Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] Flow-ID vs. scalability (further thoughts to dinner discussion)
Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> Wed, 29 March 2017 16:19 UTC
Return-Path: <lberger@labn.net>
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 EB7061243F3
for <detnet-dp-dt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 09:19:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.495
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.495 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1,
HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001,
RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-2.796, RCVD_IN_PSBL=2.7, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5,
SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (768-bit key)
header.d=labn.net
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 Yp6d9QpnLfB6 for <detnet-dp-dt@ietfa.amsl.com>;
Wed, 29 Mar 2017 09:19:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gproxy2-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com
(gproxy2-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com [69.89.18.3])
by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 30B5612778E
for <Detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 09:19:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 18173 invoked by uid 0); 29 Mar 2017 16:19:50 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO cmgw3) (10.0.90.84)
by gproxy2.mail.unifiedlayer.com with SMTP; 29 Mar 2017 16:19:50 -0000
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]) by cmgw3 with
id 1sKm1v00S2SSUrH01sKp3i; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 10:19:50 -0600
X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.2 cv=VKStp5HX c=1 sm=1 tr=0
a=h1BC+oY+fLhyFmnTBx92Jg==:117 a=h1BC+oY+fLhyFmnTBx92Jg==:17
a=6Iz7jQTuP9IA:10 a=r77TgQKjGQsHNAKrUKIA:9 a=0FD05c-RAAAA:8 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8
a=HBY0SsuilmViKByK09kA:9 a=P4KZltMBRbCXjBUZ:21 a=cnqgrtoqOUsGI0FX:21
a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=h1K0Gj7F3TQEbcOZnRYA:9 a=YhjKXOvaTw-V1hr3:21
a=9XWP-3yfEBRJxPXa:21 a=taP1oxIycjpNJn3D:21 a=UiCQ7L4-1S4A:10
a=_W_S_7VecoQA:10 a=frz4AuCg-hUA:10 a=l1rpMCqCXRGZwUSuRcM3:22
a=w1C3t2QeGrPiZgrLijVG:22
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=labn.net;
s=default; h=Content-Type:MIME-Version:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:
Message-ID:Date:To:From:Sender:Reply-To:Cc:Content-Transfer-Encoding:
Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:
Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:
List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive;
bh=thPTdRe1HXjaKBviNlP9iohE8ht7fFKUNAsiMMz5npY=; b=T86P3FWIHbYSRQjhawHRdZB75W
iTgVDTJRoB+JJqniB96RMk0C029X25h2nQo5loAAM0qdNWnmEigjnsHY0+dGUcJIAsbSlJqX9ESu/
54pcxpbrGeg55VkpO6YG3pOZo;
Received: from dhcp-81bc.meeting.ietf.org ([31.133.129.188]:38099)
by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128)
(Exim 4.87) (envelope-from <lberger@labn.net>)
id 1ctGK2-0006C1-Bc; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 10:19:46 -0600
From: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
To: =?UTF-8?B?QmFsw6F6cyBWYXJnYSBB?= <balazs.a.varga@ericsson.com>,
<Detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org>
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 11:19:41 -0500
Message-ID: <15b1add9160.27d3.9b4188e636579690ba6c69f2c8a0f1fd@labn.net>
In-Reply-To: <DBXPR07MB1282766A1A436978E6D8FFFAC350@DBXPR07MB128.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
References: <DBXPR07MB1282766A1A436978E6D8FFFAC350@DBXPR07MB128.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
User-Agent: AquaMail/1.8.2-216 (build: 100800200)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----------15b1add957157fb27d364bb48e"
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse,
please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - box313.bluehost.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - labn.net
X-BWhitelist: no
X-Source-IP: 31.133.129.188
X-Exim-ID: 1ctGK2-0006C1-Bc
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
X-Source-Sender: dhcp-81bc.meeting.ietf.org [31.133.129.188]:38099
X-Source-Auth: lberger@labn.net
X-Email-Count: 3
X-Source-Cap: bGFibm1vYmk7bGFibm1vYmk7Ym94MzEzLmJsdWVob3N0LmNvbQ==
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet-dp-dt/RuzQFWPC690ltb0sKXbOVNr323s>
Subject: Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] Flow-ID vs. scalability (further thoughts to
dinner discussion)
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: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 16:19:56 -0000
