Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] changes to document pushed & some questions...

[Loa Andersson <[e-mail]>]

Folks,

I reviewed and think we should post the new draft (cut-off is only a
few days out).

Jouni,

Will you do this?

/Loa

On 2017-06-28 04:29, Lou Berger wrote:
> Done - also changed to STD track vs informational.  I don't have any
> more planned comments to discuss or changes to make.
>
> Lou
>
> On 6/27/2017 7:47 PM, Jouni wrote:
>> Meant as a co-author ;)
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Jouni [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2017 02:44 AM
>>> To: 'Lou Berger' <[e-mail]>et>; 'Balázs Varga A'
>>> <[e-mail]>om>; [e-mail]
>>> Subject: RE: [Detnet-dp-dt] changes to document pushed & some questions...
>>>
>>> Done my small thingies.
>>>
>>> Lou, add yourelf as a editor.
>>>
>>> - Jouni
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Lou Berger [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2017 02:00 AM
>>>> To: Jouni <[e-mail]>om>; 'Balázs Varga A'
>>>> <[e-mail]>om>; [e-mail]
>>>> Subject: Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] changes to document pushed & some
>>> questions...
>>>> Yes. I'm done done. Sorry...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On June 27, 2017 6:45:37 PM "Jouni" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Lou,
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you now done with your edits? I was working on the same section
>>>>> and dropped my stuff in a favor of yours ;) I'll still want to
>>>>> revisit Section
>>>>> 6 before statingnthe draft is ready for adoption.
>>>>>
>>>>> - Jouni
>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: Detnet-dp-dt [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf
>>>>>> Of Lou Berger
>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2017 00:36 AM
>>>>>> To: Balázs Varga A <[e-mail]>om>;
>>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] changes to document pushed & some
>>>> questions...
>>>>>> I just added a few word into to section 6 to highlight that it
>>>>>> applies to
>>>>>> v6 and mpls:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    This section applies equally to DetNet flows transported via
>>>>>> IPv6
>>>> and
>>>>>>    MPLS.  While flow identification and some header related
>>> processing
>>>>>>    will differ between the two, the considerations covered in this
>>>>>>    section are common to both.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> feel free to check in what ever changes you want to this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Also I added the following comment:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     <!-- LB: I think there needs to be more text on how PREF works
>>> with
>>>>>>          IPv6 flows. -->
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Lou
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 6/27/2017 1:39 PM, Lou Berger wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/27/2017 7:44 AM, Balázs Varga A wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi Lou,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - Bidirectional: proposed change is fine with me.
>>>>>>> okay, I'll make this and the s-label change
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - PREF and IPv6: It is not clear for me why the PREF support is
>>>>>> considered to be different.
>>>>>>>> From data plane perspective the PREF related chapters are
>>>>>>>> formulated to be encapsulation independent. The only difference
>>>>>>>> is that in case of IPv6 the flow-ID does not change during the
>>>>>>>> transport ("src-IPv6 + Flow-label" remains unchanged), whereas
>>>>>>>> it may change in case of MPLS (PW-label value may change on a
>>>>>>>> PREF node). But the rest is the same
>>>>>> from data plane function perspective (i.e., eliminate duplicates
>>>>>> based on seq-num; do replication).
>>>>>>> I didn't get this from reading the document the first time.  I'll
>>>>>>> reread and suggest clarifications if needed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Have I missed something? Do You mean different control plane
>>>>>> requirements?
>>>>>>> No, I was thinking data plane.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> Lou
>>>>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>>>> Bala'zs
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>> From: Detnet-dp-dt [mailto:[e-mail]] On
>>>>>>>> Behalf Of Lou Berger
>>>>>>>> Sent: 2017. június 26. 17:55
>>>>>>>> To: Balázs Varga A <[e-mail]>om>;
>>>>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] changes to document pushed & some
>>>>>> questions...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 6/26/2017 11:00 AM, Balázs Varga A wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I have reviewed all the changes. I am fine with almost all of
>>>>>>>>> them with the remarks below:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Figure4: In my view it should be the same figure as Figure 3,
>>>>>>>>> as DetNet End Systems are connected.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In this case the End Systems generate IPv6 packets with
>>>>>>>>> included seq-num and are connected to
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Relay nodes, what results in no difference regarding the DetNet
>>>>>>>>> functionalities.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's my understanding that there is major difference in PREF
>>>>>>>> support in
>>>>>> this case.
>>>>>>>>> It would be a more interesting figure where IPv6 DetNet End
>>>>>>>>> Systems are connected
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> to an MPLS based DetNet domain, but it is similar from DetNet
>>>>>>>>> function perspective to Figure 2.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Let's list the possible combinations:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> - We have three End System types: (1) TSN, (2) IPv6 and (3)
>>>>>>>>> MPLS-capable
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> - We have two PSN encapsulations: (1) IPv6 and (2) PWoMPLS
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There are six possible combinations, however they result in 2
>>>>>>>>> major variants from DetNet functions
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> perspective:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> (1) End System type <> PSN type (TSN + IPv6, TSN + PWoMPLS,
>>>>>>>>> IPv6
>>>>>>>>> + PWoMPLS, MPLS-capable + IPv6)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Edge node needed to ensure PSN specific encapsulation
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> (2) End System type = PSN type  (IPv6 + IPv6, MPLS-capable +
>>>>>>>>> PWoMPLS)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No need for Edge node as the encapsulation does not change.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> (Note: I think we should treat "MPLS-capable + IPv6" as an
>>>>>>>>> invalid combination ... )
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Figure 2 and Figure 3 are the representation of these two major
>>>>>>>>> variants. So do we really need Figure 4?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 522       DetNet composite flow, perhaps even when both LSPs
>>>> appear
>>>>>>>>> on the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 522       DetNet compound flow, perhaps even when both LSPs
>>> appear
>>>> on
