Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] DP DT solution draft slides for IETF99
Jiangyuanlong <jiangyuanlong@huawei.com> Fri, 14 July 2017 12:36 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 E7F81131678 for <detnet-dp-dt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Jul 2017 05:36:12 -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 2x6jdu0bDA80 for <detnet-dp-dt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Jul 2017 05:36:11 -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 919C013166B for <detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Jul 2017 05:36:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO LHREML710-CAH.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id DRC50602; Fri, 14 Jul 2017 12:36:05 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from NKGEML413-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.74) by LHREML710-CAH.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.33) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.301.0; Fri, 14 Jul 2017 13:36:03 +0100
Received: from DGGEML405-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.3.17.49) by NKGEML413-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.74) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.235.1; Fri, 14 Jul 2017 20:36:00 +0800
Received: from DGGEML507-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.2.127]) by dggeml405-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.3.17.49]) with mapi id 14.03.0301.000; Fri, 14 Jul 2017 20:35:50 +0800
From: Jiangyuanlong <jiangyuanlong@huawei.com>
To: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>, Jouni <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>, "cjbc@it.uc3m.es" <cjbc@it.uc3m.es>, "'Korhonen, Jouni'" <Jouni.Korhonen@nordicsemi.no>, 'Balázs Varga A' <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//rDh0IACPrwA//9WncA=
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2017 12:35:50 +0000
Message-ID: <3B0A1BED22CAD649A1B3E97BE5DDD68BBB5587F7@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> <3B0A1BED22CAD649A1B3E97BE5DDD68BBB558746@dggeml507-mbx.china.huawei.com> <15d409e3f38.27d3.9b4188e636579690ba6c69f2c8a0f1fd@labn.net>
In-Reply-To: <15d409e3f38.27d3.9b4188e636579690ba6c69f2c8a0f1fd@labn.net>
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=0001.0A020203.5968BAB6.00C7, 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/EKwTgbdWlRo_vlphl5jCD4gfNIc>
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 12:36:13 -0000
Thanks much, Lou. It seems that if and only if multiple detnet services are aggregated into a tunnel (T-Label), the S-Label is needed to distinguish them; otherwise, the S-Label is not needed. Correct? Cheers, Yuanlong -----Original Message----- From: Detnet-dp-dt [mailto:detnet-dp-dt-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Lou Berger Sent: Friday, July 14, 2017 6:22 PM To: Jiangyuanlong; 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 T-label imo. Lou On July 14, 2017 4:26:06 AM Jiangyuanlong <jiangyuanlong@huawei.com> wrote: > 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>; Balázs Varga A >> <balazs.a.varga@ericsson.com>; 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>; >> > > 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 > _______________________________________________ > 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] DP DT solution draft slides for IE… Korhonen, Jouni
- Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] DP DT solution draft slides fo… Balázs Varga A
- Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] DP DT solution draft slides fo… Korhonen, Jouni
- Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] DP DT solution draft slides fo… Korhonen, Jouni
- Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] DP DT solution draft slides fo… Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano
- Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] DP DT solution draft slides fo… Jouni
- Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] DP DT solution draft slides fo… Jiangyuanlong
- Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] DP DT solution draft slides fo… Jiangyuanlong
- Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] DP DT solution draft slides fo… Lou Berger
- Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] DP DT solution draft slides fo… Korhonen, Jouni
- Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] DP DT solution draft slides fo… Jiangyuanlong
- Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] DP DT solution draft slides fo… Loa Andersson
- Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] DP DT solution draft slides fo… Lou Berger
- Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] DP DT solution draft slides fo… János Farkas
- Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] DP DT solution draft slides fo… Loa Andersson
- Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] DP DT solution draft slides fo… Korhonen, Jouni