Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] Section 4.1 added (DP solution requirements)
Balázs Varga A <balazs.a.varga@ericsson.com> Wed, 08 March 2017 05:46 UTC
Return-Path: <balazs.a.varga@ericsson.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 E478F1293F9
for <detnet-dp-dt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Mar 2017 21:46:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.221
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.221 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1,
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01,
RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001]
autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
header.d=ericsson.onmicrosoft.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 57iS7cT7zVVW for <detnet-dp-dt@ietfa.amsl.com>;
Tue, 7 Mar 2017 21:46:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sesbmg22.ericsson.net (sesbmg22.ericsson.net [193.180.251.48])
(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 052651293D9
for <detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org>; Tue, 7 Mar 2017 21:46:18 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb30-84e7298000007a5b-2b-58bf9aa927fa
Received: from ESESSHC005.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.183.33])
by (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 88.35.31323.9AA9FB85;
Wed, 8 Mar 2017 06:46:17 +0100 (CET)
Received: from EUR02-HE1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (153.88.183.145)
by oa.msg.ericsson.com (153.88.183.33) with Microsoft SMTP Server
(TLS) id 14.3.319.2; Wed, 8 Mar 2017 06:46:16 +0100
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=ericsson.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-ericsson-com;
h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version;
bh=fykF44pySRRi0Y4aco4IBIqp1F+bFEmyarp/I4itXoQ=;
b=AZetO+51xE/pyIiRqHRmIP/DIT6jHt3Ca3nkneJbhxvybu1Hf5YDk/5/VOhLU5YYHhBcbimSmxpwJllEZivv4yjUtk2/OW4xuzUlcD3yP4PMHPwVtfQMLfM2KyHmYqD/9sUgXKT74qGryEJdXK3FzR3lsRrx/NOONS1ahk1+Xeo=
Received: from DBXPR07MB128.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (10.242.138.156) by
DBXPR07MB125.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (10.242.138.151) with Microsoft SMTP
Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P384) id
15.1.947.2; Wed, 8 Mar 2017 05:46:15 +0000
Received: from DBXPR07MB128.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.3.89]) by
DBXPR07MB128.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.3.89]) with mapi id
15.01.0947.020; Wed, 8 Mar 2017 05:46:15 +0000
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Bal=E1zs_Varga_A?= <balazs.a.varga@ericsson.com>
To: "jouni.korhonen@broadcom.com" <jouni.korhonen@broadcom.com>
Thread-Topic: [Detnet-dp-dt] Section 4.1 added (DP solution requirements)
Thread-Index: AdKXb9YVfrls1eFAR9+IDHsjysneyAACCQAAABVwa/A=
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2017 05:46:14 +0000
Message-ID: <DBXPR07MB128916BC4D61D0C1A12BF08AC2E0@DBXPR07MB128.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
References: <DBXPR07MB12896F1424C82CF718C93FEAC2F0@DBXPR07MB128.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
<8f3dd80e-794b-77a9-44dd-09e98d9eb64c@broadcom.com>
In-Reply-To: <8f3dd80e-794b-77a9-44dd-09e98d9eb64c@broadcom.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: broadcom.com; dkim=none (message not signed)
header.d=none;broadcom.com; dmarc=none action=none header.from=ericsson.com;
x-originating-ip: [91.82.100.59]
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 260c1093-cb4a-4c5d-c42d-08d465e66f53
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:(22001);SRVR:DBXPR07MB125;
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; DBXPR07MB125;
7:peh6ZAzTN7E7ADVmphhMfG8gc1pKA8+VX4AoYiHO7lM95XTv275HJqNBZo6eVDgkbJ7HR+sv1/S5+vvd5OFa0KRZ4RK+VOW44cClGOQFnrvJzjeqjFcGjmZnemijcHO5MR5Qb8ReZS7dj7ITt61IQYJMTvwA6YpWyIgM8V4HsU9/U2QESvjSX20Skc0edz/9ZxqljpraWFWpu7+CM8e68wUlgOvFyoUgyrZiEyDsLay/feEEDXwg7hmmbCFw4AOeYwSpIig96MMAVgTchb82jUTjqwtATimYKuBIuM9Z2WsgVQuZcJtknb5zHYVImeF1QfSu4lI/umAvmaKi8pskPw==
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <DBXPR07MB12514142F85CA61C82BA291AC2E0@DBXPR07MB125.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(37575265505322)(50582790962513);
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0;
RULEID:(6040375)(601004)(2401047)(8121501046)(5005006)(10201501046)(3002001)(6041248)(20161123562025)(20161123558025)(20161123555025)(20161123560025)(20161123564025)(6072148);
SRVR:DBXPR07MB125; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:DBXPR07MB125;
x-forefront-prvs: 02408926C4
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM;