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> doesn't the above (sec 5.2.2.) imply the PREF with IPv6 is
>>>>>>>>>> always
>>>>>>>>> end-to-end, ...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I think this needs further discussion. The intention is to make
>>>>>>>>> PREF independent of domain borders and
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> domain encapsulations.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It would be good to describe how this works in the v6 case
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 1033 7.4.  Bidirectional traffic
>>>>>>>>> This chapter is very much MPLS focused, however the findings
>>>>>>>>> are also valid for IPv6. Should we make that
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> more clear?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> My objective in the first paragraph was to introduce the
>>>>>>>> co-routed and
>>>>>> associated concepts/terminology and then say how.  How about
>>>>>> changing the last paragraph to:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    While the IPv6 and MPLS data planes must support
>>>>>>>> bidirectional
>>>>>> DetNet flows, there
>>>>>>>>    are no special bidirectional features with respect to the
>>>>>>>> data
>>>> plane
>>>>>>>>    other than need for the two directions take the same paths.
>>>> Note,
>>>>>>>>    that there is no stated requirement for bidirectional DetNet
>>>>>>>> flows
>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>    be supported using same IPv6 Flow Label or MPLS Labels in
>>>>>>>> each
>>>>>> direction.
>>>>>>>>    Control mechanisms will need to support such bidirectional
>>>>>>>> flows for
>>>>>> both IPv6 and MPLS, but
>>>>>>>>    such mechanisms are out of scope of this document.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Lou
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Bala'zs
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>>> From: Detnet-dp-dt [mailto:[e-mail]] On
>>>>>>>>> Behalf Of Lou Berger
>>>>>>>>> Sent: 2017. június 21. 4:25
>>>>>>>>> To: [e-mail]
>>>>>>>>> Subject: [Detnet-dp-dt] changes to document pushed & some
>>>> questions...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> All,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I made a bunch of changes based on going though the document.
>>>>>>>>> Most of the comments I discussed.  I put non-discussed ones in
>>>>>>>>> their own commits so it would be easier to eliminate them.
>>>>>>>>> Changes are as
>>>>>> follows:
>>>>>>>>>     commit f79188034b23c80dab2985dc359176e93855376e
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>                 Update txt to match change set
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>     commit 01a1798e4645518bb61acf42444b17466c3b56c1
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>                 Make capitalization of section headings
>>> consistent.
>>>>>>>>>                 Not saying I agree with what's there, but now
>>>>>>>>> it's consistent.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>     commit 27103f9af301d1a270ca7d6c9bd59a358dc9d1b0
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>                 Revise CoS and QoS sections
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>     commit c98c0efda04c714db22a1cea6eefb77f04d10c4b
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>                 General edits:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>                     Fix some capitalization and minor nits
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>                     Add intro paragraph and pointer to arch
>>>>>>>>> doc, and basic scope of
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>                        document
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>                     Add not on why not using PW over IP
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>                     Add placeholder for IP native service
>>>>>>>>> figure
>>>>>>>>> (4)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>                     Start clarification on congestion
>>>>>>>>> protection and latency control
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>                     Add some comments
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>     commit 5355f195f205d944d21d8242738fab0a6a8363ba
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>                 Cleanup L-label and T-label language
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>     commit 78e937b1a25f07618b4b221140fc7fcfc2a43d02
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>        Move Time Sync into it's own section (new 8)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>     commit 42bcb46dde2384cb4e3f76406780137086904bae
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>        Use arch defined terms DetNet compound flow and DetNet
>>>>>>>>> member flow
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I also came up with following specific questions/comments,
>>>>>>>>> which are also captured in comments in the file:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> WRT the title:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>     <!-- LB: doesn't "Encapsulation" better fit the scope of
>>>>>>>>> the current
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>          document than "Solution"? -->
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>     <title abbrev="DetNet Data Plane Solution">
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>     WRT L-Label
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>     <!-- LB: why is this called L-Label, I think it'll be
>>>>>>>>> confused with
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>          the current DiffServ L-LSPs, perhaps a using "(S)vc"
>>>>>>>>> would be
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>          better and is aligned with Figure 12 of RFC5921  -->
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>   <!-- LB: unclear what the following means.  Perhaps restate
>>>>>>>>> or
>>>> drop.
>>>>>>>>> -->
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>   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.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>   in Section 5.2.1
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>     <!-- possibly reference new interworking considerations
>>>>>>>>> section
>>>>>>>>> -->
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>   In section 5.3.2
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>     <!-- LB: doesn't the above (sec 5.2.2.) imply the PREF with
>>>>>>>>> IPv6 is
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>          always end-to-end, or are you PREF domains with
>>>>>>>>> replication of
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>          incoming packets and scoped domain elimination? I
>>>>>>>>> think this
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>          should be explicitly discussed either way -->
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I ran out of steam at the end, but this is enough -- I think...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Lou
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> PS given that I now have contributed text to the document, I
>>>>>>>>> should be added as a contributor (or author) but I didn't do
>>>>>>>>> this as there was no contributor section...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> 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]