Re: [CCAMP] Fwd: New Version Notificationfordraft-izh-ccamp-flexe-fwk-06.txt
Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu> Fri, 25 January 2019 02:40 UTC
Return-Path: <loa@pi.nu>
X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A01A9128D0C for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Jan 2019 18:40:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ODZZ8ZV1rl3z for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Jan 2019 18:40:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pipi.pi.nu (pipi.pi.nu [83.168.239.141]) (using TLSv1.1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 71A19128D09 for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Jan 2019 18:40:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.255.254.5] (unknown [176.126.84.105]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: loa@pi.nu) by pipi.pi.nu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BC26818015D3; Fri, 25 Jan 2019 03:40:33 +0100 (CET)
To: wang.qilei@zte.com.cn, niu.xiaobing@zte.com.cn
Cc: ccamp@ietf.org, ccamp-chairs@tools.ietf.org
References: <201901250902450065431@zte.com.cn>
From: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>
Message-ID: <435f75df-5147-3dae-0ae2-d8cb98cb7f35@pi.nu>
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2019 10:40:30 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <201901250902450065431@zte.com.cn>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/NkcN1XMBnTFf8dCZcuu-ZdEq4ac>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Fwd: New Version Notificationfordraft-izh-ccamp-flexe-fwk-06.txt
X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group <ccamp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ccamp>, <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ccamp/>
List-Post: <mailto:ccamp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp>, <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2019 02:40:42 -0000
Qilei, When I said "opposite" I didn't really mean to compare the usefulness of control plane established FlexE Group vs. FlexE Clients. Rather I intended to say that I think that the capability to establish FlexE Clients would be rather handy. After all I could imagine that the dynamics on the FlexE Client level is higher than at the FlexE Group level. I also notice that you avoided to respond to my real question. "...if we have a control plane for FlexE Group, where is the decision taken how many FlexE Clients you need for that FlexE Group?" /Loa On 2019-01-25 09:02, wang.qilei@zte.com.cn wrote: > Hi Loa, > > > Could you please give more explanation on why do you > think control plane is less useful for the FlexE Groups, while it > is much more useful for FlexE Client?> > > If I remember correctly, I think recent discussion has already covered > following case: > > (1), MAC into FlexE client (we think FLEXE IA has already cover this.) > > (2), FlexE client into FlexE Group (Presentation during IETF Bangkok > meeting, we think FlexE IA also cover this too.) > > (3), Create of FlexE group > > I would suggest we focus on these three points to figure out what new > requirements are needed from control plane point of view. > > > With regard to your question, personally speaking, I would like to > explain as the allocation of FlexE client according to the request could > be dynamic, or it could be designated. In the latter case, only > bandwidth requirement is feasible. Some detailed explanation below: > > One FlexE client should use the same kind of ports (i.e., 10G, 40G.. > they should be internal ports) at both source and destination node to > ensure the correct encapsulation and recovery of the MAC frames. You > just need to tell the source node the resource you want for this flow. > The source node can decide which port it would like to use. When the > signal arrives at the other side, the destination node could get this > FlexE client information according to the overhead, and then it deliver > the stream to physical port with the same pattern. No need to explicitly > indicate the port chose, it's just a internal port. > > In addition, I think one of the import feature that may need to taken > into consideration is FlexE and FlexEC do not has routing capabilities. > Routing of the information usually is done after the L3 packets (an > example) are extracted out. Discssions are needed. > > > Thanks > > Qilei > > > 原始邮件 > *发件人:*LoaAndersson <loa@pi.nu> > *收件人:*王其磊10101413;牛小兵10019881; > *抄送人:*ccamp@ietf.org <ccamp@ietf.org>;ccamp-chairs@tools.ietf.org > <ccamp-chairs@tools.ietf.org>; > *日 期 :*2019年01月21日 12:14 > *主 题 :**Re: [CCAMP] Fwd: New Version > Notificationfordraft-izh-ccamp-flexe-fwk-06.txt* > Qilei, > > One more question in line. > > On 2019-01-20 11:07, wang.qilei@zte.com.cn wrote: > > Hi Loa, > > > > > > I think the answer to your second question is yes. > > > > > > If I understand Xiaobing correctly, I think he wanted to answer your > > question in another way. That is once a MAC frame is formed, the > > encapsulation of this MAC frame to FlexE client is in one single > > pipeline. Transcoding work is mainly included here, i.e., MAC frame --> > > 64/66bits. Choosing of FlexE client for different MAC frame is not > > needed. I copied the figure 82-1 of IEEE 802.3 below to describe this. > > MAC --> RS --> XLGMII/CGMII --> FlexE client. > > > > > > In addition, I took a look at G.8023 published by ITU-T 11/15, and found > > some description we need to think about when updating the draft. > > > > (1), clause 7, the FlexE model is not intended to imply that connection > > functions exist for the FlexE and FlexEC information. > > > > (2), clause 8.1, As there is no overhead defined for monitoring a FlexE > > client, this is a null function (i.e., FlexE client trail termination > > function) > > > > > > If I understand about this two sentences correctly, I think there is no > > need to use control plane method to configure FlexE client. For FlexE > > group, maybe what we need is just to create such a group. Discussions > > are needed. > > I would say the opposite - the control plane is less useful for the > FlexE Groups, while it is much more useful for FlexE Client. > > On thought, if we have a control plane for FlexE Group, where is the > decision taken how may FlexE Clients you need for that FlexE Group? > > /Loa > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > Qilei > > > > > > > > > > 原始邮件 > > *发件人:*LoaAndersson <loa@pi.nu> > > *收件人:*牛小兵10019881; > > *抄送人:*ccamp@ietf.org <ccamp@ietf.org>;ccamp-chairs@tools.ietf.org > > <ccamp-chairs@tools.ietf.org>; > > *日 期 :*2019年01月14日 15:34 > > *主 题 :**Re: [CCAMP] Fwd: New Version Notification > > fordraft-izh-ccamp-flexe-fwk-06.txt* > > Xiaobing, > > > > The way I read you is that if I send an Ethernet frame over a FlexE > > interface all the bits/bytes of this frame will be transmitted on the > > same FlexE Client, right? > > > > What I tried to ask repeatedly is that if I have e.g. three Ethernet > > frames, and can identify frame 1 and 3 as belonging to the same flow, > > while frame does not belong to that same flow, can I make sure that: > > > > Frame 1 is transmitted over FlexE CLient-1 > > Frame 2 is not transmitted over FlexE Client-1 > > Frame 3 is transmitted over FlexE CLient-1 > > > > Is that possible???? > > > > > > /Loa > > > > On 2019-01-11 14:11, niu.xiaobing@zte.com.cn wrote: > > > hi, > > > > > > Sorry for the late reply. > > > > > > From my understanding, when an Ethernet frame is to be transmitted over > > > Ethernet PHY (or FlexE group), it will be encapsultated and adapted > > > through RS and xMII into the FlexE client. It looks like a one-to-one > > > relationship between an Ethernet frame and the flexe client. > > > > > > Refere to clause 5.2 'Relationship to IEEE 802.3 Stack' in FlexE 2.0 IA > > > for more information: > > > > > > The FlexE Shim can be envisioned as being in the middle of the PCS in > > > the 100GBASE-R stack as illustrated in [802.3] Figure 80-1 or in the > > > 200GBASE-R or > > > > > > 400GBASE-R stack as illustrated in [802.3bs] Figure 116-1. Each FlexE > > > Client has its own separate MAC, Reconciliation Sublayer, and xMII above > > > the FlexE Shim which > > > > > > operate at the FlexE Client rate. The layers below the PCS (100GBASE-R > > > PMA, optional FEC, PMD) are used intact as