SFS:(10009020)(6009001)(39450400003)(24454002)(252514010)(377424004)(13464003)(377454003)(6116002)(102836003)(3846002)(7736002)(66066001)(74316002)(53936002)(76176999)(55016002)(6436002)(38730400002)(54356999)(5640700003)(4326008)(110136004)(6246003)(50986999)(25786008)(6306002)(3660700001)(53546006)(9686003)(305945005)(6506006)(229853002)(2906002)(99286003)(3280700002)(122556002)(189998001)(33656002)(86362001)(2501003)(7696004)(81166006)(2900100001)(6916009)(2950100002)(8676002)(8936002)(5660300001)(2351001)(230783001);
DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:DBXPR07MB125;
H:DBXPR07MB128.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; MLV:sfv; LANG:en;
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 08 Mar 2017 05:46:14.8854 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 92e84ceb-fbfd-47ab-be52-080c6b87953f
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DBXPR07MB125
X-OriginatorOrg: ericsson.com
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFmpmleLIzCtJLcpLzFFi42KZGbFdUXflrP0RBv8mClmsmrCWzeLhlwQH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Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet-dp-dt/H8MROgYt3dSeZQL1RAXYA8hOccA>
Cc: "detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org" <detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] Section 4.1 added (DP solution requirements)
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, 08 Mar 2017 05:46:22 -0000
Hi Jouni, OK, I think my text may not be clear enough. Local-ID is not meant as a router id. " Each node (T-PE, S-PE and P) use a local-ID of the detnet-(compound)-flow in order to accomplish its role during transport." Local-ID refers to an ID used by a node to identify internally a DetNet-flow. Maybe "local-Flow-ID" would express it better. Such a "local-Flow-ID" value may or may not differ from the "Flow-ID" value encoded in the DetNet packet. If it is different we fallback to what You have called "virtual-label". I hope that clarifies your concerns. Cheers Bala'zs -----Original Message----- From: Jouni Korhonen [mailto:jouni.korhonen@broadcom.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2017 8:21 PM To: Balázs Varga A <balazs.a.varga@ericsson.com> Cc: detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] Section 4.1 added (DP solution requirements) Thanks Balazs, I am not quite sure about the local-id text: "Local-ID MUST be unambiguously bounded to the Flow-ID encoded in the DetNet packet." By default each router has their unique router id with the autonomous system that you need e.g., with routing protocols. If the flow-id is unique within the detnet domain I am not sure what mapping the above is talking about. Do you mean that a set of flow-ids would belong to a router (identified by a local-id)? - Jouni 3/7/2017, 10:23 AM, Balázs Varga A kirjoitti: > Hi, > Section 4.1 added on the GitHub. > Cheers > Bala'zs > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jouni Korhonen [mailto:jouni.korhonen@broadcom.com] > Sent: Monday, March 06, 2017 7:23 PM > To: Balázs Varga A <balazs.a.varga@ericsson.com>om>; Loa Andersson > <loa@pi.nu> > Cc: cjbc@it.uc3m.es; detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] about identity labels.. was Re: new > versions of my slides > > Balazs, > > Your proposed Section 4.x would definitely be good to have. I am not too much for Section 4.y since I do not see it would not be needed in the final document, except for the definitions that should go to Section 2. > > Regarding the two choices we have now I just add prologue text and describe (graphically both). The logic of the "identity label/tag" is mostly the same independent of the location in the stack. The processing is of course different. > > - Jouni > > 3/6/2017, 9:49 AM, Balázs Varga A kirjoitti: >> Hi Jouni, >> >> >> >> just for clarification: Do we intend to list all options in the draft ??? >> >> They all have pros and cons ... >> >> >> >> Anyway I think we need a structure like below in the draft for >> example >> >> in section 4. Is it inline with your intention? Shall I prepare some >> text >> >> around this items for the call on Wednesday? >> >> >> >> *4.x DP solution requirements* >> >> List of prerequisites for a proper solution on an x-PE: >> >> 1, to distinguish PWs going through (operation label-swap) and PWs >> need DetNet serving (e.g., FRER) >> >> 2, to handle PW-label collisions (without major implementation >> difficulties) >> >> 3, to work with both centralized control and distributed control >> (signaling) >> >> >> >> *4.y DP solution toolset* >> >> Description of the toolset discussed so far: >> >> A, L-label: additional label between t-label and PW-label >> >> B, different PW-labels per segment: similar to the MS-PW label >> allocation mechanism >> >> C, e2e PW label: no change of the PW-label (same PW-label value >> between T-PE nodes) >> >> D, d-id label: additional label used as T-PE identification >> >> E, Flow-ID outside of the label stack >> >> >> >> Cheers >> >> Bala'zs >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Detnet-dp-dt [mailto:detnet-dp-dt-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf >> Of Loa Andersson >> Sent: Monday, March 06, 2017 3:07 AM >> To: Jouni Korhonen <jouni.korhonen@broadcom.com> >> Cc: cjbc@it.uc3m.es; detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] about identity labels.. was Re: new >> versions of my slides >> >> >> >> Jouni, >> >> >> >> On 2017-03-06 07:36, Jouni Korhonen wrote: >> >>> >> >> <snip> >> >>>> >> >>>> - global as the special purpose labels, seems unlikely >> >>>> - global as unique with in the domain, though we know there is a >> >>>> scaling problem >> >>>> - global for one sender, not that different from d-id, other that >>>> the >> >>>> placment in the stack >> >>>> >> >>>> ??? >> >>> >> >>> In my small mind I reasoned it to be unique within one domain. Since >> the identity would now be 32 bits (there is no need to restrict it to >> 20 bits since it is part of the _encapsulation_header_ not the label >> stack), the scaling concern is more relaxed. Assuming each node in >> the domain would like to be able to name 4k unique detnet flows of >> their own then the domain could host 1M such detnet nodes.. not too >> bad for one domain. >> >> >> >> My earlier calculations estimated that we would have about the number >> of PWs between any pair of T-DetNet-PEs would be about 400 and the >> number T-DetNet-PEs about 1000. >> >> >> >> 32 bits is 4 000 millions, so there is ample number of flow id's >> even if we would have to configure a range on each T-DetNet-PE. >> >> >> >> So you look at the flow-id and then compare the CW/Seq #, right? >> >> >> >> Now, range configuration is a kludge, can we find a way to avoid it, >> maybe d-pw + node-id would work, all this would have to happen in the >> context of the (outgoing) d-pw anyway, right? >> >> >> >> /Loa >> >> >> >>> >> >>> - Jouni >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>>> >> >>>> /Loa >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Carlos >> >>>>> >> >>>>>> - Jouni >> >>>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >> >>>>> 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 >> >>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> -- >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> Loa Andersson email: loa@mail01.huawei.com >> <mailto:loa@mail01.huawei.com> >> >>>> Senior MPLS Expert loa@pi.nu <mailto:loa@pi.nu> >> >>>> Huawei Technologies (consultant) phone: +46 739 81 21 64 >> >>> >> >>> _______________________________________________ >> >>> 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 >> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> >> >> >> Loa Andersson email: loa@mail01.huawei.com >> <mailto:loa@mail01.huawei.com> >> >> Senior MPLS Expert loa@pi.nu <mailto:loa@pi.nu> >> >> Huawei Technologies (consultant) phone: +46 739 81 21 64 >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> 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] Section 4.1 added (DP solution req… Balázs Varga A
- Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] Section 4.1 added (DP solution… Jouni Korhonen
- Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] Section 4.1 added (DP solution… Balázs Varga A
- Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] Section 4.1 added (DP solution… Loa Andersson
- Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] Section 4.1 added (DP solution… Lou Berger
- Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] Section 4.1 added (DP solution… Jouni Korhonen
- Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] Section 4.1 added (DP solution… Jouni Korhonen
- Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] Section 4.1 added (DP solution… Jouni Korhonen
- Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] Section 4.1 added (DP solution… Lou Berger
- Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] Section 4.1 added (DP solution… Jouni Korhonen
- Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] Section 4.1 added (DP solution… Lou Berger
- Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] Section 4.1 added (DP solution… Loa Andersson
- Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] Section 4.1 added (DP solution… Jiangyuanlong
- Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] Section 4.1 added (DP solution… Jouni Korhonen