Hi Zongpeng, Thanks for pointing out the draft again (I couldn't attend the full INTArea meeting last week due to conflicts with other meetings).
Let me try to summarize the proposed mechanism, hoping I understood it right: you are proposing to use the lower 128bit for identifying a service IP address, unlike a DA IP address. A client can then send a request directly to the service IP, possibly even initiating a traditional DNS resolution to obtain a DA IP address in parallel. I hope I got this right. Questions from my side: 1. In Section 5, you mention the handling of hash conflicts. What confuses me is the reference to few initial services that would make hash conflicts less likely. Isn't the likelihood of a hash conflict driven by the overall pool of possible services, which are, well, all URL-based names? Why is the (likely much more limited) pool of MEC services only driving the hash conflict resolution here? 2. A 'service IP' is, in my view, an anycast relationship, if we consider (e.g., virtualized) service endpoints to be deployed in possibly more than one (edge) network location. I kind of miss this semantic aspect in the document. That would also then introduce not just one DA IP but a pool of possible many DA IPs, right? 3. I am a little confused by Section 4, which outlines that clients (and server) are responsible for the service IP to DA IP mapping. On which basis is this mapping done? Is there any signaling of service IP to DA IP involved? On which basis is this mapping being done? 4. With the above questions in mind, I wonder how this proposed routing relates to the CAN (compute-aware networking) or dyncast efforts (see, e.g., https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-li-dyncast-architecture/)? Particularly the dyncast method of using anycast mapping of a service ID to a binding ID (which is a DA IP) sounds rather similar to what you are proposing. Am I missing the key difference? If so, what is that difference? Best, Dirk From: Int-area <int-area-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of duzongp...@foxmail.com Sent: 02 August 2022 03:58 To: Int-area <Int-area@ietf.org> Subject: [Int-area] Call for comments of the draft Service Routing in MEC Hi, all We have recently proposed a new version of the draft https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-du-intarea-service-routing-in-mec/ And we introduced it in the last meeting. We are glad that anyone who is interested in can give some suggestions. Thanks. Abstract This document introduces a service routing mechanism in the scenario of Multi-access Edge Computing, which can bypass the DNS procedure. A slide is also available: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/114/materials/slides-114-intarea-service-routing-in-multi-access-edge-computing-ietf114-00 Thanks to the comments of EV in the meeting. And I will send it to the v6ops as well. Best Regards Zongpeng Du ________________________________ duzongp...@foxmail.com<mailto:duzongp...@foxmail.com> & duzongp...@chinamobile.com<mailto:duzongp...@chinamobile.com>
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list Int-area@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
