Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] changes to document pushed & some questions...
Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> Tue, 27 June 2017 22:59 UTC
Return-Path: <lberger@labn.net>
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 006CB129B0A
for <detnet-dp-dt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Jun 2017 15:59:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1,
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-2.8,
RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001]
autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (768-bit key)
header.d=labn.net
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 PqjpdcVUW4Uj for <detnet-dp-dt@ietfa.amsl.com>;
Tue, 27 Jun 2017 15:59:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gproxy5.mail.unifiedlayer.com
(gproxy5-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com [67.222.38.55])
(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 11504126B7F
for <Detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Jun 2017 15:59:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from CMOut01 (unknown [10.0.90.82])
by gproxy5.mail.unifiedlayer.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F16B2140621
for <Detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Jun 2017 16:59:53 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]) by CMOut01 with
id dyzq1v00Z2SSUrH01yztq8; Tue, 27 Jun 2017 16:59:53 -0600
X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.2 cv=QYgWhoTv c=1 sm=1 tr=0
a=h1BC+oY+fLhyFmnTBx92Jg==:117 a=h1BC+oY+fLhyFmnTBx92Jg==:17
a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=xqWC_Br6kY4A:10 a=LWSFodeU3zMA:10 a=pGLkceISAAAA:8
a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=0FD05c-RAAAA:8 a=R1ONJYNxS-loyRCmeDIA:9
a=i5i6kNXdsvnBCyKR:21 a=hhlz_VbaNw0MmDsy:21 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10
a=6kGIvZw6iX1k4Y-7sg4_:22 a=w1C3t2QeGrPiZgrLijVG:22 a=l1rpMCqCXRGZwUSuRcM3:22
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=labn.net;
s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:MIME-Version:Subject:
References:In-Reply-To:Message-ID:Date:To:From:Sender:Reply-To:Cc:Content-ID:
Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc
:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:
List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive;
bh=HHN1dxcZXuuvK0mUjjyRUTH1nS0tQ7NueqNVrlZDyJo=; b=0IfbUTeOKemqsyzYvwp0URY5q9
ymIcC5l3/7f/mmlMfSVaEnpU/qEmuSoH8GO+kqIWAgi4tZXmXdiHGJjejlz0CwxYM4n0/C5uRxNEy
dFganDAcwY7We6nNm4E7w7Hpt;
Received: from [172.58.185.45] (port=31738
helo=[IPV6:2607:fb90:64ea:b3df:0:4c:e7dd:4d01])
by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128)
(Exim 4.87) (envelope-from <lberger@labn.net>)
id 1dPzSY-000KuR-64; Tue, 27 Jun 2017 16:59:50 -0600
From: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
To: Jouni <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>,
=?UTF-8?B?J0JhbMOhenMgVmFyZ2EgQSc=?= <balazs.a.varga@ericsson.com>,
<Detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org>
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2017 18:59:48 -0400
Message-ID: <15cebc83ea0.27d3.9b4188e636579690ba6c69f2c8a0f1fd@labn.net>
In-Reply-To: <02bd01d2ef96$feb36bf0$fc1a43d0$@gmail.com>
References: <a05d7a04-0768-07bc-d76e-620dcab64b54@labn.net>
<DBXPR07MB1286C571697E6F1988FB28FACDF0@DBXPR07MB128.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
<8096bddd-91c0-fecb-7f72-f182ac4817e5@labn.net>
<DBXPR07MB12853204AD0E951EC499038ACDC0@DBXPR07MB128.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
<5c96e587-493b-88ca-9a8c-12c7abcaca51@labn.net>
<f8171209-0fa3-f529-767d-17df7ef947ee@labn.net>
<02bd01d2ef96$feb36bf0$fc1a43d0$@gmail.com>
User-Agent: AquaMail/1.10.0-403 (build: 101000001)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse,
please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - box313.bluehost.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - labn.net
X-BWhitelist: no
X-Source-IP: 172.58.185.45
X-Exim-ID: 1dPzSY-000KuR-64
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
X-Source-Sender: ([IPV6:2607:fb90:64ea:b3df:0:4c:e7dd:4d01])
[172.58.185.45]:31738
X-Source-Auth: lberger@labn.net
X-Email-Count: 1
X-Source-Cap: bGFibm1vYmk7bGFibm1vYmk7Ym94MzEzLmJsdWVob3N0LmNvbQ==
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet-dp-dt/DN-CLuMvyn4Ai2oi7RV-Lof3laA>
Subject: Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] changes to document pushed & some questions...