Great idea. I can get a room assigned. How about 2pm today or first thing tomorrow -8 or 9? Lou On March 29, 2017 10:43:32 AM Balázs Varga A <balazs.a.varga@ericsson.com> wrote: > Hi All, > I have some thoughts below regarding the Flow-ID discussion at yesterday > dinner. > Could we gain that we are at the same location and have a side meeting > today (afternoon or evening) or tomorrow (afternoon)? > Cheers > Bala'zs > > My interpretation on the Flow-ID and its scalability. Please comment. > Let's list the end-systems together with their used encapsulation. > Starting with how it works with a TSN host and a TSN domain: > - TSN (L2) host: host is not IP aware, flow is directly encapsulated in > Ethernet. > A StreamID is used constructed by "src-MAC + UniqueID" as per IEEE: > "The StreamID includes the following subcomponents: > - A 48-bit MAC Address associated with the Talker sourcing the > stream to the bridged network. > - A 16-bit unsigned integer value, Unique ID, used to distinguish > among multiple streams sourced by the same Talker." > The UniqeID is not traveling with the Ethernet frame, but the multicast dst-MAC > can be used to find out the UniqueID. So the uniqueness of StreamID achieved, > it includes the source identification and scales well. > > We can do something similarly for IP hosts and a DetNet domain: > - DetNet aware IP host: flow is encapsulated in "PW over IP". Seq.num and > Flow-ID added by the host. So if we would like to have an analogy with TSN, the > flow can be unambiguously identified by the "src-IP + Flow-ID". That would > scale > and is similar to TSN. > > However the difference is that in case of TSN we have just a single forwarding > paradigm: Ethernet bridging. The src-MAC and dst-MAC are visible for all > intermediate bridges, so the flow can be identified without any difficulties. > > In the "dp-sol-draft" we have defined the Flow-ID somewhat different to avoid > DPI (i.e., checking src/dst MAC/IP addresses) during transport to recognize > the flows. > The Flow-ID is placed in the PW encapsulation header, so easy to find it > and use it > whatever DetNet domain (IP or MPLS) you are crossing. > > In case of DetNet we have two forwarding paradigm: (i) IP routing and (ii) MPLS > switching. Therefore checking the "src-IP + Flow-ID" is somewhat more > complicated > for intermediate nodes. For example, in case of MPLS the "src-IP" is in the > encapsulation payload, so we need DPI. > Furthermore if we interconnect TSN End-systems over DetNet there is no > "src-IP". > So we have solved the difficulties with "src-IP" by defining the "Flow-ID" > as to be > unique with all the concerns regarding scalability. > > So what could be a better approach if we intend to solve scalability. We > need two IDs. > (1) one identifying the source of the flow and (2) an other one to > distinguish multiple > flows sent by the same source. For the second one we already have the Flow-ID. > What could be selected for the first one? > - src-MAC: not visible in many cases (e.g., source behind a routed domain, > etc.) > - src-IP: may not present (e.g., in case of TSN host) > - PW-label: it is always present. > - new field: to be defined in the encapsulation > Making the PW-label source specific and constant during transport sounds > similar as > segment routing, however here we have to allocate label space for hosts and not > per network nodes. So it may hurt scalability again. > > What about the new field? And we do not have to define a pretty new one just > extend and add structure to the already defined "DetNet flow identity word". > - 16 bit Flow-ID: distinguish flows per source (same size as for TSN ! ) > - 46 bit Src-ID: distinguish the source > - 1 bit: direction bit > - 1 bit: reserved > So we are adding 64 bit instead of 32 in order to ensure scalability ... > 0 1 2 3 > 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > |r|D| 46 bit src identity | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | src identity cont. | 16 bit flow identity | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > In the src-ID you can map a unique ID for sources. Some possible examples: > - L2 host: src-MAC without BC-bit and Local-administration-bit (48-2=46 bits) > - L3 (IPv4) host: src-IP address + zeros to fill up the field > - L3 (IPv6) host: IPv6 host have 128 bit src-IP, so we may need a preconfigured > ID for the IPv6 host used for DetNet purposes. > > Thanks if You have read so far ... > > Note: For the scenario with DetNet unaware IP host(s): host sends flow needing > DetNet treatment. First DA-T-PE has to create the PW encapsulation (adding > seq.num and Flow-ID). It is a task of the DA-T-PE to create the field values as > specified above. > > > > > > ---------- > _______________________________________________ > Detnet-dp-dt mailing list > Detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet-dp-dt >
- [Detnet-dp-dt] Flow-ID vs. scalability (further t… Balázs Varga A
- Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] Flow-ID vs. scalability (furth… Lou Berger
- Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] Flow-ID vs. scalability (furth… Jouni Korhonen
- Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] Flow-ID vs. scalability (furth… Jiangyuanlong
- Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] Flow-ID vs. scalability (furth… Jouni Korhonen
- Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] Flow-ID vs. scalability (furth… Balázs Varga A
- Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] Flow-ID vs. scalability (furth… Lou Berger
- Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] Flow-ID vs. scalability (furth… Lou Berger
- Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] Flow-ID vs. scalability (furth… Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano