Mailing List Archive

On 4/Aug/20 16:35, Etienne-Victor Depasquale wrote:

> I think that it's validation of QoS that really matters now.
>
> If I were to base on this recent video from Keysight
> <https://www.keysight.com/zz/en/events/america/webinars.html?D2C=2036435&isSocialSharing=Y&partnerref=emailShareFromGateway> (warning:
> requires registration), 
> then it seems that there's a lot of emphasis on making grounded claims
> about the QoS that the operator sells.

Well, selling QoS is great, but does it actually help the customer in
the end.

One of the biggest draws to l3vpn's back in the day was that they
provided "awesome QoS". What untrained customers thought was excellent
QoS, is what we engineers knew as RSVP-TE. To the untrained eye,
bandwidth reservation = excellent QoS. What the customer's weren't
always told was that when it all hits the fan, even your PQ traffic may
not be guaranteed final delivery on a 200% congested port due to a
neighboring outage. And that's the traffic the customer is paying
top-dollar for, not to get dropped, ever, hehe.

It's just like the fuss I always faced when landing at SFO... from point
of embarkation, transit and in the cabin, Business or First class
service done right. Arrive SFO; no Priority lane; after traveling for
nearly 30hrs. Not being an American, I can't use Global Entry. Not sure
if that has since changed, but that's real-world QoS for you :-)...

So in a world where the majority of Internet traffic lives on a public
Internet which you can't QoS end-to-end, what will network slicing
deliver in real, QoS terms?

For me, 5G QoS would be great if it had something to do with priority or
discriminated access from the device to the radio (first mile). But I'm
not exactly sure how to practically do that.

QoS applied AFTER the packets leave the radio network and hit the fibre
backbone may not necessarily create real value if the application is
normal Internet access.

If the 5G operator is using the same backbone to carry voice and data,
then yes, QoS can help to ensure they don't drop any VoIP calls. But
then that is already included in the price I pay for making a phone
call, and can't (or shouldn't) be sold extra to me :-).

So again, not sure what QoS a 5G operator is going to sell to a 5G
end-user (single or large scale).

Mark.

On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 10:36 AM Etienne-Victor Depasquale
<edepa@ieee.org> wrote:
>
> I think that it's validation of QoS that really matters now.

note that it's qos at many layers in the stack as well:
1) your application 'qos' on the machine(s) on which it runs
2) your application's traffic qos on the machine/vswitch/etc on which it runs
3) your application's traffic qos on the immediate network elements (in pop)
4) your application's traffic qos on the intermediary network
elements (in metro)
5) your application's traffic qos on the overall transport network
(ran, fiber, wired, cross-metro/etc)

> If I were to base on this recent video from Keysight (warning: requires registration),
> then it seems that there's a lot of emphasis on making grounded claims about the QoS that the operator sells.

marketing claims are fun.

On 4/Aug/20 16:46, Djamel Sadok wrote:
>
>
> How about hardware slicing support? such as switch, server and router
> slicing? is this supported/desirable?

So you mean dump the VLAN model and give each service its own switch?

Or do you mean use one server but give each service its own VM? Or
worse, give each service its own metal server?

Wouldn't that take us back into the digital stone age :-)?

Mark.

The survey I pointed to suggests that hard slicing is the least preferred
option among survey respondents.

Etienne

On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 4:53 PM Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.com> wrote:

>
>
> On 4/Aug/20 16:46, Djamel Sadok wrote:
> >
> >
> > How about hardware slicing support? such as switch, server and router
> > slicing? is this supported/desirable?
>
> So you mean dump the VLAN model and give each service its own switch?
>
> Or do you mean use one server but give each service its own VM? Or
> worse, give each service its own metal server?
>
> Wouldn't that take us back into the digital stone age :-)?
>
> Mark.
>


--
Ing. Etienne-Victor Depasquale
Assistant Lecturer
Department of Communications & Computer Engineering
Faculty of Information & Communication Technology
University of Malta
Web. https://www.um.edu.mt/profile/etiennedepasquale

I mean virtualization of the hardware in terms of running different
router/switch/server instances/VMs/ on the same platform. Is this
desirable?

On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 11:53 AM Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.com> wrote:

>
>
> On 4/Aug/20 16:46, Djamel Sadok wrote:
> >
> >
> > How about hardware slicing support? such as switch, server and router
> > slicing? is this supported/desirable?
>
> So you mean dump the VLAN model and give each service its own switch?
>
> Or do you mean use one server but give each service its own VM? Or
> worse, give each service its own metal server?
>
> Wouldn't that take us back into the digital stone age :-)?
>
> Mark.
>

On 4/Aug/20 16:56, Etienne-Victor Depasquale wrote:

> The survey I pointed to suggests that hard slicing is the least
> preferred option among survey respondents.

That's because the very nature of DWDM, Ethernet, IP, MPLS and VM's is
all about re-using the same infrastructure over and over again for it to
make commercial sense.

I doubt we want to move away from those concepts.

We rely on many services today delivered over the public Internet that
virtualize and still perform. Even good ol' video streaming, which was
predicted to break the Internet.

So not sure what applications are driving the demand for "greater QoS"
on 5G networks, in real terms.

Mark.

On 4/Aug/20 17:00, Djamel Sadok wrote:
>
>
> I mean virtualization of the hardware in terms of running different
> router/switch/server instances/VMs/ on the same platform. Is this
> desirable?

So you mean like multiple VM's, on the same server, each representing an
NFV-based router/switch/firewall/EPC, for example?

Mark.

>
> So not sure what applications are driving the demand for "greater QoS"
> on 5G networks, in real terms.
>

Mark,

V2X, no?

Otherwise, I'm perfectly in agreement with what you've just written.

Etienne

On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 5:02 PM Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.com> wrote:

>
>
> On 4/Aug/20 16:56, Etienne-Victor Depasquale wrote:
>
> > The survey I pointed to suggests that hard slicing is the least
> > preferred option among survey respondents.
>
> That's because the very nature of DWDM, Ethernet, IP, MPLS and VM's is
> all about re-using the same infrastructure over and over again for it to
> make commercial sense.
>
> I doubt we want to move away from those concepts.
>
> We rely on many services today delivered over the public Internet that
> virtualize and still perform. Even good ol' video streaming, which was
> predicted to break the Internet.
>
> So not sure what applications are driving the demand for "greater QoS"
> on 5G networks, in real terms.
>
> Mark.
>


--
Ing. Etienne-Victor Depasquale
Assistant Lecturer
Department of Communications & Computer Engineering
Faculty of Information & Communication Technology
University of Malta
Web. https://www.um.edu.mt/profile/etiennedepasquale

> I doubt we want to move away from those concepts.

I think we all do - except technology is not there yet. Just imagine if
over a single piece of fiber you will get infinite bandwidth delivered over
unlimited modulation frequency spectrum ...

IMHO till real true optical switching is a commodity we are stuck with
statistical multiplexing.

But optimistically I think time will come when you will be able to
setup end to end optical paths in true any to any fashion with real end to
end resource guarantees. Then next generations will be looking at current
routers like we look today at strowger telephone switches :)

Cheers,
R.

PS. All of the current attempts to turn IP statistical multiplexing into
network slicing or deterministic networks are far from scale or practical
deployments (IMO).



On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 5:18 PM Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.com> wrote:

>
>
> On 4/Aug/20 16:56, Etienne-Victor Depasquale wrote:
>
> > The survey I pointed to suggests that hard slicing is the least
> > preferred option among survey respondents.
>
> That's because the very nature of DWDM, Ethernet, IP, MPLS and VM's is
> all about re-using the same infrastructure over and over again for it to
> make commercial sense.
>
> I doubt we want to move away from those concepts.
>
> We rely on many services today delivered over the public Internet that
> virtualize and still perform. Even good ol' video streaming, which was
> predicted to break the Internet.
>
> So not sure what applications are driving the demand for "greater QoS"
> on 5G networks, in real terms.
>
> Mark.
>

Wondering whether the industry will consider containerised data-plane in addition to control-plane (like cRDP).

Having just control-plane and then hacking to kernel for doing the data-plane bit is …well not as straight forward as having a dedicated data-plane VM or potentially container.



adam



From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+adamv0025=netconsultings.com@nanog.org> On Behalf Of Etienne-Victor Depasquale
Sent: Saturday, August 1, 2020 7:09 PM
To: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Subject: Re: Has virtualization become obsolete in 5G?



