### 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

- [Detnet-dp-dt] DP DT solution draft slides for IE… Korhonen, Jouni
- Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] DP DT solution draft slides fo… Balázs Varga A
- Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] DP DT solution draft slides fo… Korhonen, Jouni
- Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] DP DT solution draft slides fo… Korhonen, Jouni
- Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] DP DT solution draft slides fo… Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano
- Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] DP DT solution draft slides fo… Jouni
- Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] DP DT solution draft slides fo… Jiangyuanlong
- Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] DP DT solution draft slides fo… Jiangyuanlong
- Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] DP DT solution draft slides fo… Lou Berger
- Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] DP DT solution draft slides fo… Korhonen, Jouni
- Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] DP DT solution draft slides fo… Jiangyuanlong
- Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] DP DT solution draft slides fo… Loa Andersson
- Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] DP DT solution draft slides fo… Lou Berger
- Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] DP DT solution draft slides fo… János Farkas
- Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] DP DT solution draft slides fo… Loa Andersson
- Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] DP DT solution draft slides fo… Korhonen, Jouni