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: Tue, 27 Jun 2017 22:59:58 -0000
Yes. I'm done done. Sorry... On June 27, 2017 6:45:37 PM "Jouni" <jouni.nospam@gmail.com> wrote: > Lou, > > Are you now done with your edits? I was working on the same section and > dropped my stuff in a favor of yours ;) I'll still want to revisit Section > 6 before statingnthe draft is ready for adoption. > > - Jouni > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Detnet-dp-dt [mailto:detnet-dp-dt-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Lou >> Berger >> Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2017 00:36 AM >> To: Balázs Varga A <balazs.a.varga@ericsson.com>om>; Detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] changes to document pushed & some questions... >> >> I just added a few word into to section 6 to highlight that it applies to >> v6 and mpls: >> >> >> This section applies equally to DetNet flows transported via IPv6 and >> MPLS. While flow identification and some header related processing >> will differ between the two, the considerations covered in this >> section are common to both. >> >> feel free to check in what ever changes you want to this. >> >> Also I added the following comment: >> >> <!-- LB: I think there needs to be more text on how PREF works with >> IPv6 flows. --> >> >> Lou >> >> On 6/27/2017 1:39 PM, Lou Berger wrote: >> > >> > On 6/27/2017 7:44 AM, Balázs Varga A wrote: >> >> Hi Lou, >> >> >> >> - Bidirectional: proposed change is fine with me. >> > okay, I'll make this and the s-label change >> > >> >> - PREF and IPv6: It is not clear for me why the PREF support is >> considered to be different. >> >> From data plane perspective the PREF related chapters are formulated >> >> to be encapsulation independent. The only difference is that in case >> >> of IPv6 the flow-ID does not change during the transport ("src-IPv6 + >> >> Flow-label" remains unchanged), whereas it may change in case of MPLS >> >> (PW-label value may change on a PREF node). But the rest is the same >> from data plane function perspective (i.e., eliminate duplicates based on >> seq-num; do replication). >> > I didn't get this from reading the document the first time. I'll >> > reread and suggest clarifications if needed. >> > >> >> Have I missed something? Do You mean different control plane >> requirements? >> > No, I was thinking data plane. >> > >> > Thanks, >> > Lou >> >> Cheers >> >> Bala'zs >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> From: Detnet-dp-dt [mailto:detnet-dp-dt-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf >> >> Of Lou Berger >> >> Sent: 2017. június 26. 17:55 >> >> To: Balázs Varga A <balazs.a.varga@ericsson.com>om>; >> >> Detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org >> >> Subject: Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] changes to document pushed & some >> questions... >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 6/26/2017 11:00 AM, Balázs Varga A wrote: >> >>> Hi, >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> I have reviewed all the changes. I am fine with almost all of them >> >>> with the remarks below: >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> Figure4: In my view it should be the same figure as Figure 3, as >> >>> DetNet End Systems are connected. >> >>> >> >>> In this case the End Systems generate IPv6 packets with included >> >>> seq-num and are connected to >> >>> >> >>> Relay nodes, what results in no difference regarding the DetNet >> >>> functionalities. >> >>> >> >> It's my understanding that there is major difference in PREF support in >> this case. >> >> >> >>> It would be a more interesting figure where IPv6 DetNet End Systems >> >>> are connected >> >>> >> >>> to an MPLS based DetNet domain, but it is similar from DetNet >> >>> function perspective to Figure 2. >> >>> >> >>> Let's list the possible combinations: >> >>> >> >>> - We have three End System types: (1) TSN, (2) IPv6 and (3) >> >>> MPLS-capable >> >>> >> >>> - We have two PSN encapsulations: (1) IPv6 and (2) PWoMPLS >> >>> >> >>> There are six possible combinations, however they result in 2 major >> >>> variants from DetNet functions >> >>> >> >>> perspective: >> >>> >> >>> (1) End System type <> PSN type (TSN + IPv6, TSN + PWoMPLS, IPv6 + >> >>> PWoMPLS, MPLS-capable + IPv6) >> >>> >> >>> Edge node needed to ensure PSN specific encapsulation >> >>> >> >>> (2) End System type = PSN type (IPv6 + IPv6, MPLS-capable + >> >>> PWoMPLS) >> >>> >> >>> No need for Edge node as the encapsulation does not change. >> >>> >> >>> (Note: I think we should treat "MPLS-capable + IPv6" as an invalid >> >>> combination ... ) >> >>> >> >>> Figure 2 and Figure 3 are the representation of these two major >> >>> variants. So do we really need Figure 4? >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>>> 522 DetNet composite flow, perhaps even when both LSPs appear >> >>> on the >> >>> >> >>> 522 DetNet compound flow, perhaps even when both LSPs appear on >> the >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>>> doesn't the above (sec 5.2.2.) imply the PREF with IPv6 is always >> >>> end-to-end, ... >> >>> >> >>> I think this needs further discussion. The intention is to make PREF >> >>> independent of domain borders and >> >>> >> >>> domain encapsulations. >> >>> >> >> It would be good to describe how this works in the v6 case >> >>> >> >>> >> >>>> 1033 7.4. Bidirectional traffic >> >>> This chapter is very much MPLS focused, however the findings are >> >>> also valid for IPv6. Should we make that >> >>> >> >>> more clear? >> >>> >> >> My objective in the first paragraph was to introduce the co-routed and >> associated concepts/terminology and then say how. How about changing the >> last paragraph to: >> >> >> >> >> >> While the IPv6 and MPLS data planes must support bidirectional >> DetNet flows, there >> >> are no special bidirectional features with respect to the data plane >> >> other than need for the two directions take the same paths. Note, >> >> that there is no stated requirement for bidirectional DetNet flows >> to >> >> be supported using same IPv6 Flow Label or MPLS Labels in each >> direction. >> >> Control mechanisms will need to support such bidirectional flows for >> both IPv6 and MPLS, but >> >> such mechanisms are out of scope of this document. >> >> >> >> Lou >> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> Cheers >> >>> >> >>> Bala'zs >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >> >>> From: Detnet-dp-dt [mailto:detnet-dp-dt-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf >> >>> Of Lou Berger >> >>> Sent: 2017. június 21. 