IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] one question on S-DetNet-PEs

Jiangyuanlong <jiangyuanlong@huawei.com> Thu, 09 March 2017 01:37 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 4D6EF1295FD for <detnet-dp-dt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Mar 2017 17:37:30 -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 LDMgkjiGgEKs for <detnet-dp-dt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Mar 2017 17:37:28 -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 47DA712953D for <detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Mar 2017 17:37:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml703-cah.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id DIN86194; Thu, 09 Mar 2017 01:37:24 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from SZXEMA414-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.72.73) by lhreml703-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.44) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.301.0; Thu, 9 Mar 2017 01:37:24 +0000
Received: from SZXEMA506-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.4.67]) by SZXEMA414-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.82.72.73]) with mapi id 14.03.0235.001; Thu, 9 Mar 2017 09:37:14 +0800
From: Jiangyuanlong <jiangyuanlong@huawei.com>
To: "jouni.korhonen@broadcom.com" <jouni.korhonen@broadcom.com>, Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>, "detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org" <detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Detnet-dp-dt] one question on S-DetNet-PEs
Thread-Index: AQHSmA2knhdH0aWiCUuLUJFSauwBwKGK3AUAgADa+2A=
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2017 01:37:14 +0000
Message-ID: <3B0A1BED22CAD649A1B3E97BE5DDD68BBAB19847@szxema506-mbs.china.huawei.com>
References: <74ee1719-053f-e12f-304c-f3fa9cf286f5@pi.nu> <46fb38a7-8e24-325f-4c0d-9aad197e1dc6@broadcom.com>
In-Reply-To: <46fb38a7-8e24-325f-4c0d-9aad197e1dc6@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-7"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A020205.58C0B1D5.00EB, 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: e870af84a07a26433d5d944a53318856
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet-dp-dt/fbPx7Ab4avrK2Qu8gsmeYk84fLM>
Subject: Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] one question on S-DetNet-PEs
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, 09 Mar 2017 01:37:30 -0000

I agreed that tunneling is the right tool. But it seems L-lable is also used for FRER mapping in Loa's slide, not just for tunnel identification.


-----Original Message-----
From: Detnet-dp-dt [mailto:detnet-dp-dt-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jouni Korhonen
Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2017 4:18 AM
To: Loa Andersson; detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] one question on S-DetNet-PEs

Good guestion.

I guess, if you want a specific node to be a S-DetNet-PE for some overlay and P for other, you could "tunnel" through it in P case. The currect draft still has text for "overlay labels" (i.e., L-labels) and I think those would work nicely for this case as you say below.

- Jouni

3/8/2017, 5:03 AM, Loa Andersson kirjoitti:
>
> Folks,
>
> There might be a simple answer, but I don't see it just now.
>
> Suppose we have a network, where we designate a certain number of 
> nodes as S-DetNet-PEs, to build a nice overlay DetNet.
>
> Assume that we also designate another set of nodes as S-DetNet-PEs for 
> another overlay DetNet.
>
> Also assume that some nodes that are S-DetNet-PE in one network are 
> P's in the other.
>
> If we signal that we have have a detnet-ms-pw going through a P node 
> that is capable of doing elimination/replication, how do we stop the 
> P-node from doing that?
>
> This was something that the T-Lables did for us.
>
> /Loa

_______________________________________________
Detnet-dp-dt mailing list
Detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet-dp-dt

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email