective (which doesn't have to happen on this
list, of course).

Thanks,

Spencer The Curious, who is watching from a TSV perspective and wondering
how broad this work would need to be ...

---

From: "Eggert, Lars" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2016 18:19:13 +0000

On 2016-10-05, at 19:18, Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Are there people from the program who have been participating in BANANA? I'd like to get their perspective (which doesn't have to happen on this list, of course).

I was at their meeting in Yokohama. At that time, there were several different interest groups in the room that tried to understand each other and figure out if they were interested in the same thing. Haven't really been following it much since.

Lars

---

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 08:22:01 -0500

Hi, Lars,

On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 1:19 PM, Eggert, Lars <[email-masked]> wrote:

> I was at their meeting in Yokohama. At that time, there were several
> different interest groups in the room that tried to understand each other
> and figure out if they were interested in the same thing. Haven't really
> been following it much since.

Thanks for the feedback.

I'm kinda curious about how what they're doing might map onto the Missing
Path Layer that STACKEVO has been talking about (maybe more face-to-face
than on the mailing list).

But it does seem like they're talking about multiple things, just from
looking at the drafts, so maybe that will be clearer at/after the BOF.

Spencer

---

From: Brian Trammell <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2016 15:25:24 +0200

hi Spencer,

I've spent some time in the past twenty-four hours on BANANA, mainly in the context of being the BBF liaison shepherd.

I think the general idea (multipath overlays for singly-connected clients) is, potentially, one tool for those path layer functions the PLUS work has spent less effort on, namely path discovery. But it's one tool.

From what I get from the BBF-facing discussions we've had on BANANA, the idea of the proponents is even less than that -- it's an attempt to get traction in the IETF for an idea that was rejected in the BBF, for an application (link bonding on the customer side of an aggregation point) that's far more in the BBF's wheelhouse than our own. That said, I think we're (Suresh pressed me into co-chairing) going to try to frame the (non-WG-forming) BoF in terms of general multipath bonding aspects, including those where the subpaths are Internet paths, where the transport aspects become much more interesting, and including ongoing work targeted at MPTCP.

And sorry for the program-facing silence on post-PLUS BoF topics. Email coming next week. In the meantime, my slides at the BoF now exist in draft form: https://datatracker.ietf.org/draft/draft-trammell-plus-abstract-mech-00.

Cheers,

Brian

> On 06 Oct 2016, at 15:22, Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Hi, Lars,
> 
> I'm kinda curious about how what they're doing might map onto the Missing Path Layer that STACKEVO has been talking about (maybe more face-to-face than on the mailing list).
> 
> But it does seem like they're talking about multiple things, just from looking at the drafts, so maybe that will be clearer at/after the BOF.
> 
> Spencer
> _______________________________________________
> Stackevo mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/stackevo

---

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2016 22:50:53 -0500

Hi, Brian,

On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 8:25 AM, Brian Trammell <[email-masked]> wrote:

> hi Spencer,
>
> I've spent some time in the past twenty-four hours on BANANA, mainly in
> the context of being the BBF liaison shepherd.
>
> I think the general idea (multipath overlays for singly-connected clients)
> is, potentially, one tool for those path layer functions the PLUS work has
> spent less effort on, namely path discovery. But it's one tool.
>
> From what I get from the BBF-facing discussions we've had on BANANA, the
> idea of the proponents is even less than that -- it's an attempt to get
> traction in the IETF for an idea that was rejected in the BBF, for an
> application (link bonding on the customer side of an aggregation point)
> that's far more in the BBF's wheelhouse than our own. That said, I think
> we're (Suresh pressed me into co-chairing) going to try to frame the
> (non-WG-forming) BoF in terms of general multipath bonding aspects,
> including those where the subpaths are Internet paths, where the transport
> aspects become much more interesting, and including ongoing work targeted
> at MPTCP.
>
> And sorry for the program-facing silence on post-PLUS BoF topics. Email
> coming next week. In the meantime, my slides at the BoF now exist in draft
> form: https://datatracker.ietf.org/draft/draft-trammell-plus-
> abstract-mech-00.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Brian

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I am looking forward to the kind of
clarity that only a BOF can provide for this effort :-)

Spencer