Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] DP DT solution draft slides for IETF99

Jiangyuanlong <jiangyuanlong@huawei.com> Fri, 14 July 2017 08:25 UTC

Return-Path: <jiangyuanlong@huawei.com>
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 B788912ECC8 for <detnet-dp-dt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Jul 2017 01:25:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.222
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.222 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 pY_2IcLa7Z4Z for <detnet-dp-dt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Jul 2017 01:25:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5B67F12EC5D for <detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Jul 2017 01:25:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO LHREML712-CAH.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id DRC11641; Fri, 14 Jul 2017 08:25:23 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from NKGEML412-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.73) by LHREML712-CAH.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.35) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.301.0; Fri, 14 Jul 2017 09:25:21 +0100
Received: from DGGEML406-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.3.17.50) by nkgeml412-hub.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.73) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.235.1; Fri, 14 Jul 2017 16:25:21 +0800
Received: from DGGEML507-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.2.127]) by dggeml406-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.3.17.50]) with mapi id 14.03.0301.000; Fri, 14 Jul 2017 16:25:14 +0800
From: Jiangyuanlong <jiangyuanlong@huawei.com>
To: Jiangyuanlong <jiangyuanlong@huawei.com>, Jouni <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>, "cjbc@it.uc3m.es" <cjbc@it.uc3m.es>, "'Korhonen, Jouni'" <Jouni.Korhonen@nordicsemi.no>, =?utf-8?B?J0JhbMOhenMgVmFyZ2EgQSc=?= <balazs.a.varga@ericsson.com>, "detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org" <detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Detnet-dp-dt] DP DT solution draft slides for IETF99
Thread-Index: AdL7VbJhRw14DqiURNu5NaedHIODigAZSslQAAk8ghD//7g0gIAAwvYA//9ldND//rDh0A==
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2017 08:25:13 +0000
Message-ID: <3B0A1BED22CAD649A1B3E97BE5DDD68BBB558746@dggeml507-mbx.china.huawei.com>
References: <c815dbfd9d574366aa7775976fe24bce@nordicsemi.no> <DBXPR07MB128CD2139DFCC357D03F8A6ACAC0@DBXPR07MB128.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <d7377e8b99b249c6ad852854225999b3@nordicsemi.no> <1499967565.8611.13.camel@it.uc3m.es> <3cff01d2fc60$73416050$59c420f0$@gmail.com> <3B0A1BED22CAD649A1B3E97BE5DDD68BBB558728@dggeml507-mbx.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <3B0A1BED22CAD649A1B3E97BE5DDD68BBB558728@dggeml507-mbx.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.74.202.215]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A0B0206.59687FF3.019F, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0, ip=169.254.2.127, so=2013-06-18 04:22:30, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32
X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: 506be73a5b0a3a40e739b58da4be461e
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet-dp-dt/D3CqRpD9xtA1MNApa4gGMfrpunw>
Subject: Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] DP DT solution draft slides for IETF99
X-BeenThere: detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Fri, 14 Jul 2017 08:25:28 -0000

Sorry, I was confused by L-label in the last version and S-Label. But we still need to harmonize the T-Lable with the S-Label.
For example, if we set up a low-latency or contention-free LSP for a detnet flow (between DA-T-PEs or DA-S-PEs), most probably we need some traffic engineered LSPs (i.e., L-LSP as defined in RFC 3270).
Can we regard L-LSP labels on the path to be a T-Label or an S-Label?

Best regards,
Yuanlong

-----Original Message-----
From: Detnet-dp-dt [mailto:detnet-dp-dt-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jiangyuanlong
Sent: Friday, July 14, 2017 3:56 PM
To: Jouni; cjbc@it.uc3m.es; 'Korhonen, Jouni'; 'Balázs Varga A'; detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] DP DT solution draft slides for IETF99

Hi folks,

I am not sure we need to introduce S-Label in the first place. 
As I remember, we had some consensus that PW label has carried enough information in the f2f discussion happened during the last IETF meeting.
And S-label is regarded redundant for PW. Did I miss something?

