IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Detnet-dp-dt] Data Plane Approach - Synchronization Traffic

Tal Mizrahi <talmi@marvell.com> Thu, 26 January 2017 06:44 UTC

Return-Path: <talmi@marvell.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 3AC89129495 for <detnet-dp-dt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Jan 2017 22:44:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-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 NwU2DWG7kIsW for <detnet-dp-dt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Jan 2017 22:44:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx0b-0016f401.pphosted.com (mx0b-0016f401.pphosted.com [67.231.156.173]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5E962129494 for <detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Jan 2017 22:44:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0045851.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-0016f401.pphosted.com (8.16.0.20/8.16.0.20) with SMTP id v0Q6frWH016928 for <detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Jan 2017 22:44:48 -0800
Received: from il-exch02.marvell.com ([199.203.130.102]) by mx0b-0016f401.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 285p8ywrpq-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for <detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Jan 2017 22:44:48 -0800
Received: from IL-EXCH01.marvell.com (10.4.102.220) by IL-EXCH02.marvell.com (10.4.102.221) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Thu, 26 Jan 2017 08:44:46 +0200
Received: from IL-EXCH01.marvell.com ([fe80::5d63:81cd:31e2:fc36]) by IL-EXCH01.marvell.com ([fe80::5d63:81cd:31e2:fc36%20]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Thu, 26 Jan 2017 08:44:45 +0200
From: Tal Mizrahi <talmi@marvell.com>
To: "detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org" <detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Data Plane Approach - Synchronization Traffic
Thread-Index: AdJ3nXRCQSE7c1/1Shu53w5dO/RESw==
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2017 06:44:45 +0000
Message-ID: <2d23229047a4428684fa1194fd95261c@IL-EXCH01.marvell.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.4.102.210]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:, , definitions=2017-01-26_05:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1011 lowpriorityscore=0 impostorscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1612050000 definitions=main-1701260069
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet-dp-dt/fNXr8PeDAGRv9O0-k7YDQrCKzNQ>
Subject: [Detnet-dp-dt] Data Plane Approach - Synchronization Traffic
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, 26 Jan 2017 06:44:51 -0000

Hi,

I realize this is a bit off-topic, but one of the things I am wondering about is how synchronization traffic (PTP) is forwarded in the context of the data plane approaches we have been considering.
Is PTP transported as a DETNET flow?
- If the answer is no: does that mean we are assuming that synchronization is achieved at a different layer, possibly requiring dedicated communication between the customer and provider?
- If the answer is yes: not sure replication and elimination makes sense for PTP.

Will be happy to hear your thoughts, and apologies if this has already been discussed elsewhere and I am not aware.

Cheers,
Tal.

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email