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

Jiangyuanlong <jiangyuanlong@huawei.com> Sat, 25 February 2017 07:18 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 303BC1293FB for <detnet-dp-dt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 23:18:21 -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 5GNH4shYehlB for <detnet-dp-dt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 23:18:19 -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 95FEB12953E for <detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 23:18:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml708-cah.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id DBR34705; Sat, 25 Feb 2017 07:18:16 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from SZXEMA413-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.72.72) by lhreml708-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.49) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.301.0; Sat, 25 Feb 2017 07:18:16 +0000
Received: from SZXEMA506-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.4.67]) by SZXEMA413-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.82.72.72]) with mapi id 14.03.0235.001; Sat, 25 Feb 2017 15:18:07 +0800
From: Jiangyuanlong <jiangyuanlong@huawei.com>
To: Jouni Korhonen <jouni.korhonen@broadcom.com>
Thread-Topic: [Detnet-dp-dt] Using MS-PW concept for the d-pw
Thread-Index: AdKNIl29YFidtgxOTBibC2VpCfyDbP//tt2AgAFFjgD//qJIEIACf4mA//9uXqCAAKj5gP//d+tQABMaUwAAGb+uAP//T5qQ//7DXAD//P/HoA==
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2017 07:18:07 +0000
Message-ID: <3B0A1BED22CAD649A1B3E97BE5DDD68BBAB150A7@szxema506-mbs.china.huawei.com>
References: <DBXPR07MB128EDEE38C28B6C894DE489AC500@DBXPR07MB128.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <7FF14334-F3A3-4051-BAFF-750C6F70FE1A@broadcom.com> <DBXPR07MB128C5BF67FE7AC3266D868BAC530@DBXPR07MB128.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <3B0A1BED22CAD649A1B3E97BE5DDD68BBAB149ED@szxema506-mbs.china.huawei.com> <7F3B3F19-4929-485C-9434-86D6E7FDB915@broadcom.com> <3B0A1BED22CAD649A1B3E97BE5DDD68BBAB14A38@szxema506-mbs.china.huawei.com> <a27bcbab-5410-3209-fead-a178c03f89cb@pi.nu> <3B0A1BED22CAD649A1B3E97BE5DDD68BBAB14AA3@szxema506-mbs.china.huawei.com> <a9cc73c9-0cd4-71d3-c302-8b4c01d40c10@pi.nu> <11302639-28CA-469B-A7B1-AB891C14218D@broadcom.com> <3B0A1BED22CAD649A1B3E97BE5DDD68BBAB15004@szxema506-mbs.china.huawei.com> <3A2B8D75-265B-4D7F-8F20-1F9692F326C0@broadcom.com>
In-Reply-To: <3A2B8D75-265B-4D7F-8F20-1F9692F326C0@broadcom.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-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A020204.58B12FB9.0053, 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: 6d9b0c0952337121c25e5ce947d0fe22
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet-dp-dt/csQjVNNFmXR4jTs_xDz-LEEbnIw>
Cc: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>, "detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org" <detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org>
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: Sat, 25 Feb 2017 07:18:21 -0000

I agreed to alternative 2. L-label is not needed, S-PE must look into the PW label (further, extract sequence number in the CW) of a packet, and all FRER semantics can be coupled with the PW label.

-----Original Message-----
From: Jouni Korhonen [mailto:jouni.korhonen@broadcom.com] 
Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2017 3:07 PM
To: Jiangyuanlong
Cc: detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org; Loa Andersson
Subject: Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] Using MS-PW concept for the d-pw

Hi,

> [YJ] I regard the L-Labels and T-labels are the same LSP layer. If we look into the full MPLS label stack of a packet in a PW, normally there is an LSP label at the top (unless PHP is enabled for the last hop). 
> Not sure what is the L-Label in your picture, is it different from LSP label? 

L-labels have been so far in the discussion between MS-PW PEs. T-labels are between any LSR. L-labels are not PHPed i.e., even if PHP is enable the L-Label stays and the label above it gets popped (that we have been referring as T-Labels). T- and L-labels are just a naming convention. IF you don’t have “between MS-PW PEs” semantic associated with the L-Label, it is the same as T-Label ;)



case L-labels are present.. (alternative 1)
   
                     PHP
                   -------->
+------------+                  +------------+
|  T-labels  |                  |  L-label   |
+------------+                  +------------+
|  L-label   |                  | d-pw label |
+------------+                  +------------+
| d-pw label |                  |            |
+------------+                  |  Payload   |
|            |                  |            |
|  Payload   |                  +------------+
|            |
+------------+

case no L-labels.. (alternative 2.. and also alternative 3 if you think T- and L-labels are the same)

                     PHP
                   -------->
+------------+                  +------------+
|  T-labels  |                  | d-pw label |
+------------+                  +------------+
| d-pw label |                  |            |
+------------+                  |  Payload   |
|            |                  |            |
|  Payload   |                  +------------+
|            |
+------------+





- Jouni