Clearly to virtualize operating systems as long as your level of virtualization mainly in terms of security and resource consumption isolation & reservation is satisfactory is a much better and lighter option.



That pretty much sums up Intel's view.



To quote an Intel executive I was corresponding with:



"The purpose of the paper was to showcase how Communication Service Providers can move to a more nimble and future proof microservices based network architecture with cloud native functions, via container deployment methodologies versus virtual machines. The paper cites many benefits of moving to a microservices architecture beyond whether it is done in a VM environment or cloud native. We believe the 5G networks of the future will benefit greatly by implementing such an approach to deploying new services."



The paper referred to is this one <https://www.intel.in/content/www/in/en/communications/why-containers-and-cloud-native-functions-paper.html%20> .



Cheers,



Etienne



On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 6:23 PM Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net <mailto:robert@raszuk.net> > wrote:

I reason that Intel's implication is that virtualization is becoming obsolete.

Would anyone care to let me know his thoughts on this prediction?



Virtualization is not becoming obsolete ... quite reverse in fact in all types of deployments I can see around.



The point is that VM provides hardware virtualization while kubernetes with containers virtualize OS apps and services are running on in isolation.



Clearly to virtualize operating systems as long as your level of virtualization mainly in terms of security and resource consumption isolation & reservation is satisfactory is a much better and lighter option.



Thx,

R.








--

Ing. Etienne-Victor Depasquale
Assistant Lecturer
Department of Communications & Computer Engineering
Faculty of Information & Communication Technology
University of Malta

Web. https://www.um.edu.mt/profile/etiennedepasquale

>
> PS. All of the current attempts to turn IP statistical multiplexing into
> network slicing or deterministic networks are far from scale or practical
> deployments (IMO).
>

Wow, that's quite a statement (I'm not disparaging, just surprised).

Etienne

On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 5:37 PM Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> wrote:

>
> > I doubt we want to move away from those concepts.
>
> I think we all do - except technology is not there yet. Just imagine if
> over a single piece of fiber you will get infinite bandwidth delivered over
> unlimited modulation frequency spectrum ...
>
> IMHO till real true optical switching is a commodity we are stuck with
> statistical multiplexing.
>
> But optimistically I think time will come when you will be able to
> setup end to end optical paths in true any to any fashion with real end to
> end resource guarantees. Then next generations will be looking at current
> routers like we look today at strowger telephone switches :)
>
> Cheers,
> R.
>
> PS. All of the current attempts to turn IP statistical multiplexing into
> network slicing or deterministic networks are far from scale or practical
> deployments (IMO).
>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 5:18 PM Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 4/Aug/20 16:56, Etienne-Victor Depasquale wrote:
>>
>> > The survey I pointed to suggests that hard slicing is the least
>> > preferred option among survey respondents.
>>
>> That's because the very nature of DWDM, Ethernet, IP, MPLS and VM's is
>> all about re-using the same infrastructure over and over again for it to
>> make commercial sense.
>>
>> I doubt we want to move away from those concepts.
>>
>> We rely on many services today delivered over the public Internet that
>> virtualize and still perform. Even good ol' video streaming, which was
>> predicted to break the Internet.
>>
>> So not sure what applications are driving the demand for "greater QoS"
>> on 5G networks, in real terms.
>>
>> Mark.
>>
>

--
Ing. Etienne-Victor Depasquale
Assistant Lecturer
Department of Communications & Computer Engineering
Faculty of Information & Communication Technology
University of Malta
Web. https://www.um.edu.mt/profile/etiennedepasquale

Not sure what you mean NFV is NFV,

From NFV perspective cRDP is no different than vMX -it’s just a virtualized router function nothing special…



Also with regards to NFV markets, it’s just CPE or telco-cloud (routing on host, FWs, LBs and other domain specific network devices like SBCs), and then RRs, no one sane would be replacing high throughput aggregation points like PEs or core nodes with NFV ,unless one wants to get into some serious horizontal scaling ;).



adam



From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+adamv0025=netconsultings.com@nanog.org> On Behalf Of Mark Tinka
Sent: Saturday, August 1, 2020 9:51 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Has virtualization become obsolete in 5G?