Thanks,
Yuanlong

-----Original Message-----
From: Detnet-dp-dt [mailto:detnet-dp-dt-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jouni
Sent: Friday, July 14, 2017 1:17 PM
To: cjbc@it.uc3m.es; 'Korhonen, Jouni'; 'Balázs Varga A'; detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] DP DT solution draft slides for IETF99

Thanks. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Detnet-dp-dt [mailto:detnet-dp-dt-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of 
> Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano
> Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2017 20:39 PM
> To: Korhonen, Jouni <Jouni.Korhonen@nordicsemi.no>no>; Balázs Varga A 
> <balazs.a.varga@ericsson.com>om>; detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] DP DT solution draft slides for IETF99
> 
> Hi Jouni,
> 
> Thanks for preparing this. Some small comments below:
> 
> - Slide 6: I'd remove "native" in "PW-based native DetNet" to be 
> consistent with the terms used in the draft (alternatively, I'd use
> "IPv6- based native DetNet" in slide 7for consistency with "PW-based 
> native DetNet in slide 6).

Oops. Good catch.

> 
> - Slides 11 and 12: use the same order for "Flow-ID" and "SeqNum" on 
> the slides (right hand side)

Ok.

 
> - Slide 11: though I have no concrete proposal, I think the S-label 
> could be better introduced (maybe with a figure, also introducing the 
> (DA-)T-PE and (DA-)S-PE node terminology).

Ok. I'll come up with something.


> 
> - Slide 14: "already be seen" --> "already been seen"

Ok.

- Jouni



> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Carlos
> 
> On Thu, 2017-07-13 at 13:57 +0000, Korhonen, Jouni wrote:
> > An update.. I am still doing the QoS etc part of the deck.
> >
> >
> > - Jouni
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Balázs Varga A [mailto:balazs.a.varga@ericsson.com]
> > > Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2017 12:54 PM
> > > To: Korhonen, Jouni <Jouni.Korhonen@nordicsemi.no>no>; 
> > > detnet-dp-dt@ie tf.org
> > > Subject: RE: DP DT solution draft slides for IETF99
> > >
> > > Hi Jouni,
> > >
> > > Thanks for preparing this. Just some fast reactions:
> > > - slide5-6-7: we may receive a comment that it looks like only
> > > end- hosts having same type (TSN, MPLS, IPv6) can be interconnected.
> > > I would propose to add a note, that other combinations as depicted 
> > > requires further considerations.
> > >
> > > - slide8: we have used the MS-PW analogy during our discussions.
> > > However
> > > it is valid only if PREF is used.
> > > I would propose to refer on the first bullet only to "PseudoWires"
> > > and
> > > "IPv6" as the two data plane solution.
> > > A further note could highlight the MS-PW analogy for PREF scenarios.
> > >
> > > - slide10-11: I would pair the DetNet flow specific information 
> > > fields to be transported with the data plane encapsulation fields.
> > > 	DetNet flow	Encapsulation fields
> > > 	Flow ID:	PW label
> > > 	Seq. number: 	CW
> > >
> > > - slide14: regarding multicast DetNet flows I would formulate 
> > > somewhat different. In my view we have considered p2p data plane 
> > > solutions.
> > > The defined data plane works for DetNet flows having multicast
> > > dst- address assuming that the DetNet domain provides p2p connectivity.
> > > We may also receive comments that many DetNet flows are multicast 
> > > (e.g., TSN flows using IEEE-FRER, etc.)
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > > Bala'zs
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Detnet-dp-dt [mailto:detnet-dp-dt-bounces@ietf.org] On 
> > > Behalf Of Korhonen, Jouni
> > > Sent: 2017. július 12. 23:29
> > > To: detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org
> > > Subject: [Detnet-dp-dt] DP DT solution draft slides for IETF99
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Sorry about this taking so long. Please, have a look and flame on..
> > > There's still time to work on the actual content. However, keep in 
> > > mind that this is mainly an update from last time.
> > >
> > > - Jouni
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Detnet-dp-dt mailing list
> > Detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet-dp-dt
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Detnet-dp-dt mailing list
> Detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet-dp-dt

_______________________________________________
Detnet-dp-dt mailing list
Detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet-dp-dt
_______________________________________________
Detnet-dp-dt mailing list
Detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet-dp-dt