Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] Section 4.1 added (DP solution requirements)

[Loa Andersson <[e-mail]>]

Folks,

One terminology question, I don't really have any opinion on what we
call things, but I'm definitely for that we only have one name for one
thing.

Today we use T-PE and S-PE, but also T-DetNet-PE and S-DetNet-PE, can we 
converge. My slight preference would be  T-DetNet-PE and S-DetNet-PE,
to differentiate it from "normal" S-PE and T-PE.

/Loa

On 2017-03-08 13:46, Balázs Varga A wrote:
> 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:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2017 8:21 PM
> To: Balázs Varga A <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]
> 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:[e-mail]]
>> Sent: Monday, March 06, 2017 7:23 PM
>> To: Balázs Varga A <[e-mail]>om>; Loa Andersson
>> <[e-mail]>
>> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>> 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:[e-mail]] On Behalf
>>> Of Loa Andersson
>>> Sent: Monday, March 06, 2017 3:07 AM
>>> To: Jouni Korhonen <[e-mail]>
>>> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>>> 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
>>>
>>>>>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>
>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet-dp-dt
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>> --
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>> Loa Andersson                        email: [e-mail]
>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>
>>>>> Senior MPLS Expert                          [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>
>>>>> Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: [phone]
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>
>>>> Detnet-dp-dt mailing list
>>>
>>>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet-dp-dt
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Loa Andersson                        email: [e-mail]
>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>
>>> Senior MPLS Expert                          [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>
>>> Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: [phone]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>
>>> Detnet-dp-dt mailing list
>>>
>>> [e-mail] <mailto:[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]