On 1/Aug/20 18:23, Robert Raszuk wrote:

Virtualization is not becoming obsolete ... quite reverse in fact in all types of deployments I can see around.



The point is that VM provides hardware virtualization while kubernetes with containers virtualize OS apps and services are running on in isolation.



Clearly to virtualize operating systems as long as your level of virtualization mainly in terms of security and resource consumption isolation & reservation is satisfactory is a much better and lighter option.


I see cloud-native as NFV++. It requires some adjustment to how classic NFV has been deployed, and that comes down to whether operators (especially those who err on the side of network operations rather than services) see value in upgrading their stack to cloud-native.

If you're a Netflix or an Uber, sure, a cloud-native architecture is probably the only way you can scale. But if you are simple network operators who focus more on pushing packets than over-the-top services, particularly if you already have some NFV, making the move to cloud-native/NFV++ is a whole consideration.

Mark.

Intel definitely is pressing for containerized data plane.

Here <https://intelvs.on24.com/vshow/inteldcgevents/#content/2393080>,
@20:49 (registration required), I placed that very question and it took a
bit of humming to obtain a straight answer :)

Etienne


On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 5:38 PM <adamv0025@netconsultings.com> wrote:

> Wondering whether the industry will consider containerised data-plane in
> addition to control-plane (like cRDP).
>
> Having just control-plane and then hacking to kernel for doing the
> data-plane bit is …well not as straight forward as having a dedicated
> data-plane VM or potentially container.
>
>
>
> adam
>
>
>
> *From:* NANOG <nanog-bounces+adamv0025=netconsultings.com@nanog.org> *On
> Behalf Of *Etienne-Victor Depasquale
> *Sent:* Saturday, August 1, 2020 7:09 PM
> *To:* Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
> *Cc:* NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
> *Subject:* Re: Has virtualization become obsolete in 5G?
>
>
>
> Clearly to virtualize operating systems as long as your level of
> virtualization mainly in terms of security and resource consumption
> isolation & reservation is satisfactory is a much better and lighter
> option.
>
>
>
> That pretty much sums up Intel's view.
>
>
>
> To quote an Intel executive I was corresponding with:
>
>
>
> "The purpose of the paper was to showcase how Communication Service
> Providers can move to a more nimble and future proof microservices based
> network architecture with cloud native functions, via container deployment
> methodologies versus virtual machines. The paper cites many benefits of
> moving to a microservices architecture beyond whether it is done in a VM
> environment or cloud native. We believe the 5G networks of the future will
> benefit greatly by implementing such an approach to deploying new services."
>
>
>
> The paper referred to is this one
> <https://www.intel.in/content/www/in/en/communications/why-containers-and-cloud-native-functions-paper.html%20>
> .
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>
> Etienne
>
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 6:23 PM Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> wrote:
>
> I reason that Intel's implication is that virtualization is becoming
> obsolete.
>
> Would anyone care to let me know his thoughts on this prediction?
>
>
>
> Virtualization is not becoming obsolete ... quite reverse in fact in all
> types of deployments I can see around.
>
>
>
> The point is that VM provides hardware virtualization while kubernetes
> with containers virtualize OS apps and services are running on in
> isolation.
>
>
>
> Clearly to virtualize operating systems as long as your level of
> virtualization mainly in terms of security and resource consumption
> isolation & reservation is satisfactory is a much better and lighter
> option.
>
>
>
> Thx,
>
> R.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Ing. Etienne-Victor Depasquale
> Assistant Lecturer
> Department of Communications & Computer Engineering
> Faculty of Information & Communication Technology
> University of Malta
>
> Web. https://www.um.edu.mt/profile/etiennedepasquale
>


--
Ing. Etienne-Victor Depasquale
Assistant Lecturer
Department of Communications & Computer Engineering
Faculty of Information & Communication Technology
University of Malta
Web. https://www.um.edu.mt/profile/etiennedepasquale

Router/switch slicing is supported but not really used much



adam



From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+adamv0025=netconsultings.com@nanog.org> On Behalf Of Djamel Sadok
Sent: Tuesday, August 4, 2020 3:47 PM
To: Etienne-Victor Depasquale <edepa@ieee.org>
Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Subject: Re: Has virtualization become obsolete in 5G?







