Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] DP DT solution draft slides for IETF99

Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu> Fri, 14 July 2017 14:43 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 1FC291200ED for <detnet-dp-dt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Jul 2017 07:43:55 -0700 (PDT)
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 c__7-WRwfZSp for <detnet-dp-dt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Jul 2017 07:43:52 -0700 (PDT)
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 3758D1241FC for <detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Jul 2017 07:43:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.2] (c213-89-111-155.bredband.comhem.se [213.89.111.155]) (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 ED728180158C; Fri, 14 Jul 2017 16:43:50 +0200 (CEST)
To: Jiangyuanlong <jiangyuanlong@huawei.com>, Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>, Jouni <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>, "cjbc@it.uc3m.es" <cjbc@it.uc3m.es>, "'Korhonen, Jouni'" <Jouni.Korhonen@nordicsemi.no>, =?UTF-8?Q?'Bal=c3=a1zs_Varga_A'?= <balazs.a.varga@ericsson.com>, "detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org" <detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org>
References: <c815dbfd9d574366aa7775976fe24bce@nordicsemi.no> <DBXPR07MB128CD2139DFCC357D03F8A6ACAC0@DBXPR07MB128.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <d7377e8b99b249c6ad852854225999b3@nordicsemi.no> <1499967565.8611.13.camel@it.uc3m.es> <3cff01d2fc60$73416050$59c420f0$@gmail.com> <3B0A1BED22CAD649A1B3E97BE5DDD68BBB558728@dggeml507-mbx.china.huawei.com> <3B0A1BED22CAD649A1B3E97BE5DDD68BBB558746@dggeml507-mbx.china.huawei.com> <15d409e3f38.27d3.9b4188e636579690ba6c69f2c8a0f1fd@labn.net> <3B0A1BED22CAD649A1B3E97BE5DDD68BBB5587F7@dggeml507-mbx.china.huawei.com>
From: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>
Message-ID: <fce35ab6-0d87-bc6c-39e4-23447c2d3397@pi.nu>
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2017 16:43:50 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <3B0A1BED22CAD649A1B3E97BE5DDD68BBB5587F7@dggeml507-mbx.china.huawei.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet-dp-dt/Oe6zteokiA0OXTd8lcui0s1a-Es>
Subject: Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] DP DT solution draft slides for IETF99
X-BeenThere: detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Fri, 14 Jul 2017 14:43:55 -0000

Folks,

I think this discussion to a large extent is moot.

 From one perspective all labels are T-Labels, sometimes we want to
discuss what these tunnels are there for.

S-Labels indicated that they are carrying some type of service, not
being particular about what type of service, it is just something we
treat as a service.

During the discussion of the of detnet replication and elimination, we
thought it would be good to create an overlay network (L-Labels) we
found that we did not need to name the L-Labels, but they are still
logically there.

On 2017-07-14 14:35, Jiangyuanlong wrote:
> Thanks much, Lou.
> It seems that if and only if multiple detnet services are aggregated into a tunnel (T-Label), the S-Label is needed to distinguish them; otherwise, the S-Label is not needed.
> Correct?

Maybe - are you implying that that we could prohibit multiple detnet
services being aggregated into a tunnel? I think not! S we need the 
concept of an S-Label.

I think that it is good practice to have S-Labels if we have multiple
instances of the same service multiplexed on the same T-Label, right?

