IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] question on section 4.1

Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> Wed, 21 June 2017 12:34 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 95B9F129ABE for <detnet-dp-dt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Jun 2017 05:34:45 -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 DmHE7D3pC8FZ for <detnet-dp-dt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Jun 2017 05:34:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gproxy3.mail.unifiedlayer.com (gproxy3-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com [69.89.30.42]) (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 A842A129AC9 for <Detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Jun 2017 05:34:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cmgw2 (unknown [10.0.90.83]) by gproxy3.mail.unifiedlayer.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 073EF40130 for <Detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Jun 2017 06:34:41 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]) by cmgw2 with id bQad1v0082SSUrH01QagKX; Wed, 21 Jun 2017 06:34:40 -0600
X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.2 cv=Ibz3YSia 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=0FD05c-RAAAA:8 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=O4KgIXpTyxRixLdaDsgA:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=l1rpMCqCXRGZwUSuRcM3:22 a=w1C3t2QeGrPiZgrLijVG: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=aDCKW4Vvx/6NByDyiw2LeaEtoaN7B80HKE4wgFAGr58=; b=GLQ13/FlJG0nUkEMX7977HWaU5 5/T+KEJoWu+TIDoWpvF8e00UpCi/UQnVCA31xcp81vuAHSI91wffGPTk2Kpw1gj5SQHmgOFz0Xu6w Dg1HGgvcfiTU1/aO95BBX3G3U;
Received: from m825736d0.tmodns.net ([208.54.87.130]:63558 helo=[IPV6:2607:fb90:a81:e135:0:c:969d:6a01]) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.87) (envelope-from <lberger@labn.net>) id 1dNeqC-000BRo-Nq; Wed, 21 Jun 2017 06:34:37 -0600
From: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
To: Balázs Varga A <balazs.a.varga@ericsson.com>, Detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 08:34:34 -0400
Message-ID: <15ccaa5ab90.27d3.9b4188e636579690ba6c69f2c8a0f1fd@labn.net>
In-Reply-To: <DBXPR07MB128751366F6D337CF9137EEACDA0@DBXPR07MB128.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
References: <33e35865-2399-65f8-b52f-c7b82c64e842@labn.net> <DBXPR07MB128751366F6D337CF9137EEACDA0@DBXPR07MB128.eurprd07.prod.outlook.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: 208.54.87.130
X-Exim-ID: 1dNeqC-000BRo-Nq
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
X-Source-Sender: m825736d0.tmodns.net ([IPV6:2607:fb90:a81:e135:0:c:969d:6a01]) [208.54.87.130]:63558
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/EeVifHrH57EexZ1EH4qHcO_95Nw>
Subject: Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] question on section 4.1
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: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 12:34:46 -0000

Bala'zs

This is an important point to capture, and not at all what I expected from 
what was written. I think there was some text on this in the Alternatives 
document. I'll try to pull it over into a new subsection of additional 
considerations.

Lou


On June 21, 2017 2:15:58 AM Balázs Varga A <balazs.a.varga@ericsson.com> wrote:

> Hi Lou,
>
> This text in the draft is a very short summary of a somewhat longer 
> discussion we have had on the calls.
> It seems to be too short ... It intends to refer to the following:
>
> In case of PWoMPLS there may be many labels in the label stack (SR labels, 
> etc.) of a DetNet packet.
> Transit (P) nodes should ensure zero-congestion-loss by allocating 
> resources for the DetNet flows.
> In order to identify a given DetNet flow (and using the for the flow 
> allocated resources) transit
> nodes need to walk through the whole label stack, what may not be supported 
> by the transit node
> or may impact the packet forwarding capabilities of the node. Furthermore 
> it requires per DetNet
> flow states on transit nodes.
>
> These requirements could be simplified by putting together multiple DetNet 
> flows e.g., in a tunnel
> and allocate resources on a transit node only for such an "aggregate DetNet 
> flow". So, the transit
> node has to identify only the tunnel and not each individual DetNet flow, 
> what results in simplified
> operation and less states.
>
> Cheers
> Bala'zs
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Detnet-dp-dt [mailto:detnet-dp-dt-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Lou 
> Berger
> Sent: 2017. június 20. 19:34
> To: Detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org
> Subject: [Detnet-dp-dt] question on section 4.1
>
> Does anyone know what the following is intended to mean:
>
>
>   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.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Lou
>
> _______________________________________________
> Detnet-dp-dt mailing list
> Detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet-dp-dt
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email