IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] Using MS-PW concept for the d-pw

Jiangyuanlong <jiangyuanlong@huawei.com> Thu, 23 February 2017 01:36 UTC

Return-Path: <jiangyuanlong@huawei.com>
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 53B7D129495 for <detnet-dp-dt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 17:36:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.221
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.221 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 ntu88k2ZMhaF for <detnet-dp-dt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 17:36:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 43DE8129474 for <detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 17:36:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml708-cah.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id DHP14206; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 01:36:28 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from SZXEMA411-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.72.70) by lhreml708-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.49) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.301.0; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 01:36:27 +0000
Received: from SZXEMA506-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.4.67]) by szxema411-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.82.72.70]) with mapi id 14.03.0235.001; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 09:36:16 +0800
From: Jiangyuanlong <jiangyuanlong@huawei.com>
To: =?utf-7?B?QmFsK0FPRS16cyBWYXJnYSBB?= <balazs.a.varga@ericsson.com>, "detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org" <detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Using MS-PW concept for the d-pw
Thread-Index: AdKNIl29YFidtgxOTBibC2VpCfyDbAAUQ3Xw
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 01:36:15 +0000
Message-ID: <3B0A1BED22CAD649A1B3E97BE5DDD68BBAB14536@szxema506-mbs.china.huawei.com>
References: <DBXPR07MB128EDEE38C28B6C894DE489AC500@DBXPR07MB128.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <DBXPR07MB128EDEE38C28B6C894DE489AC500@DBXPR07MB128.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.74.203.119]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-7"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A020203.58AE3C9D.0050, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0, ip=169.254.4.67, so=2013-06-18 04:22:30, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32
X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: 8fc41d113a069814f8e89459f510009f
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet-dp-dt/UzaMcTHwZuVHKDsq9QczVZD7804>
Subject: Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] Using MS-PW concept for the d-pw
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: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 01:36:33 -0000

Balazs,

I agree with you that MS-PW is the good candidate. Since B will allocate platform-unique PW label for each PW segment (terminated on B), there is no collision of PW label value.
Furthermore, DetNet Id label is not needed if we use MS-PW concept.
My slides sent the day before yesterday discusses in more details how the MS-PW approach can work.

Thanks,
Yuanlong

From: Detnet-dp-dt [mailto:detnet-dp-dt-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Balázs Varga A
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2017 12:08 AM
To: detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org
Subject: [Detnet-dp-dt] Using MS-PW concept for the d-pw

Hi,

d-pw collision can be solved if the MS-PW concept is used for the DetNet-PW.
d-pws between x-PE nodes have their own d-pw label. X-PE nodes do d-pw label swap.
Replicas of a detnet flow have to use different d-pw label. 

I have attached a simplified figure:
- detnet-flow1: A -- > D (B is just a segment-stitching point, C does elimination)
- detnet-flow2: F -- > G (E is just a segment-stitching point, B does elimination)

There is no d-pw label collision at B as it allocates the d-pw label for the segments of the 
DetNet-PW. So B can ensure that no collision occurs. 

You can treat as a drawback that you need a state for each segment, but that is the same as for 
“normal” MS-PW scenarios.

As a side effect l-labels are not needed at all. Comments are welcome.

Cheers
Bala’zs

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email