4:25 >> >>> To: Detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org >> >>> Subject: [Detnet-dp-dt] changes to document pushed & some questions... >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> All, >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> I made a bunch of changes based on going though the document. Most >> >>> of the comments I discussed. I put non-discussed ones in their own >> >>> commits so it would be easier to eliminate them. Changes are as >> follows: >> >>> >> >>> commit f79188034b23c80dab2985dc359176e93855376e >> >>> >> >>> Update txt to match change set >> >>> >> >>> commit 01a1798e4645518bb61acf42444b17466c3b56c1 >> >>> >> >>> Make capitalization of section headings consistent. >> >>> >> >>> Not saying I agree with what's there, but now it's >> >>> consistent. >> >>> >> >>> commit 27103f9af301d1a270ca7d6c9bd59a358dc9d1b0 >> >>> >> >>> Revise CoS and QoS sections >> >>> >> >>> commit c98c0efda04c714db22a1cea6eefb77f04d10c4b >> >>> >> >>> General edits: >> >>> >> >>> Fix some capitalization and minor nits >> >>> >> >>> Add intro paragraph and pointer to arch doc, and >> >>> basic scope of >> >>> >> >>> document >> >>> >> >>> Add not on why not using PW over IP >> >>> >> >>> Add placeholder for IP native service figure (4) >> >>> >> >>> Start clarification on congestion protection and >> >>> latency control >> >>> >> >>> Add some comments >> >>> >> >>> commit 5355f195f205d944d21d8242738fab0a6a8363ba >> >>> >> >>> Cleanup L-label and T-label language >> >>> >> >>> commit 78e937b1a25f07618b4b221140fc7fcfc2a43d02 >> >>> >> >>> Move Time Sync into it's own section (new 8) >> >>> >> >>> commit 42bcb46dde2384cb4e3f76406780137086904bae >> >>> >> >>> Use arch defined terms DetNet compound flow and DetNet member >> >>> flow >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> I also came up with following specific questions/comments, which are >> >>> also captured in comments in the file: >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> WRT the title: >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> <!-- LB: doesn't "Encapsulation" better fit the scope of the >> >>> current >> >>> >> >>> document than "Solution"? --> >> >>> >> >>> <title abbrev="DetNet Data Plane Solution"> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> WRT L-Label >> >>> >> >>> <!-- LB: why is this called L-Label, I think it'll be confused >> >>> with >> >>> >> >>> the current DiffServ L-LSPs, perhaps a using "(S)vc" would >> >>> be >> >>> >> >>> better and is aligned with Figure 12 of RFC5921 --> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> <!-- LB: unclear what the following means. Perhaps restate or drop. >> >>> --> >> >>> >> >>> However, transit nodes may have limited capabilities to recognize >> >>> DetNet >> >>> >> >>> specific fields (e.g., in case of MPLS the PW label). Therefore, >> >>> identifying each >> >>> >> >>> individual DetNet flow on a transit node may not be achieved in >> >>> some network >> >>> >> >>> scenarios. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> in Section 5.2.1 >> >>> >> >>> <!-- possibly reference new interworking considerations section >> >>> --> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> In section 5.3.2 >> >>> >> >>> <!-- LB: doesn't the above (sec 5.2.2.) imply the PREF with IPv6 >> >>> is >> >>> >> >>> always end-to-end, or are you PREF domains with replication >> >>> of >> >>> >> >>> incoming packets and scoped domain elimination? I think >> >>> this >> >>> >> >>> should be explicitly discussed either way --> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> I ran out of steam at the end, but this is enough -- I think... >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> Thanks, >> >>> >> >>> Lou >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> PS given that I now have contributed text to the document, I should >> >>> be added as a contributor (or author) but I didn't do this as there >> >>> was no contributor section... >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> _______________________________________________ >> >>> >> >>> Detnet-dp-dt mailing list >> >>> >> >>> Detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org <mailto: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 > > _______________________________________________ > Detnet-dp-dt mailing list > Detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet-dp-dt
- [Detnet-dp-dt] changes to document pushed & some … Lou Berger
- Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] changes to document pushed & s… Balázs Varga A
- Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] changes to document pushed & s… Lou Berger
- Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] changes to document pushed & s… Balázs Varga A
- Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] changes to document pushed & s… Lou Berger
- Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] changes to document pushed & s… Lou Berger
- Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] changes to document pushed & s… Jouni
- Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] changes to document pushed & s… Lou Berger
- Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] changes to document pushed & s… Jouni
- Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] changes to document pushed & s… Jouni
- Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] changes to document pushed & s… Lou Berger
- Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] changes to document pushed & s… Loa Andersson
- Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] changes to document pushed & s… Jouni