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

"jouni.nospam" <jouni.nospam@gmail.com> Wed, 22 February 2017 15:26 UTC

Return-Path: <jouni.nospam@gmail.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 497B7129A1A; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 07:26:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 5AarL3XMaItP; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 07:26:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pg0-x243.google.com (mail-pg0-x243.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c05::243]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EAE81129A11; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 07:26:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pg0-x243.google.com with SMTP id 1so849273pgz.2; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 07:26:17 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=DvzmVBuEAhU2kDsqHtk7yN9+oSQs+GUReBMUqvSSBHg=; b=QJqGUukftsAsOrZswIXy40Uw7xzXZNs1r/AiGXqKiJ/H/niLS98OUGW1Dy+m0FyD3f qmriUuRtdGY0PiWTNOFVjBnMHYr9/2Cy98vYCPlcePCN2cS/0OkAy2/Y9IEdc8At/2qy Ynq77OUh/tA0TC0+SL5RljGEVCN7CjLaRKOna8SCv9a8e2VpItoJtwpoJ5owgSW96w/8 C1Pe5HYYhNq6SK+ezTXMIoCrBtGTKBwQj6WE6kXfvTj7MHijudgn7SEj/T7MvHrjlQy7 jKMRFMes9UzpDGw/Vr0H9BTUu/KIIy2nVWoJhR+4CxJrhD+wlIe18K5nIMXv45Gg9fu5 hEzg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=DvzmVBuEAhU2kDsqHtk7yN9+oSQs+GUReBMUqvSSBHg=; b=MSU/zPRSFcN2ud4qLOP02qDLt3+oGU5FUYwSWvVO1LUQJraCzCl/bHfYBpmAXbeng2 LqNEt87kqPJAbm1W2S6tsHyJVgsv8d2GXhkjJzCFIshOptfchetgMfn4TKYpgGRs6N7V YYCEhfjw3Y2FQ3tWn311jobkx3Tnnr4KRvaUYh64vX/PULWyGn4iSflhYFPFEe7jG3fx nb6ymPSYP4V9OpklKY8A23cR/KaO74GAegY4gTx6H56fAJGU5i0l4z0U/9LN/jwNtnes YUDt/uHSCg0WnVpkj2J6N2S6/jCzAOdDW5r8TkvmKx487yPzQ3YGcoFfiEaSlPX65MTm zS1Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39mrNYWkOIWv9h3cJV5WKxMEepomU+8lIYmEVgJ0FRO+QgCShFNf5MiifngM9/TO7A==
X-Received: by 10.84.247.23 with SMTP id n23mr15116555pll.39.1487777177260; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 07:26:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.0.0.116] (mobile-166-171-249-232.mycingular.net. [166.171.249.232]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 64sm4396846pfq.112.2017.02.22.07.26.15 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 22 Feb 2017 07:26:16 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\))
From: "jouni.nospam" <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <1487762243.2981.16.camel@it.uc3m.es>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 07:26:14 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <F682D087-1E21-41A3-9103-2B871A5C3039@gmail.com>
References: <DBXPR07MB12832861ED58D86FD3D0A09AC510@DBXPR07MB128.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <F278A381-1E43-4607-8015-5CFDE871D382@broadcom.com> <DBXPR07MB1287715CE1D6AA6B6CC932DAC500@DBXPR07MB128.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <1645a73b-0260-327f-c45b-8bb084235689@pi.nu> <1487762243.2981.16.camel@it.uc3m.es>
To: cjbc@it.uc3m.es
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet-dp-dt/EJ_mmhJeeBEXsX8_6jNchQbw1fo>
Cc: DetNet Chairs <detnet-chairs@ietf.org>, detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org, Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>
Subject: Re: [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 15:26:20 -0000

Hi,

> On Feb 22, 2017, at 3:17 AM, Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano <cjbc@it.uc3m.es> wrote:
> 
> Hi Loa,
> 
> On Wed, 2017-02-22 at 18:32 +0800, Loa Andersson wrote:
>> 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?
> 
> I also have this question in mind. I've checked draft-ietf-detnet-dp-
> alt-00 and found this:
> 
> "
> 4.5.  #5 Flow duplication and merging
> 
> [...]
> 
>    The solution alternative has to provide means for end systems, relay
>    and edge nodes to be able to duplicate packets into duplicate flows,
>    and later merge the flows into one for duplicate elimination.  The
>    duplication and merging may take place at multiple points in the
>    network in order to ensure that one (or more) equipment failure
>    event(s) still leave at least one path intact for a deterministic
>    networking flow.  The goal is again to enable hitless 1+1 protection
>    in a way that no packet gets lost or there is no ramp up time when
>    either one of the paths fails for one reason or another.
> "
> 
> Not completely clear to me why we need to allow duplication and merging
> at multiple points. 

One reason is to be equally good as the IEEE 802.1 counter part.

> I have also another question: are we considering somehow the
> requirements that some detnet applications (e.g., crosshauling) might
> require bidirectional flows to be symmetric?

There are already mechanisms that you can use to create bidirectional tunnels at the transport network level. How the control plane comes up with a DetNet flow pinning in a way that it only has bidirectional flows has not been worked on yet - it is a separate work.  The data plane will/must allow that, though.

- JOuni


> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Carlos
> 
>> 
>> /Loa