How about hardware slicing support? such as switch, server and router slicing? is this supported/desirable?



Djamel





On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 11:37 AM Etienne-Victor Depasquale <edepa@ieee.org <mailto:edepa@ieee.org> > wrote:

I think that it's validation of QoS that really matters now.



If I were to base on this recent video from Keysight <https://www.keysight.com/zz/en/events/america/webinars.html?D2C=2036435&isSocialSharing=Y&partnerref=emailShareFromGateway> (warning: requires registration),

then it seems that there's a lot of emphasis on making grounded claims about the QoS that the operator sells.



Cheers,



Etienne



On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 12:52 PM Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.com <mailto:mark.tinka@seacom.com> > wrote:



On 3/Aug/20 08:40, Etienne-Victor Depasquale wrote:

Is the following extract from this Heavy Reading white paper <https://www.infinera.com/wp-content/uploads/HR-Operator-Strategies-for-5G-Transport-July-2020_WP.pdf> , useful?



" For transport network slicing,

operators strongly prefer soft slicing with virtual private networks (VPNs),

regardless of the VPN flavor.

Ranking at the top of the list was Layer 3 VPNs (selected by 66% of respondents),

but Layer 2 VPNs, Ethernet VPNs (EVPNs), and segment routing

also ranked highly at 47%, 46%, and 46%, respectively.

The point is underscored by the low preferences among all of the hard slicing technologies—

those that physically partition resources among slices.

Hard slicing options formed the bottom tier among preferences."


Well, it's what I've been saying - we have tried & tested systems and solutions that are already native to IP/MPLS networks. Why try to reinvent network virtualization when there are plenty of existing solutions in the wild for next to cheap? VLAN's. l2vpn's. l3vpn's. EVPN. DWDM. And all the rest?

The whole fuss, for example, about the GRX vs. IPX all came down to 2Mbps private or public IP-based GTP tunnels vs. 100Mbps l3vpn's.

Mobile operators know how to make everyday protocols seem overly complicated.

If we go by their nomenclature, the simple operators on this list have been slicing infrastructure for yonks :-).

Mark.






--

Ing. Etienne-Victor Depasquale
Assistant Lecturer
Department of Communications & Computer Engineering
Faculty of Information & Communication Technology
University of Malta

Web. https://www.um.edu.mt/profile/etiennedepasquale

> Mark Tinka
> Sent: Tuesday, August 4, 2020 3:54 PM
>
> On 4/Aug/20 16:46, Djamel Sadok wrote:
> >
> >
> > How about hardware slicing support? such as switch, server and router
> > slicing? is this supported/desirable?
>
> So you mean dump the VLAN model and give each service its own switch?
>
> Or do you mean use one server but give each service its own VM? Or worse,
> give each service its own metal server?
>
> Wouldn't that take us back into the digital stone age :-)?
>
Yes that's exactly it.
Instead of a VDOM (or whatever is your FW vendor slicing mechanism) give each customer a FW "instance" (VM/Containerized -if there's such a thing already) and instantiate it on demand and with resources customer requested and enforce utility billing.
Rinse and repeat for any other NF customer might need on your telco cloud (fancy name for a data-canter full of compute)
As simple as that -problem is that all vendors haven't quite gotten up to speed with licensing models, we need an overall Gbps throughput pool licenses not per VM/Container Gbps pool.

adam

On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 12:00 PM Etienne-Victor Depasquale
<edepa@ieee.org> wrote:
>
> Intel definitely is pressing for containerized data plane.
>
> Here, @20:49 (registration required), I placed that very question and it took a bit of humming to obtain a straight answer :)
>

I'm shocked, shocked to discover that a company that sells CPUs thinks
that a dataplane should run on a CPU...

