Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] quick notes from 1/31/17 call

[Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano <[e-mail]>]

Hi Jouni, all,

Thanks for the minutes and apologies for not joining this time.

I have a couple of questions:

1. For the transport, we have so far assumed MPLS and IP PSNs (focusing
the discussion mainly on MPLS until this week). Are we restricted to
only these two? I think in some use cases other transports such as
MPLS-TP can be relevant as well. Will we explore this too/make the
solution open enough to support other transports?

2. How are organizing to work on the first draft text? I'm available to
contribute text.

Thanks!

Carlos

On Wed, 2017-02-01 at 18:02 -0800, Jouni Korhonen wrote:
> Present: Jouni, Loa, Norm, Balazs, Janos, Tal and David.
> 
> See the attached slideset that was used as the basis during the call.
> The MPLS-based PWE encaps has matured, except for: 1) fine grained
> CoS (i.e., 802.1 has discussed finer granularity of CoS basically to
> a flow level. The flow identification mechanism in .1CB, .1Qci et al
> allows this), and 2) PW CW SN width. We have discussed using 28 bits
> but that might cause issues when interworking with systems that only
> understand 16 bits (HSR and PRP as an examples). 
> The CoS part and whether TC bits are copied between layers is still
> to be discussed further.
> IP PSN seems OK. The questions on the slides were discussed:
> - PW labels are still good to have. It makes the stack/implementation
> more streamlined between MPLS and IP PSNs. Also PW labels make PW
> switching way easier e.g., in a case of replication/elimination.
> - In a case of IP PSN each PW will have their own “tunnel” between T-
> /S-PEs. That means e.g., a PW between A and B will have different
> src/dst addresses than a PW between B and D. This makes pinned down
> paths easier to realize using IP PSN.
> 
> Norm asks for the cases where DetNet interworks with e.g. 802.1TSN.
> Would there be a way to regenerate MAC addresses if those are not
> transported over DetNet (this is for the case where the L2 is just so
> bug that interconnect does not make sense). Discussion.. Jouni
> commented that it is not in current document’s scope. Could be worked
> in parallel once the encaps for DetNet DP mature a bit.
> 
> Loa comments that EXP bits in an MPLS labels should use TC instead
> (Traffic Class), see RFC5462.
> 
> Jouni commented that we now start to have enough material to produce
> a draft of a draft. Expect the first version next week.
> 
> Quick discussion on 1588 PTP in DetNet. 1588 packets should not be
> replicated. Actually using DetNet encapsulation for them is not
> really a good idea. Tal will educate us more on that next time.
> 
> Action points:
> Tal will produce a slideset regarding his thoughts/concerns on 1588
> transport in DetNet.
> 
> Next call: 2/7/17 10PM PDT
> 
> 
> --
> Jouni Korhonen, Broadcom Ltd.
> M: [phone]
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Detnet-dp-dt mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet-dp-dt