Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] Section 4.1 added (DP solution requirements)

[Lou Berger <[e-mail]>]

Which option do you prefer?


On 3/8/2017 3:18 PM, Jouni Korhonen wrote:
> WFM.
>
> 3/8/2017, 5:56 AM, Lou Berger kirjoitti:
>> On 3/8/2017 7:35 AM, Loa Andersson wrote:
>>> Folks,
>>>
>>> One terminology question, I don't really have any opinion on what we
>>> call things, but I'm definitely for that we only have one name for one
>>> thing.
>>>
>>> Today we use T-PE and S-PE, but also T-DetNet-PE and S-DetNet-PE, can we
>>> converge. My slight preference would be  T-DetNet-PE and S-DetNet-PE,
>>> to differentiate it from "normal" S-PE and T-PE.
>> The architecture defines this as:
>>
>>    DetNet intermediate node
>>            A DetNet relay node or transit node.
>>
>> And some good examples are in the DP Alternatives draft
>>
>>   TSN              Edge          Transit        Relay        DetNet
>>   End System       Node            Node         Node         End System
>>
>>   +---------+    +.........+                                 +---------+
>>   |  Appl.  |<---:Svc Proxy:-- End to End Service ---------->|  Appl.  |
>>   +---------+    +---------+                   +---------+   +---------+
>>   |   TSN   |    |TSN| |Svc|<-- DetNet flow ---: Service :-->| Service |
>>   +---------+    +---+ +---+    +---------+    +---------+   +---------+
>>   |Transport|    |Trp| |Trp|    |Transport|    |Trp| |Trp|   |Transport|
>>   +-------.-+    +-.-+ +-.-+    +--.----.-+    +-.-+ +-.-+   +---.-----+
>>           :  Link  :    /  ,-----.  \   :  Link  :    /  ,-----.  \
>>           +........+    +-[  Sub  ]-+   +........+    +-[  Sub  ]-+
>>                           [Network]                     [Network]
>>                            `-----'                       `-----'
>>
>>                  Figure 1: A Simple DetNet Enabled Network
>>
>>
>>           DetNet                                           DetNet
>>           Service         Transit          Transit        Service
>>    DetNet   |          |<-Tunnel->|     |<-Tunnel->|         |    DetNet
>>    End      |          V     1    V     V     2    V         |    End
>>    System   |    +-----+          +-----+          +-----+   |    System
>>    +---+    |    |S-PE1|==========|S-PE2|==========|S-PE3|   |    +---+
>>    |  X....DFa.....X_.......DF1.......X_....DF3........X.....DFa...X  |
>>    |CE1|=========|  \  |          |  /  |          |  /  |========|CE2|
>>    |   |    |    |   \......DF2.....X_......DF4....../   |   |    |   |
>>    +---+         |     |==========|     |==========|     |        +---+
>>        ^         +-----+          +-----+          +-----+        ^
>>        |        Relay Node       Relay Node       Relay Node      |
>>        |                                                          |
>>        |<------------- End to End DetNet Service ---------------->|
>>
>>                           Figure 5: Native DetNet
>>
>>
>> So I think what you are asking for is a shorthand for a 'S-PE that is a
>> DetNet (aware) Relay Node' , right?
>> How about one or more of the following:
>>     - DetNet S-PE
>>     - DA-S-PE (DA=DetNet Aware)
>>     - DC-S-PE (DA=DetNet Capable)
>>     - DR-S-PE (DR=DetNet Relay)
>>     - DRN-S-PE (DRN=DetNet Relay Node)
>>
>> Lou
>>
>>> /Loa
>>>
>>> On 2017-03-08 13:46, Balázs Varga A wrote:
>>>> Hi Jouni,
>>>>
>>>> OK, I think my text may not be clear enough. Local-ID is not meant as a router id.
>>>> " Each node (T-PE, S-PE and P) use a local-ID of the detnet-(compound)-flow in order to accomplish its role during transport."
>>>> Local-ID refers to an ID used by a node to identify internally a DetNet-flow. Maybe "local-Flow-ID" would express it better.
>>>> Such a "local-Flow-ID" value may or may not differ from the "Flow-ID" value encoded in the DetNet packet. If it is different
>>>> we fallback to what You have called "virtual-label".
>>>>
>>>> I hope that clarifies your concerns.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers
>>>> Bala'zs
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Jouni Korhonen [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2017 8:21 PM
>>>> To: Balázs Varga A <[e-mail]>
>>>> Cc: [e-mail]
>>>> Subject: Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] Section 4.1 added (DP solution requirements)
>>>>
>>>> Thanks Balazs,
>>>>
>>>> I am not quite sure about the local-id text:
>>>> "Local-ID MUST be unambiguously bounded to the Flow-ID encoded in the DetNet packet."
>>>>
>>>> By default each router has their unique router id with the autonomous system that you need e.g., with routing protocols.
>>>>
>>>> If the flow-id is unique within the detnet domain I am not sure what mapping the above is talking about. Do you mean that a set of flow-ids would belong to a router (identified by a local-id)?
>>>>
>>>> - Jouni
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 3/7/2017, 10:23 AM, Balázs Varga A kirjoitti:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>> Section 4.1 added on the GitHub.
>>>>> Cheers
>>>>> Bala'zs
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Jouni Korhonen [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>>>> Sent: Monday, March 06, 2017 7:23 PM
>>>>> To: Balázs Varga A <[e-mail]>om>; Loa Andersson
>>>>> <[e-mail]>
>>>>> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] about identity labels.. was Re: new
>>>>> versions of my slides
>>>>>
>>>>> Balazs,
>>>>>
>>>>> Your proposed Section 4.x would definitely be good to have. I am not too much for Section 4.y since I do not see it would not be needed in the final document, except for the definitions that should go to Section 2.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regarding the two choices we have now I just add prologue text and describe (graphically both). The logic of the "identity label/tag" is mostly the same independent of the location in the stack. The processing is of course different.