W

> Etienne
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 5:38 PM <adamv0025@netconsultings.com> wrote:
>>
>> Wondering whether the industry will consider containerised data-plane in addition to control-plane (like cRDP).
>>
>> Having just control-plane and then hacking to kernel for doing the data-plane bit is …well not as straight forward as having a dedicated data-plane VM or potentially container.
>>
>>
>>
>> adam
>>
>>
>>
>> From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+adamv0025=netconsultings.com@nanog.org> On Behalf Of Etienne-Victor Depasquale
>> Sent: Saturday, August 1, 2020 7:09 PM
>> To: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
>> Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
>> Subject: Re: Has virtualization become obsolete in 5G?
>>
>>
>>
>> Clearly to virtualize operating systems as long as your level of virtualization mainly in terms of security and resource consumption isolation & reservation is satisfactory is a much better and lighter option.
>>
>>
>>
>> That pretty much sums up Intel's view.
>>
>>
>>
>> To quote an Intel executive I was corresponding with:
>>
>>
>>
>> "The purpose of the paper was to showcase how Communication Service Providers can move to a more nimble and future proof microservices based network architecture with cloud native functions, via container deployment methodologies versus virtual machines. The paper cites many benefits of moving to a microservices architecture beyond whether it is done in a VM environment or cloud native. We believe the 5G networks of the future will benefit greatly by implementing such an approach to deploying new services."
>>
>>
>>
>> The paper referred to is this one.
>>
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>>
>>
>> Etienne
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 6:23 PM Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> wrote:
>>
>> I reason that Intel's implication is that virtualization is becoming obsolete.
>>
>> Would anyone care to let me know his thoughts on this prediction?
>>
>>
>>
>> Virtualization is not becoming obsolete ... quite reverse in fact in all types of deployments I can see around.
>>
>>
>>
>> The point is that VM provides hardware virtualization while kubernetes with containers virtualize OS apps and services are running on in isolation.
>>
>>
>>
>> Clearly to virtualize operating systems as long as your level of virtualization mainly in terms of security and resource consumption isolation & reservation is satisfactory is a much better and lighter option.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thx,
>>
>> R.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Ing. Etienne-Victor Depasquale
>> Assistant Lecturer
>> Department of Communications & Computer Engineering
>> Faculty of Information & Communication Technology
>> University of Malta
>>
>> Web. https://www.um.edu.mt/profile/etiennedepasquale
>
>
>
> --
> Ing. Etienne-Victor Depasquale
> Assistant Lecturer
> Department of Communications & Computer Engineering
> Faculty of Information & Communication Technology
> University of Malta
> Web. https://www.um.edu.mt/profile/etiennedepasquale



--
I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
idea in the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
of pants.
---maf

On 4/Aug/20 17:37, Etienne-Victor Depasquale wrote:
>
> V2X, no?

Again, what's the actual use-case?

I've got a 4G router in my car, to which it connects via wi-fi. I can
use Google Maps, I can stream music if I'm bored with commercial radio,
I can download updates for the car and I can schedule service
appointments with the dealership.

5G coverage is likely going to be worse than 4G coverage for the
foreseeable future. Either grid-locked or on the open road, chances are
your car is going to connecting to a 3G/4G cell tower more often than a
5G one.

And while the practical improvement in radio latency between 4G and 5G
is in the low single digits, how does that make V2X any more interesting
with 5G than it currently is with 4G?

Mark.

On 4/Aug/20 17:37, Robert Raszuk wrote:

>
> I think we all do - except technology is not there yet. Just imagine
> if over a single piece of fiber you will get infinite bandwidth
> delivered over unlimited modulation frequency spectrum  ... 
>
> IMHO till real true optical switching is a commodity we are stuck with
> statistical multiplexing.

Well, that is why the R&D teams wake up every morning. But it's safe to
say that we are in a very good place where I can now take what was once
meant to run only a single service, and put other customers on it. Or
better yet, what was once meant to only carry 640Gbps, and push it to 6Tbps.

Today's tech. has done quite well. Can we do better? Sure. But I don't
think we are struggling that badly at the moment, knowing how worse it
could be.


>
> But optimistically I think time will come when you will be able to
> setup end to end optical paths in true any to any fashion with real
> end to end resource guarantees. Then next generations will be looking
> at current routers like we look today at strowger telephone switches  :)

I hope you're right :-).

Mark.

