IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Detnet-dp-dt] high level questions on detnet dataplane

Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu> Wed, 22 February 2017 10:32 UTC

Return-Path: <loa@pi.nu>
X-Original-To: detnet-dp-dt@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: detnet-dp-dt@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA98E1296BD; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 02:32:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] 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 MTTOukqWiLkH; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 02:32:40 -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 0E25C1296C4; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 02:32:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.11] (unknown [122.52.25.23]) (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 3153218013BE; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 11:32:36 +0100 (CET)
To: detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org, DetNet Chairs <detnet-chairs@ietf.org>
References: <DBXPR07MB12832861ED58D86FD3D0A09AC510@DBXPR07MB128.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <F278A381-1E43-4607-8015-5CFDE871D382@broadcom.com> <DBXPR07MB1287715CE1D6AA6B6CC932DAC500@DBXPR07MB128.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
From: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>
Message-ID: <1645a73b-0260-327f-c45b-8bb084235689@pi.nu>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 18:32:21 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <DBXPR07MB1287715CE1D6AA6B6CC932DAC500@DBXPR07MB128.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet-dp-dt/6LvlRe9GuEmgXntM1iELIIdAX4c>
Subject: [Detnet-dp-dt] high level questions on detnet dataplane
X-BeenThere: detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: DetNet WG Data Plane Design Team <detnet-dp-dt.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/detnet-dp-dt>, <mailto:detnet-dp-dt-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/detnet-dp-dt/>
List-Post: <mailto:detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:detnet-dp-dt-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet-dp-dt>, <mailto:detnet-dp-dt-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 10:32:42 -0000

Folks,

two questions, the first because I've be taling it for granted, the 
second brought up bu two indenpendent people I talked about DetNet with.

- is a design criteria that the existing MPLS control plane protocols
   shall be able to use with the DetNet dataplane?

- I've heard the opinion (from two different directions) that doing
   replication/elimination other than at the egress/ingress will make the
   solution to complicated. Do we have a good motiation why we need it?

/Loa
-- 


Loa Andersson                        email: loa@mail01.huawei.com
Senior MPLS Expert                          loa@pi.nu
Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: +46 739 81 21 64

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email