/Loa
>
> Cheers,
> Yuanlong
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Detnet-dp-dt [mailto:detnet-dp-dt-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Lou Berger
> Sent: Friday, July 14, 2017 6:22 PM
> To: Jiangyuanlong; Jouni; cjbc@it.uc3m.es; 'Korhonen, Jouni'; 'Balázs Varga A'; detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] DP DT solution draft slides for IETF99
>
> T-label imo.
>
> Lou
>
>
> On July 14, 2017 4:26:06 AM Jiangyuanlong <jiangyuanlong@huawei.com> wrote:
>
>> Sorry, I was confused by L-label in the last version and S-Label. But
>> we still need to harmonize the T-Lable with the S-Label.
>> For example, if we set up a low-latency or contention-free LSP for a
>> detnet flow (between DA-T-PEs or DA-S-PEs), most probably we need some
>> traffic engineered LSPs (i.e., L-LSP as defined in RFC 3270).
>> Can we regard L-LSP labels on the path to be a T-Label or an S-Label?
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Yuanlong
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Detnet-dp-dt [mailto:detnet-dp-dt-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
>> Jiangyuanlong
>> Sent: Friday, July 14, 2017 3:56 PM
>> To: Jouni; cjbc@it.uc3m.es; 'Korhonen, Jouni'; 'Balázs Varga A';
>> detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] DP DT solution draft slides for IETF99
>>
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> I am not sure we need to introduce S-Label in the first place.
>> As I remember, we had some consensus that PW label has carried enough
>> information in the f2f discussion happened during the last IETF meeting.
>> And S-label is regarded redundant for PW. Did I miss something?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Yuanlong
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Detnet-dp-dt [mailto:detnet-dp-dt-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
>> Jouni
>> Sent: Friday, July 14, 2017 1:17 PM
>> To: cjbc@it.uc3m.es; 'Korhonen, Jouni'; 'Balázs Varga A';
>> detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] DP DT solution draft slides for IETF99
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Detnet-dp-dt [mailto:detnet-dp-dt-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
>>> Of Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano
>>> Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2017 20:39 PM
>>> To: Korhonen, Jouni <Jouni.Korhonen@nordicsemi.no>no>; Balázs Varga A
>>> <balazs.a.varga@ericsson.com>om>; detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org
>>> Subject: Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] DP DT solution draft slides for IETF99
>>>
>>> Hi Jouni,
>>>
>>> Thanks for preparing this. Some small comments below:
>>>
>>> - Slide 6: I'd remove "native" in "PW-based native DetNet" to be
>>> consistent with the terms used in the draft (alternatively, I'd use
>>> "IPv6- based native DetNet" in slide 7for consistency with "PW-based
>>> native DetNet in slide 6).
>>
>> Oops. Good catch.
>>
>>>
>>> - Slides 11 and 12: use the same order for "Flow-ID" and "SeqNum" on
>>> the slides (right hand side)
>>
>> Ok.
>>
>>
>>> - Slide 11: though I have no concrete proposal, I think the S-label
>>> could be better introduced (maybe with a figure, also introducing the
>>> (DA-)T-PE and (DA-)S-PE node terminology).
>>
>> Ok. I'll come up with something.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> - Slide 14: "already be seen" --> "already been seen"
>>
>> Ok.
>>
>> - Jouni
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Carlos
>>>
>>> On Thu, 2017-07-13 at 13:57 +0000, Korhonen, Jouni wrote:
>>>> An update.. I am still doing the QoS etc part of the deck.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> - Jouni
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Balázs Varga A [mailto:balazs.a.varga@ericsson.com]
>>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2017 12:54 PM
>>>>> To: Korhonen, Jouni <Jouni.Korhonen@nordicsemi.no>no>;
>>>>> detnet-dp-dt@ie tf.org
>>>>> Subject: RE: DP DT solution draft slides for IETF99
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Jouni,
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for preparing this. Just some fast reactions:
>>>>> - slide5-6-7: we may receive a comment that it looks like only
>>>>> end- hosts having same type (TSN, MPLS, IPv6) can be interconnected.
>>>>> I would propose to add a note, that other combinations as
>>>>> depicted requires further considerations.
>>>>>
>>>>> - slide8: we have used the MS-PW analogy during our discussions.
>>>>> However
>>>>> it is valid only if PREF is used.
>>>>> I would propose to refer on the first bullet only to "PseudoWires"
>>>>> and
>>>>> "IPv6" as the two data plane solution.
>>>>> A further note could highlight the MS-PW analogy for PREF scenarios.
>>>>>
>>>>> - slide10-11: I would pair the DetNet flow specific information
>>>>> fields to be transported with the data plane encapsulation fields.
>>>>> 	DetNet flow	Encapsulation fields
>>>>> 	Flow ID:	PW label
>>>>> 	Seq. number: 	CW
>>>>>
>>>>> - slide14: regarding multicast DetNet flows I would formulate
>>>>> somewhat different. In my view we have considered p2p data plane
>>>>> solutions.
>>>>> The defined data plane works for DetNet flows having multicast
>>>>> dst- address assuming that the DetNet domain provides p2p connectivity.
>>>>> We may also receive comments that many DetNet flows are multicast
>>>>> (e.g., TSN flows using IEEE-FRER, etc.)
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers
>>>>> Bala'zs
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Detnet-dp-dt [mailto:detnet-dp-dt-bounces@ietf.org] On
>>>>> Behalf Of Korhonen, Jouni
>>>>> Sent: 2017. július 12. 23:29
>>>>> To: detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org
>>>>> Subject: [Detnet-dp-dt] DP DT solution draft slides for IETF99
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry about this taking so long. Please, have a look and flame on..
>>>>> There's still time to work on the actual content. However, keep
>>>>> in mind that this is mainly an update from last time.
>>>>>
>>>>> - Jouni
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Detnet-dp-dt mailing list
>>>> Detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet-dp-dt
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Detnet-dp-dt mailing list
>>> Detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet-dp-dt
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Detnet-dp-dt mailing list
>> Detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet-dp-dt
>> _______________________________________________
>> Detnet-dp-dt mailing list
>> Detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet-dp-dt
>> _______________________________________________
>> Detnet-dp-dt mailing list
>> Detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet-dp-dt
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Detnet-dp-dt mailing list
> Detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet-dp-dt
> _______________________________________________
> 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