specified for Ethernet. > > > > > > > > > BRs, > > > > > > 牛小兵 Xiaobing NIU > > > > > > E: niu.xiaobing@zte.com.cn <mailto:niu.xiaobing@zte.com.cn> > > > > > > www.zte.com.cn <http://www.zte.com.cn/> > > > > > > 原始邮件 > > > *发件人:*LoaAndersson <loa@pi..nu> > > > *收件人:*牛小兵10019881; > > > *抄送人:*ccamp@ietf.org <ccamp@ietf.org>;ccamp-chairs@tools.ietf.org > > > <ccamp-chairs@tools.ietf.org>; > > > *日 期 :*2018年12月27日 14:28 > > > *主 题 :**Re: [CCAMP] Fwd: New Version Notification > > > fordraft-izh-ccamp-flexe-fwk-06.txt* > > > Xiaobing, > > > > > > Let me see if I understand you correctly. > > > > > > Let us assume that we have a 100GE PHY with on 100GE FlexE Group > > > and that FlexE Group have 5 FlexE Clients. > > > > > > If an Ethernet frame is to be transmitted over the FlexE Group, are you > > > saying that it is arbitrary which FlexE Client it will be transmitted > > > over?? > > > > > > /Loa > > > > > > > > > On 2018-12-25 14:41, niu.xiaobing@zte.com.cn wrote: > > > > hi Loa, > > > > > > > > Sorry for the late reply. > > > > > > > > In Fig2, 3, and 4 of FlexE 2.0 IA, 'control' model works in this way, > > > > > > > > The control function manages which calendar slots each FlexE Client is > > > > inserted into > > > > > > > > and inserts the FlexE overhead on each FlexE PHY in the transmit direction. > > > > > > > > It does not relate to the mapping from 'the correct > > > > Ethernet Frame to the correct FlexE Client' in the FlexE Mux. > > > > > > > > I'm not sure if I understand your question correctly. > > > > > > > > > > > > Happy Christmas! > > > > > > > > > > > > 牛小兵 Xiaobing NIU > > > > > > > > 标准预研工程师 Standard Engineer > > > > > > > > 算法标准部/有线研究院/有线产品经营 > 部 Algorithm Standard Department/ > > > > Wireline Product R&D Institute > > > > > > > > ** > > > > > > > > 中兴通讯股份有限公司 ZTE Corporation > > > > > > > > 北京市朝阳区安定路5号院8号外运大厦A座4楼, 邮编: 100029 > > > > > > > > 4/F, Sinotrans Tower A, Building 8, No.5 Anding Road, Chaoyang > > > > District,Beijing, P.R.China, > > > > > > > > T: +86 755 xxxxxxxx M: +86 13439566425 <javascript:void(0);> > > > > > > > > E: niu.xiaobing@zte.com.cn <mailto:niu.xiaobing@zte.com.cn> > > > > > > > > www.zte.com.cn <http://www.zte.com.cn/> > > > > > > > > > > > > *发件人:*LoaAndersson <loa@pi.nu> > > > > *收件人:*牛小兵10019881; > > > > *抄送人:*ccamp@ietf.org <ccamp@ietf.org>;ccamp- > chairs@tools.ietf.org > > > > <ccamp-chairs@tools.ietf.org>; > > > > *日 期 :*2018年12月19日 14:37 > > > > *主 题 :**Re: [CCAMP] Fwd: New Version Notification > > > > fordraft-izh-ccamp-flexe-fwk-06.txt* > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2018-12-18 17:52, niu.xiaobing@zte.com.cn wrote: > > > > > hi, Loa > > > > > > > > <snip> > > > > > > > > > > Once a FlexE group is created, it can be seen as one huge PCS module > > > > > created as well. Transport of different FlexE client information streams > > > > > over the FlexE group is decided by the data plane "control" module. > > > > > > > > What info does the data plane "control" module use to map the correct > > > > Ethernet Frame to the correct FlexE Client? > > > > > > > > /Loa > > > > > > > > <nip> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > > Loa Andersson email: loa@pi.nu > > > > Senior MPLS Expert > > > > Bronze Dragon Consulting phone: +46 739 81 21 64 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > Loa Andersson email: loa@pi.nu > > > Senior MPLS Expert > > > Bronze Dragon Consulting phone: +46 739 81 21 64 > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Loa Andersson email: loa@pi.nu > > Senior MPLS Expert > > Bronze Dragon Consulting phone: +46 739 81 21 64 > > > > _______________________________________________ > > CCAMP mailing list > > CCAMP@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp > > > > > > -- > > > Loa Andersson email: loa@pi.nu > Senior MPLS Expert > Bronze Dragon Consulting phone: +46 739 81 21 64 > > -- Loa Andersson email: loa@pi.nu Senior MPLS Expert Bronze Dragon Consulting phone: +46 739 81 21 64
- Re: [CCAMP] Fwd: New Version Notificationfordraft… wang.qilei
- Re: [CCAMP] Fwd: New Version Notificationfordraft… Loa Andersson
- Re: [CCAMP] Fwd: New VersionNotificationfordraft-… wang.qilei