Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] about identity labels.. was Re: new versions of my slides

Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu> Mon, 06 March 2017 02:06 UTC

Return-Path: <loa@pi.nu>
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 21CED1294BA for <detnet-dp-dt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 5 Mar 2017 18:06:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 nLN58y0P4oYh for <detnet-dp-dt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 5 Mar 2017 18:06:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pipi.pi.nu (pipi.pi.nu [83.168.239.141]) (using TLSv1.1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 27A23126D73 for <detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org>; Sun, 5 Mar 2017 18:06:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.11] (unknown [119.95.38.221]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: loa@pi.nu) by pipi.pi.nu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E715318013DA; Mon, 6 Mar 2017 03:06:52 +0100 (CET)
To: Jouni Korhonen <jouni.korhonen@broadcom.com>
References: <bc92627a-e1c2-ca97-9af9-8aedd37a772c@pi.nu> <3DF0466E9510274382F5B74499ACD6F8C3CB2F@dfwpml702-chm.exmail.huawei.com> <3DF0466E9510274382F5B74499ACD6F8C3CB40@dfwpml702-chm.exmail.huawei.com> <cde5c41f-2a48-7007-279a-ffa44ef43bec@pi.nu> <DBXPR07MB128512162D9FA45A2A10624AC570@DBXPR07MB128.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <75B5D515-73E0-44C0-8CE2-824731505589@broadcom.com> <1488621691.3705.1.camel@it.uc3m.es> <5278d70a-c266-7748-3b16-dfd4848420fc@pi.nu> <87E21B14-30D0-4E1F-A0D2-BEE6804E9BAB@broadcom.com>
From: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>
Message-ID: <b38b8840-4209-3a7e-9f5b-32adfeab2676@pi.nu>
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2017 10:06:48 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <87E21B14-30D0-4E1F-A0D2-BEE6804E9BAB@broadcom.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet-dp-dt/N9bi8xNoasvz0UgeR9fe7lc3I_U>
Cc: cjbc@it.uc3m.es, "detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org" <detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] about identity labels.. was Re: new versions of my slides
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: Mon, 06 Mar 2017 02:06:58 -0000

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
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet-dp-dt
>>>
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>> Loa Andersson                        email: loa@mail01.huawei.com
>> Senior MPLS Expert                          loa@pi.nu
>> Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: +46 739 81 21 64
>
> _______________________________________________
> Detnet-dp-dt mailing list
> Detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet-dp-dt
>

-- 


Loa Andersson                        email: loa@mail01.huawei.com
Senior MPLS Expert                          loa@pi.nu
Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: +46 739 81 21 64