On 4/Aug/20 17:38, adamv0025@netconsultings.com wrote:

> Wondering whether the industry will consider containerised data-plane
> in addition to control-plane (like cRDP).
>
> Having just control-plane and then hacking to kernel for doing the
> data-plane bit is …well not as straight forward as having a dedicated
> data-plane VM or potentially container.
>

Well, there has been some discussion in the past 2 years about whether
vendors can open up some of their data planes and allow those with
enough energy and clue (that means not me, hehe) to have their take on
what they can do with the chips in some kind of form factor, even
without their OS.

Outside of that, merchant silicon is the next step, before we try to
hack it on general-purpose CPU's, as we've been doing for some time.

Mark.

On 4/Aug/20 17:45, adamv0025@netconsultings.com wrote:

> Not sure what you mean NFV is NFV,
>
> From NFV perspective cRDP is no different than vMX -it’s just a
> virtualized router function nothing special…
>

What I meant that as we've been deploying NFV as a VM, cloud-native
means we take that VM and containerize it further. It's a further
diffusion of NFV, in my book. The benefits about the added de-layering
(if one can call it that) are left as an exercise to the operator.


>  
>
> Also with regards to NFV markets, it’s just CPE or telco-cloud
> (routing on host, FWs, LBs and other domain specific network devices
> like SBCs), and then RRs, no one sane would be replacing high
> throughput aggregation points like PEs or core nodes with NFV ,unless
> one wants to get into some serious horizontal scaling ;).
>

Well, vCPE's and vBNG's have long been the holy grail for some of us,
especially since it makes IPv6 roll-out significantly simpler.

Mark.

I was actually talking about routing on the host and virtual control-plane and virtualized data-plane.

Currently we either have a VM combining both or a separate VM for each. Alternatively we can have a container for the control-plane.

I was wondering if the idea behind containerization is to do virtual data-plane as a container as well.



In terms of containerization on vendor HW or opening up data-plane, seems like XR7 from Cisco is leading the way:

- System runs in containers on RE and Line-cards, allows one to run 3rd party containers,

- Allows one to run 3rd party routing protocols to program RIB

- Allows one to program FIB via Open Forwarding Abstraction (OFA) APIs

- And XR itself can run on selected 3rd party HW.



That pretty much covers all the avenues we as operators are interested in, of course it’s not all just roses and unicorns and there will be further development and streamlining necessary.



adam



From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+adamv0025=netconsultings.com@nanog.org> On Behalf Of Mark Tinka
Sent: Wednesday, August 5, 2020 1:05 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Has virtualization become obsolete in 5G?





On 4/Aug/20 17:38, adamv0025@netconsultings.com <mailto:adamv0025@netconsultings.com> wrote:

Wondering whether the industry will consider containerised data-plane in addition to control-plane (like cRDP).

Having just control-plane and then hacking to kernel for doing the data-plane bit is …well not as straight forward as having a dedicated data-plane VM or potentially container.


Well, there has been some discussion in the past 2 years about whether vendors can open up some of their data planes and allow those with enough energy and clue (that means not me, hehe) to have their take on what they can do with the chips in some kind of form factor, even without their OS.

Outside of that, merchant silicon is the next step, before we try to hack it on general-purpose CPU's, as we've been doing for some time.

Mark.

On 5/Aug/20 16:15, adamv0025@netconsultings.com wrote:

> I was actually talking about routing on the host and virtual
> control-plane and virtualized data-plane.
>
> Currently we either have a VM combining both or a separate VM for
> each. Alternatively we can have a container for the control-plane.
>
> I was wondering if the idea behind containerization is to do virtual
> data-plane as a container as well.
>

Good question.

My understanding of cloud-native that the mobile folk want is to deliver
over-the-top services, and not necessarily turn containers into
packet-forwarding routers at scale. However, the question is
interesting, so we'll see.


>  
>
> In terms of containerization on vendor HW or opening up data-plane,
> seems like XR7 from Cisco is leading the way:
>
> - System runs in containers on RE and Line-cards, allows one to run
> 3^rd party containers,
>
> - Allows one to run 3^rd party routing protocols to program RIB
>
> - Allows one to program FIB via Open Forwarding Abstraction (OFA) APIs
>
> - And XR itself can run on selected 3^rd party HW.
>
>  
>
> That pretty much covers all the avenues we as operators are interested
> in, of course it’s not all just roses and unicorns and there will be
> further development and streamlining necessary.
>

That's a good start, indeed. Do we know if Cisco are opening up their
own data plane, or Broadcom ones?

