Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] FW: New update of the draft available

Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu> Mon, 13 March 2017 15:05 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 5753912966C for <detnet-dp-dt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Mar 2017 08:05:21 -0700 (PDT)
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, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 U1wwv0oRB6PP for <detnet-dp-dt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Mar 2017 08:05:14 -0700 (PDT)
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 0AB7D129632 for <detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Mar 2017 08:05:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.11] (unknown [112.204.187.55]) (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 5ED3D18014F3; Mon, 13 Mar 2017 16:05:11 +0100 (CET)
To: =?UTF-8?Q?Bal=c3=a1zs_Varga_A?= <balazs.a.varga@ericsson.com>, "detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org" <detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org>
References: <C0EC6F12-4028-4360-A6BB-BFEE3C253EA3@broadcom.com> <45bccdbf-2457-2c08-34fe-c559a80e9c7d@pi.nu> <AMXPR07MB117CFC8AF83D9294E402897AC230@AMXPR07MB117.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <DBXPR07MB12874D8FD0DEF578E72882BAC250@DBXPR07MB128.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
From: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>
Message-ID: <fe645f19-475c-b49e-8e1d-21ec06c6585b@pi.nu>
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2017 23:05:05 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <DBXPR07MB12874D8FD0DEF578E72882BAC250@DBXPR07MB128.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet-dp-dt/71ZYffW0jEhru-XbZRQFrqUGfBI>
Subject: Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] FW: New update of the draft available
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: Mon, 13 Mar 2017 15:05:21 -0000

Balázs,

I'd not seen this before. I thought that we'd reached consensus on the
need to tunneling across the P routers after the comments from Jouni and
Yuanlong. Please see inline.

On 2017-03-13 18:09, Balázs Varga A wrote:
> Hi, mail below seems to be lost in hyperspace. I send it again, sorry for possible duplicates ... Cheers Bala'zs
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Balázs Varga A
> Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2017 7:54 PM
> To: 'Loa Andersson' <loa@pi.nu>nu>; detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [Detnet-dp-dt] New update of the draft available
>
> Hi Loa,
>
<snip>

>> d-pw label with signaling that exposes the "request for DetNet
>> NSP/FRER" to P nodes
> Could You explain it more, I do not see your point. Do You propose that the L-label value would control whether a PW is a DetNet PW with PRER or not?
>

We discuss the "overlay network" in terms of P and PE nodes. The P node
does not not do PRER, while the PE may do so if we tell them.

However one node by serve as P in one overlay network, and as PE in
another.

Consider:

                 +------+
                 | PE-B1|
                 +------+
                    |
                    v
                 +------+
                 | P-B1 |
                 +------+
                    |
                    v
                 +------+
  +------+       | P-A1 |       +------+       +------+       +------+
  | PE-A1|------>| PE-B2|------>| P-A2 |------>| P-A3 |------>| PE-A2|
  +------+       +------+       +------+       +------+       +------+
                    |
                    v
                 +------+
                 | P-B2 |
                 +------+
                    |
                    v
                 +------+
                 | PE-B3|
                 +------+


Ledgend: PE-A = DA-*-PE, PE node in network A
          P-A  = P node network A
          PE-B = DA-*-PE, PE node in network B
          P-B  = P node network B

Problem is signalling!

If have the PW-Label un-tunneled PE-B will establish the unprotected PW
to PE-B3, requesting PERF of the PERF capable nodes.

Node PE-B2 will do PREF, which is fine, that is what it is supposed to
do. PE-B3 will eliminate duplicates as it is supposed to do.

PE-A1 will also try to set up an un-tunneled PW to PE-A2, PA-2, PA-3 and
PE-A2 will do what they are supposed to do. The problem is that the node
"P-A1" is also "PE-B2" and will understand the request for PERF, which
it is not supposed to do.

Our solution is to use the L-label to tunnel between DA-*-PE.

/Loa



> Thx & Cheers
> Bala'zs
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Detnet-dp-dt [mailto:detnet-dp-dt-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Loa Andersson
> Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2017 3:38 AM
> To: detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] New update of the draft available
>
> Jouni,
>
> Mostly looks very good, the thing I don't understand is why you still say that the L-label is optional, it really isn't.
>
> - we need it to deliver the d-pw label unchanged
> - since we can't guarantee that the "P" nodes are not able to do
>    DetNet NSP, we can't set up the d-pw label with signaling that
>    exposes the "request for DetNet NSP/FRER" to P nodes.
> - needed for protection
> - the end-to-end tunnel must be the innermost tunnel, carrying
>    pw label
>
> There is one case, if two DA-*-PEs are immediately adjacent, there the L-lable will be an implicit NULL label and not appear in the stack, but for the control plane it is there.
>
> /Loa
>
> On 2017-03-11 07:25, Jouni Korhonen wrote:
>> * Added Loa’s comments on the L-label.
>> * Added Janos’ comments.
>> * Added extended forwarder text.
>> * Added (speculative text.. can be removed) D bit to flow-id word so
>> that we can check in a ring case the direction of the flow (note this
>> does not double history buffer space as claimed.. did not bother to
>> fix that)
>> * reworked the PW encapsulation pictures.
>> * Added more content to DA-*-PE descriptions.
>>
>> - Jouni
>>
>>
>

-- 


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