Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] Providing unique Flow-ID

[Loa Andersson <[e-mail]>]

Jouni,

Sorry for late response.

The terminology around T-Labels and L-labels are a bit ambivalent.

Basically T-Labels and L-Labels are labels in the same label stack, only
that the T-label is on the top of the stack. Normally T-labels are just
for transportation, i.e. no BW allocated.

/Loa

On 2017-02-23 00:54, Jouni Korhonen wrote:
> Thanks Loa for listing these and specifically pointing out that L-label level can be a stack itself. I was myself assuming that the T-label-level could be a label stack as well.
>
> I would exclude d-id for now because we really have not had any discussion around it yet. I, for example, am not sure whether it is actually present on wire or not.
>
> - Jouni
>
> --
> Jouni Korhonen, Broadcom Ltd.
> M: [phone]
>
>> On Feb 21, 2017, at 9:53 PM, Loa Andersson <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> Yuanlong,
>>
>> Since this is on the table I think we should review the naming.
>>
>> For labels we currently have
>>
>> T-lable (Tunnel Label), i.e. the outermost label that is PHP'ed
>> by the pen-ultimate node before reaching one of the x-PEs.
>>
>> L-label (or L-level-label, since it can be a stack in its own right,
>> the lavle that takes you between the x-PE's and conserving what node
>> the packet came from.
>>
>> d-pw label, the label that is preserved end to end
>>
>> d-id (DetNet node ID), label that is used to disambiguate between flows
>> when the control plane has allocated the same d-pw label beween two
>> different pair of ingress and egress T-detnet-PE
>>
>> Apart from that we have  some other terms (which I btw think should
>> be changed)
>>
>> T-detnet-PE, the ingress and egress nodes for a detnet flow.
>> - A node that is ingress relative to a flow does replication.
>> - A node that is egress relative to a flow does elimination.
>>
>> S-detnet-PE, the node on the wire that does both replication and
>> elimnination.
>>
>> /Loa
>>
>> On 2017-02-22 11:50, Jiangyuanlong wrote:
>>> Is I-label just the DetNet Id label named by Loa?
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Jouni Korhonen [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>> Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2017 11:30 AM
>>> To: Jiangyuanlong
>>> Cc: Balázs Varga A; [e-mail]
>>> Subject: Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] Providing unique Flow-ID
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> We refer to the naming found in slides we used & shared in past two or so calls.
>>>
>>> - Jouni
>>>
>>> --
>>> Jouni Korhonen, Broadcom Ltd.
>>> M: [phone]
>>>
>>>> On Feb 21, 2017, at 7:27 PM, Jiangyuanlong <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> What is I-label and what is L-label? Are they in the same label stack
>>>> as the d-pw label? It will help us to be aligned to the same picture;) In the past, we have PW label and LSP label (maybe multiple LSP labels in hierarchy) for a service.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Yuanlong
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Detnet-dp-dt [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
>>>> Jouni Korhonen
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2017 5:34 AM
>>>> To: Balázs Varga A
>>>> Cc: [e-mail]
>>>> Subject: Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] Providing unique Flow-ID
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I have few comments inline.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Jouni Korhonen, Broadcom Ltd.
>>>> M: [phone]
>>>>
>>>>> On Feb 21, 2017, at 9:05 AM, Balázs Varga A <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> question to be answered:
>>>>> - how to ensure that detnet flows can be unique recognized during transport?
>>>>>
>>>>> Labels used by DetNet flows so far in our discussions:
>>>>> - d-pw: DetNet flow specific
>>>>> - l-label: FRER specific label to identify replica (member) flows
>>>>> - t-label: transport label (FEC of T-PE or S-PE nodes)
>>>>> Note: Text below assumes an l-label present, what may not be always the case.
>>>>
>>>> To my understanding the l-labels “connect” x-PE nodes i.e. create the desired overlay topology over all LSRs/PEs. L-labels also identify which packets will receive FRER processing and which not i.e., whether a specific PW gets terminated in an x-PE or whether x-PE just acts as a transit.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Before discussing uniqueness/allocation/usage of these labels let's
>>>>> list the scenarios requiring flow identification during transport. They can be separated in two groups:
>>>>> 1, DetNet function related scenarios:
>>>>> - congestion protection: usage of allocated resources (queuing, policing, shaping).
>>>>> - explicit routes: select/apply the flow specific path.
>>>>> - service protection: recognize compound / member flows for
>>>>> replication an elimination.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2, OAM function related scenarios:
>>>>> - troubleshooting (e.g., identify misbehaving flows, etc.)
>>>>> - recognize flow(s) for analytics (e.g, increase counters, etc.)
>>>>> - correlate events with flows (e.g., volume above threshold, etc.)
>>>>> - others ...
>>>>>
>>>>> We can distinguish 3 node types:
>>>>> - T-PE: d-pw starts/terminates here
>>>>> - S-PE: place of detnet specific function (e.g., FRER)
>>>>> - P: intermediate node (transport only functions)
>>>>>
>>>>> T-PE and S-PE nodes are fully aware of both the DetNet service and transport layers.