Mark.

I think you'd be surprised how much of the 5G Core is containerized for
both the data and control planes in the next generations providers are
currently deploying.

On Wed, Aug 5, 2020, 11:02 AM Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.com> wrote:

>
>
> On 5/Aug/20 16:15, adamv0025@netconsultings.com wrote:
>
> I was actually talking about routing on the host and virtual control-plane
> and virtualized data-plane.
>
> Currently we either have a VM combining both or a separate VM for each.
> Alternatively we can have a container for the control-plane.
>
> I was wondering if the idea behind containerization is to do virtual
> data-plane as a container as well.
>
>
> Good question.
>
> My understanding of cloud-native that the mobile folk want is to deliver
> over-the-top services, and not necessarily turn containers into
> packet-forwarding routers at scale. However, the question is interesting,
> so we'll see.
>
>
>
>
> In terms of containerization on vendor HW or opening up data-plane, seems
> like XR7 from Cisco is leading the way:
>
> - System runs in containers on RE and Line-cards, allows one to run 3rd
> party containers,
>
> - Allows one to run 3rd party routing protocols to program RIB
>
> - Allows one to program FIB via Open Forwarding Abstraction (OFA) APIs
>
> - And XR itself can run on selected 3rd party HW.
>
>
>
> That pretty much covers all the avenues we as operators are interested in,
> of course it’s not all just roses and unicorns and there will be further
> development and streamlining necessary.
>
>
> That's a good start, indeed. Do we know if Cisco are opening up their own
> data plane, or Broadcom ones?
>
> Mark.
>

On 5/Aug/20 17:07, Shane Ronan wrote:

> I think you'd be surprised how much of the 5G Core is containerized
> for both the data and control planes in the next generations providers
> are currently deploying.

It's what I expect for new entrants that don't want to deal with
traditional vendors.

I'd be curious to see if legacy operators are shifting traffic away from
iron to servers, and at what rate.

Mark.

>
> And while the practical improvement in radio latency

between 4G and 5G is in the low single digits,

how does that make V2X any more interesting with 5G

than it currently is with 4G?


Release 16 is just out and if it has delivered the 5G vision,
latency between devices connected over the same radio interface
(which I take to mean the same gNB),
is now < 1 ms.
Isn't that a good improvement?

Again, what's the actual use-case?
>
I understand that this is a key enabler for driverless cars (real-time,
automated vehicle navigation) - the V2I part of V2X.

5G coverage is likely going to be worse than 4G coverage for the
> foreseeable future. Either grid-locked or on the open road, chances are
> your car is going to connecting to a 3G/4G cell tower more often than a
> 5G one.
>
Here's one blogger who agrees with you
<https://www.brighttalk.com/webcast/16515/349885?utm_source=brighttalk-recommend&utm_campaign=network_weekly_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=company&utm_term=312020>
(@19:46) about coverage - and count me in.
But, I guess, it's fair to say that this is the chicken-and-egg conundrum :)

Cheers,

Etienne

On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 1:36 PM Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.com> wrote:

>
>
> On 4/Aug/20 17:37, Etienne-Victor Depasquale wrote:
> >
> > V2X, no?
>
> Again, what's the actual use-case?
>
> I've got a 4G router in my car, to which it connects via wi-fi. I can
> use Google Maps, I can stream music if I'm bored with commercial radio,
> I can download updates for the car and I can schedule service
> appointments with the dealership.
>
> 5G coverage is likely going to be worse than 4G coverage for the
> foreseeable future. Either grid-locked or on the open road, chances are
> your car is going to connecting to a 3G/4G cell tower more often than a
> 5G one.
>
> And while the practical improvement in radio latency between 4G and 5G
> is in the low single digits, how does that make V2X any more interesting
> with 5G than it currently is with 4G?
>
> Mark.
>
>
>

--
Ing. Etienne-Victor Depasquale
Assistant Lecturer
Department of Communications & Computer Engineering
Faculty of Information & Communication Technology
University of Malta
Web. https://www.um.edu.mt/profile/etiennedepasquale