>>>>>
>>>>> - Jouni
>>>>>
>>>>> 3/6/2017, 9:49 AM, Balázs Varga A kirjoitti:
>>>>>> Hi Jouni,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> just for clarification: Do we intend to list all options in the draft ???
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They all have pros and cons ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Anyway I think we need a structure like below in the draft for
>>>>>> example
>>>>>>
>>>>>> in section 4. Is it inline with your intention? Shall I prepare some
>>>>>> text
>>>>>>
>>>>>> around this items for the call on Wednesday?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *4.x DP solution requirements*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> List of prerequisites for a proper solution on an x-PE:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1, to distinguish PWs going through (operation label-swap) and PWs
>>>>>> need DetNet serving (e.g., FRER)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2, to handle PW-label collisions (without major implementation
>>>>>> difficulties)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 3, to work with both centralized control and distributed control
>>>>>> (signaling)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *4.y DP solution toolset*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Description of the toolset discussed so far:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A, L-label: additional label between t-label and PW-label
>>>>>>
>>>>>> B, different PW-labels per segment: similar to the MS-PW label
>>>>>> allocation mechanism
>>>>>>
>>>>>> C, e2e PW label: no change of the PW-label (same PW-label value
>>>>>> between T-PE nodes)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> D, d-id label: additional label used as T-PE identification
>>>>>>
>>>>>> E, Flow-ID outside of the label stack
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bala'zs
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: Detnet-dp-dt [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf
>>>>>> Of Loa Andersson
>>>>>> Sent: Monday, March 06, 2017 3:07 AM
>>>>>> To: Jouni Korhonen <[e-mail]>
>>>>>> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] about identity labels.. was Re: new
>>>>>> versions of my slides
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jouni,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2017-03-06 07:36, Jouni Korhonen wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - global as the special purpose labels, seems unlikely
>>>>>>>> - global as unique with in the domain, though we know there is a
>>>>>>>> scaling  problem
>>>>>>>> - global for one sender, not that different from d-id, other that
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> placment in the stack
>>>>>>>> ???
>>>>>>> In my small mind I reasoned it to be unique within one domain. Since
>>>>>> the identity would now be 32 bits (there is no need to restrict it to
>>>>>> 20 bits since it is part of the _encapsulation_header_ not the label
>>>>>> stack), the scaling concern is more relaxed. Assuming each node in
>>>>>> the domain would like to be able to name 4k unique detnet flows of
>>>>>> their own then the domain could host 1M such detnet nodes.. not too
>>>>>> bad for one domain.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My earlier calculations estimated that we would have about the number
>>>>>> of PWs between any pair of T-DetNet-PEs would be about 400 and the
>>>>>> number T-DetNet-PEs about 1000.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 32 bits is  4 000 millions, so there is ample number of flow id's
>>>>>> even if we would have to configure a range on each T-DetNet-PE.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So you look at the flow-id and then compare the CW/Seq #, right?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now, range configuration is a kludge, can we find a way to avoid it,
>>>>>> maybe d-pw + node-id would work, all this would have to happen in the
>>>>>> context of the (outgoing) d-pw anyway, right?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> /Loa
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Jouni
>>>>>>>> /Loa
>>>>>>>>> Carlos
>>>>>>>>>> - Jouni
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> Detnet-dp-dt mailing list
>>>>>>>>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet-dp-dt
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Loa Andersson                        email: [e-mail]
>>>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Senior MPLS Expert                          [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>>>>>> Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: [phone]
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Detnet-dp-dt mailing list
>>>>>>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet-dp-dt
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Loa Andersson                        email: [e-mail]
>>>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Senior MPLS Expert                          [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: [phone]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Detnet-dp-dt mailing list
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet-dp-dt
>>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Detnet-dp-dt mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet-dp-dt
>>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Detnet-dp-dt mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet-dp-dt
>>