Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] Section 4.1 added (DP solution requirements)

[Loa Andersson <[e-mail]>]

Folks,

Yes I like it too :D !

Does this mean we have a DA-T-PE also?

/Loa

On 2017-03-09 04:45, Lou Berger wrote:
>
>
> On 3/8/2017 3:42 PM, Jouni Korhonen wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> DA-S-PE (like.. das PE ;)
> funny - I like it!
>
>> - Jouni
>>
>> 3/8/2017, 12:20 PM, Lou Berger kirjoitti:
>>> Which option do you prefer?
>>>
>>>
>>> On 3/8/2017 3:18 PM, Jouni Korhonen wrote:
>>>> WFM.
>>>>
>>>> 3/8/2017, 5:56 AM, Lou Berger kirjoitti:
>>>>> On 3/8/2017 7:35 AM, Loa Andersson wrote:
>>>>>> Folks,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One terminology question, I don't really have any opinion on what we
>>>>>> call things, but I'm definitely for that we only have one name for one
>>>>>> thing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Today we use T-PE and S-PE, but also T-DetNet-PE and S-DetNet-PE, can we
>>>>>> converge. My slight preference would be  T-DetNet-PE and S-DetNet-PE,
>>>>>> to differentiate it from "normal" S-PE and T-PE.
>>>>> The architecture defines this as:
>>>>>
>>>>>    DetNet intermediate node
>>>>>            A DetNet relay node or transit node.
>>>>>
>>>>> And some good examples are in the DP Alternatives draft
>>>>>
>>>>>   TSN              Edge          Transit        Relay        DetNet
>>>>>   End System       Node            Node         Node         End System
>>>>>
>>>>>   +---------+    +.........+                                 +---------+
>>>>>   |  Appl.  |<---:Svc Proxy:-- End to End Service ---------->|  Appl.  |
>>>>>   +---------+    +---------+                   +---------+   +---------+
>>>>>   |   TSN   |    |TSN| |Svc|<-- DetNet flow ---: Service :-->| Service |
>>>>>   +---------+    +---+ +---+    +---------+    +---------+   +---------+
>>>>>   |Transport|    |Trp| |Trp|    |Transport|    |Trp| |Trp|   |Transport|
>>>>>   +-------.-+    +-.-+ +-.-+    +--.----.-+    +-.-+ +-.-+   +---.-----+
>>>>>           :  Link  :    /  ,-----.  \   :  Link  :    /  ,-----.  \
>>>>>           +........+    +-[  Sub  ]-+   +........+    +-[  Sub  ]-+
>>>>>                           [Network]                     [Network]
>>>>>                            `-----'                       `-----'
>>>>>
>>>>>                  Figure 1: A Simple DetNet Enabled Network
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>           DetNet                                           DetNet
>>>>>           Service         Transit          Transit        Service
>>>>>    DetNet   |          |<-Tunnel->|     |<-Tunnel->|         |    DetNet
>>>>>    End      |          V     1    V     V     2    V         |    End
>>>>>    System   |    +-----+          +-----+          +-----+   |    System
>>>>>    +---+    |    |S-PE1|==========|S-PE2|==========|S-PE3|   |    +---+
>>>>>    |  X....DFa.....X_.......DF1.......X_....DF3........X.....DFa...X  |
>>>>>    |CE1|=========|  \  |          |  /  |          |  /  |========|CE2|
>>>>>    |   |    |    |   \......DF2.....X_......DF4....../   |   |    |   |
>>>>>    +---+         |     |==========|     |==========|     |        +---+
>>>>>        ^         +-----+          +-----+          +-----+        ^
>>>>>        |        Relay Node       Relay Node       Relay Node      |
>>>>>        |                                                          |
>>>>>        |<------------- End to End DetNet Service ---------------->|
>>>>>
>>>>>                           Figure 5: Native DetNet
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So I think what you are asking for is a shorthand for a 'S-PE that is a
>>>>> DetNet (aware) Relay Node' , right?
>>>>> How about one or more of the following:
>>>>>     - DetNet S-PE
>>>>>     - DA-S-PE (DA=DetNet Aware)
>>>>>     - DC-S-PE (DA=DetNet Capable)
>>>>>     - DR-S-PE (DR=DetNet Relay)
>>>>>     - DRN-S-PE (DRN=DetNet Relay Node)
>>>>>
>>>>> Lou
>>>>>
>>>>>> /Loa
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2017-03-08 13:46, Balázs Varga A wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi Jouni,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> OK, I think my text may not be clear enough. Local-ID is not meant as a router id.
>>>>>>> " Each node (T-PE, S-PE and P) use a local-ID of the detnet-(compound)-flow in order to accomplish its role during transport."
>>>>>>> Local-ID refers to an ID used by a node to identify internally a DetNet-flow. Maybe "local-Flow-ID" would express it better.
>>>>>>> Such a "local-Flow-ID" value may or may not differ from the "Flow-ID" value encoded in the DetNet packet. If it is different
>>>>>>> we fallback to what You have called "virtual-label".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I hope that clarifies your concerns.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>>> Bala'zs
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>> From: Jouni Korhonen [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2017 8:21 PM
>>>>>>> To: Balázs Varga A <[e-mail]>
>>>>>>> Cc: [e-mail]
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] Section 4.1 added (DP solution requirements)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks Balazs,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am not quite sure about the local-id text:
>>>>>>> "Local-ID MUST be unambiguously bounded to the Flow-ID encoded in the DetNet packet."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> By default each router has their unique router id with the autonomous system that you need e.g., with routing protocols.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If the flow-id is unique within the detnet domain I am not sure what mapping the above is talking about. Do you mean that a set of flow-ids would belong to a router (identified by a local-id)?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Jouni
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 3/7/2017, 10:23 AM, Balázs Varga A kirjoitti:
>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>> Section 4.1 added on the GitHub.
>>>>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>>>> Bala'zs
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>> From: Jouni Korhonen [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, March 06, 2017 7:23 PM
>>>>>>>> To: Balázs Varga A <[e-mail]>om>; Loa Andersson
>>>>>>>> <[e-mail]>
>>>>>>>> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] about identity labels.. was Re: new
>>>>>>>> versions of my slides
