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

[Lou Berger <[e-mail]>]

On 3/8/2017 3:42 PM, Jouni Korhonen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> DA-S-PE (like.. das PE ;)
funny - I like it!

> - Jouni
>
> 3/8/2017, 12:20 PM, Lou Berger kirjoitti:
>> Which option do you prefer?
>>
>>
>> On 3/8/2017 3:18 PM, Jouni Korhonen wrote:
>>> WFM.
>>>
>>> 3/8/2017, 5:56 AM, Lou Berger kirjoitti:
>>>> On 3/8/2017 7:35 AM, Loa Andersson wrote:
>>>>> 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.
>>>> The architecture defines this as:
>>>>
>>>>    DetNet intermediate node
>>>>            A DetNet relay node or transit node.
>>>>
>>>> And some good examples are in the DP Alternatives draft
>>>>
>>>>   TSN              Edge          Transit        Relay        DetNet
>>>>   End System       Node            Node         Node         End System
>>>>
>>>>   +---------+    +.........+                                 +---------+
>>>>   |  Appl.  |<---:Svc Proxy:-- End to End Service ---------->|  Appl.  |
>>>>   +---------+    +---------+                   +---------+   +---------+
>>>>   |   TSN   |    |TSN| |Svc|<-- DetNet flow ---: Service :-->| Service |
>>>>   +---------+    +---+ +---+    +---------+    +---------+   +---------+
>>>>   |Transport|    |Trp| |Trp|    |Transport|    |Trp| |Trp|   |Transport|
>>>>   +-------.-+    +-.-+ +-.-+    +--.----.-+    +-.-+ +-.-+   +---.-----+
>>>>           :  Link  :    /  ,-----.  \   :  Link  :    /  ,-----.  \
>>>>           +........+    +-[  Sub  ]-+   +........+    +-[  Sub  ]-+
>>>>                           [Network]                     [Network]
>>>>                            `-----'                       `-----'
>>>>
>>>>                  Figure 1: A Simple DetNet Enabled Network
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>           DetNet                                           DetNet
>>>>           Service         Transit          Transit        Service
>>>>    DetNet   |          |<-Tunnel->|     |<-Tunnel->|         |    DetNet
>>>>    End      |          V     1    V     V     2    V         |    End
>>>>    System   |    +-----+          +-----+          +-----+   |    System
>>>>    +---+    |    |S-PE1|==========|S-PE2|==========|S-PE3|   |    +---+
>>>>    |  X....DFa.....X_.......DF1.......X_....DF3........X.....DFa...X  |
>>>>    |CE1|=========|  \  |          |  /  |          |  /  |========|CE2|
>>>>    |   |    |    |   \......DF2.....X_......DF4....../   |   |    |   |
>>>>    +---+         |     |==========|     |==========|     |        +---+
>>>>        ^         +-----+          +-----+          +-----+        ^
>>>>        |        Relay Node       Relay Node       Relay Node      |
>>>>        |                                                          |
>>>>        |<------------- End to End DetNet Service ---------------->|
>>>>
>>>>                           Figure 5: Native DetNet
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So I think what you are asking for is a shorthand for a 'S-PE that is a
>>>> DetNet (aware) Relay Node' , right?
>>>> How about one or more of the following:
>>>>     - DetNet S-PE
>>>>     - DA-S-PE (DA=DetNet Aware)
>>>>     - DC-S-PE (DA=DetNet Capable)
>>>>     - DR-S-PE (DR=DetNet Relay)
>>>>     - DRN-S-PE (DRN=DetNet Relay Node)
>>>>
>>>> Lou
>>>>
>>>>> /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
>>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Detnet-dp-dt mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet-dp-dt
>>>>