>>>>> In case of PHP, they receive only "d-pw + l-label", so the x-PE node
>>>>> should recognize the DetNet flow based on these labels. DetNet
>>>>> specific functions are driven by the "d-pw label" and "l-label" pair.
>>>>> The "d-pw"+"l-label" pairs have to be locally unique on the x-PE.
>>>>
>>>> I have an issue what “pair” means here. L-labels should only have simple rules and actions like pop, label swap, etc:
>>>>
>>>> In the context of DetNet and L-labels, popping it would expose the d-pw label to the system, which would then do PW (+FRER) thing based on the top d-pw label. Label swap for L-label would allow making desired x-PW nodes to behave as transit nodes in the DetNet context.
>>>>
>>>> Combining L-label into DetNet specific processing is IMHO a bad decision. Even if the hardware could be able to look up multiple labels in parallel, the next hop and action decisions would still be per label, not as a single result. Keeping this in mind, the system would also work as such when L-labels are not present i.e., the x-PE just receives a packet with d-pw label or T-label+d-pw label.. the assumption here is that the configuration at this point is such there is no ambiguity..
>>>>
>>>>> The problematic points are the intermediate "P" nodes. Their detnet
>>>>> role is limited to ensure congestion protection from the above listed
>>>>> DetNet functions. Additionally OAM functions are also nice to have at each hop (as usual).
>>>>>
>>>>> We have two options for P nodes:
>>>>> - Option-A, P node can recognize only "t-label" and cannot consider
>>>>> the whole label stack for flow recognition. This is the scenario,
>>>>> where we have pre-established tunnels over the network, where the
>>>>> DetNet flows are mapped to appropriate tunnels to be transported over
>>>>> the network. This can be treated as a form of aggregation as many
>>>>> DetNet flows may use the same tunnel. Of course with this aggregation we lost per flow identification, that is the price for scalability.
>>>>> - Option-B, P-nodes can consider the whole label stack and they can
>>>>> identify each individual flow. That represents additional requirement
>>>>> on P nodes, which may not be acceptable in some network scenarios.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, what labels should be unique and how should we allocate labels?
>>>>> - d-pw: allocated by egress PE node. Label value is unique on that particular PE node.
>>>>> Other PE nodes may allocate the same label value for a different detnet flow.
>>>>> - l-label: allocated by the S-PE node. Label value is unique on that
>>>>> particular S-PE node.
>>>>
>>>> How would the L-label assignment work in our A,B,C,D x-PE example? B would do downstream assignment to A and upstream assignment to D?
>>>>
>>>>> - t-label: allocated by P node. Refer to the tunnel endpoint node
>>>>> (FEC) and the tunnel-ID. Value locally unique on the P node.
>>>>>
>>>>> Such an allocation scheme ensure that all nodes in the network are
>>>>> able to identify uniquely the DetNet flows (or aggregate flows) and
>>>>> support the above listed
>>>>> functions:
>>>>> - T-PE (egress): DetNet flow(s) identified based on the "d-pw" value.
>>>>> - S-PE: DetNet flow(s) identified based on the “l-label" value
>>>>
>>>> How do you do the flow to seqnum pairing? It does not make sense to map multiple L-labels to a single seqnum counter & duplicate elimination function. A solution like this would need us to introduce kind of master and slave label relationships, or virtual labels that L-labels point at.
>>>>
>>>>> - P-node (option-A): aggregated DetNet flow(s) identified based on the "t-label"
>>>>> - P-node (option-B): DetNet flow(s) identified based on the "l-label
>>>>> + t-label" (no need to look for the “d-pw" label, unless “l-label” is
>>>>> not present)
>>>>>
>>>>> Note, that as shown above globally unique “d-pw" labels are optional!
>>>>
>>>> I realize that detnet domain wide global d-pw labels are a pain in a neck. It would, for example, required each ingress T-detnet-PE to have their own d-pw label ranges they assign labels to detnet flows (assuming upstream label assignment). However, I still think global d-pw labels are cleaner from the forwarding point of view.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Good night and see You tomorrow early morning Bala'zs
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Detnet-dp-dt mailing list
>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet-dp-dt
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Detnet-dp-dt mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet-dp-dt
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Detnet-dp-dt mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet-dp-dt
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Detnet-dp-dt mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet-dp-dt
>>>
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>> Loa Andersson                        email: [e-mail]
>> Senior MPLS Expert                          [e-mail]
>> Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: [phone]
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Detnet-dp-dt mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet-dp-dt
>
> _______________________________________________
> Detnet-dp-dt mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet-dp-dt
>

-- 


Loa Andersson                        email: [e-mail]
Senior MPLS Expert                          [e-mail]
Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: [phone]