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Balazs,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Your proposed Section 4.x would definitely be good to have. I am not too much for Section 4.y since I do not see it would not be needed in the final document, except for the definitions that should go to Section 2.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Regarding the two choices we have now I just add prologue text and describe (graphically both). The logic of the "identity label/tag" is mostly the same independent of the location in the stack. The processing is of course different.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - Jouni
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 3/6/2017, 9:49 AM, Balázs Varga A kirjoitti:
>>>>>>>>> Hi Jouni,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> just for clarification: Do we intend to list all options in the draft ???
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> They all have pros and cons ...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Anyway I think we need a structure like below in the draft for
>>>>>>>>> example
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> in section 4. Is it inline with your intention? Shall I prepare some
>>>>>>>>> text
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> around this items for the call on Wednesday?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *4.x DP solution requirements*
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> List of prerequisites for a proper solution on an x-PE:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 1, to distinguish PWs going through (operation label-swap) and PWs
>>>>>>>>> need DetNet serving (e.g., FRER)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 2, to handle PW-label collisions (without major implementation
>>>>>>>>> difficulties)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 3, to work with both centralized control and distributed control
>>>>>>>>> (signaling)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *4.y DP solution toolset*
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Description of the toolset discussed so far:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A, L-label: additional label between t-label and PW-label
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> B, different PW-labels per segment: similar to the MS-PW label
>>>>>>>>> allocation mechanism
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> C, e2e PW label: no change of the PW-label (same PW-label value
>>>>>>>>> between T-PE nodes)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> D, d-id label: additional label used as T-PE identification
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> E, Flow-ID outside of the label stack
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Bala'zs
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>>> From: Detnet-dp-dt [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf
>>>>>>>>> Of Loa Andersson
>>>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, March 06, 2017 3:07 AM
>>>>>>>>> To: Jouni Korhonen <[e-mail]>
>>>>>>>>> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] about identity labels.. was Re: new
>>>>>>>>> versions of my slides
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Jouni,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 2017-03-06 07:36, Jouni Korhonen wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> - global as the special purpose labels, seems unlikely
>>>>>>>>>>> - global as unique with in the domain, though we know there is a
>>>>>>>>>>> scaling  problem
>>>>>>>>>>> - global for one sender, not that different from d-id, other that
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> placment in the stack
>>>>>>>>>>> ???
>>>>>>>>>> In my small mind I reasoned it to be unique within one domain. Since
>>>>>>>>> the identity would now be 32 bits (there is no need to restrict it to
>>>>>>>>> 20 bits since it is part of the _encapsulation_header_ not the label
>>>>>>>>> stack), the scaling concern is more relaxed. Assuming each node in
>>>>>>>>> the domain would like to be able to name 4k unique detnet flows of
>>>>>>>>> their own then the domain could host 1M such detnet nodes.. not too
>>>>>>>>> bad for one domain.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> My earlier calculations estimated that we would have about the number
>>>>>>>>> of PWs between any pair of T-DetNet-PEs would be about 400 and the
>>>>>>>>> number T-DetNet-PEs about 1000.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 32 bits is  4 000 millions, so there is ample number of flow id's
>>>>>>>>> even if we would have to configure a range on each T-DetNet-PE.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So you look at the flow-id and then compare the CW/Seq #, right?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Now, range configuration is a kludge, can we find a way to avoid it,
>>>>>>>>> maybe d-pw + node-id would work, all this would have to happen in the
>>>>>>>>> context of the (outgoing) d-pw anyway, right?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> /Loa
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - Jouni
>>>>>>>>>>> /Loa
>>>>>>>>>>>> Carlos
>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Jouni
>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>> Detnet-dp-dt mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet-dp-dt
>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>> Loa Andersson                        email: [e-mail]
>>>>>>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Senior MPLS Expert                          [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>>>>>>>>> Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: [phone]
>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>> Detnet-dp-dt mailing list
>>>>>>>>>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet-dp-dt
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Loa Andersson                        email: [e-mail]
>>>>>>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Senior MPLS Expert                          [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: [phone]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Detnet-dp-dt mailing list
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet-dp-dt
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Detnet-dp-dt mailing list
>>>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet-dp-dt
>>>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Detnet-dp-dt mailing list
>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet-dp-dt
>>>>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Detnet-dp-dt mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet-dp-dt
>

-- 


Loa Andersson                        email: [e-mail]
Senior MPLS Expert                          [e-mail]
Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: [phone]