Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] changes to document pushed & some questions...
"Jouni" <jouni.nospam@gmail.com> Tue, 27 June 2017 22:44 UTC
Return-Path: <jouni.nospam@gmail.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 B8544124D37 for <detnet-dp-dt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Jun 2017 15:44:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 5XG5w-05oTR9 for <detnet-dp-dt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Jun 2017 15:44:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf0-x22e.google.com (mail-pf0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CE3F0126B7F for <Detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Jun 2017 15:44:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id e7so23409373pfk.0 for <Detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Jun 2017 15:44:55 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:to:references:in-reply-to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding:thread-index:content-language; bh=jtJKvp8pDRV/t+6Srd2CpksnExTP4uRPdnvhcrAmokE=; b=Du6IT9UFn1SAwLs+1fgmyUxjUJ9i+8uOPPgkqmbidQqnFiNlSfcSjVZ6+Cj+ijvV6L T4WrM1FK0xtCGwoz8zMLDqo4u5egCO/KRdA7XPEozXNQ5VRbLBo+t82dYHvoMqYQmOan zRgSArXzabI5+b7WzmCvZzIirnQSL9pggxuumw01maeXno+28XXgMkziXIInRDg0z9Dg gm15SdskzgCqX25FamhQ3SPNV5u05RF098ez8StdEjLMlo50VXL6Pf+/aM5Arn3cr5QQ PGx7n9MykhSkTg5GN7zsDiKsTBVdAc9cugY3CwiDHkGPBx6q3z3h8nvyHPIyVJ9YIIOP q++A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:references:in-reply-to:subject:date :message-id:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:thread-index :content-language; bh=jtJKvp8pDRV/t+6Srd2CpksnExTP4uRPdnvhcrAmokE=; b=I8Cak3l01sc+vNpwoIpsl3GhcXN6X6EbiUI5f0hZ0lvNFDAMb23RNhMLEONWB2hwIv fYfenJRcPZWgUTLXgNJ/fEARKbfy9ZtXvq1hi6hTuRPRPJwqlYq1naM5FmfYcrn38iml cpPPu/G+oDrkAO/yEihiV2spWJJmhaICqk2YRTgVOqfGxtRy/LVshd2W7v+uKnY4VabH MO5qQDnLGJGcNomfXmfOjR9x0YkZClfbiuy7ljkB4mYJq6J1zYJdo6c4mO1zAfR0WH1p 91uAr3RIE+KKImpCa1dj85bSIpSFtS+ZIAkN4uycWGwiJvCqZPy22i2Esoi17I1E+0Ay HMTA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKS2vOxgsheRJ5VgDUyLN1IUht13+3mbBnalgvj05L/u8fGSbna5Hbim wmBFQaiHqK3FZw==
X-Received: by 10.98.66.147 with SMTP id h19mr7628004pfd.178.1498603495428; Tue, 27 Jun 2017 15:44:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from JOKO ([2601:647:4200:e520:65ed:8701:c1ca:dc8c]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id w85sm527874pfj.115.2017.06.27.15.44.53 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 27 Jun 2017 15:44:54 -0700 (PDT)
From: Jouni <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>
To: 'Lou Berger' <lberger@labn.net>, 'Balázs Varga A' <balazs.a.varga@ericsson.com>, Detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org
References: <a05d7a04-0768-07bc-d76e-620dcab64b54@labn.net> <DBXPR07MB1286C571697E6F1988FB28FACDF0@DBXPR07MB128.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <8096bddd-91c0-fecb-7f72-f182ac4817e5@labn.net> <DBXPR07MB12853204AD0E951EC499038ACDC0@DBXPR07MB128.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <5c96e587-493b-88ca-9a8c-12c7abcaca51@labn.net> <f8171209-0fa3-f529-767d-17df7ef947ee@labn.net>
In-Reply-To: <f8171209-0fa3-f529-767d-17df7ef947ee@labn.net>
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2017 01:44:53 +0300
Message-ID: <02bd01d2ef96$feb36bf0$fc1a43d0$@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQF+LLX1Jsiqznr7CGwqiwBVAgX3+QJ6Pp+IAYJ0Qx0CwMCDdgFlpjdsAkkfNcOij3JLYA==
Content-Language: en-us
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet-dp-dt/gEo2ACftpLl0wF15yA2jrh9K1Cg>
Subject: Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] changes to document pushed & some questions...
X-BeenThere: detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Tue, 27 Jun 2017 22:44:59 -0000
Lou, Are you now done with your edits? I was working on the same section and dropped my stuff in a favor of yours ;) I'll still want to revisit Section 6 before statingnthe draft is ready for adoption. - Jouni > -----Original Message----- > From: Detnet-dp-dt [mailto:detnet-dp-dt-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Lou > Berger > Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2017 00:36 AM > To: Balázs Varga A <balazs.a.varga@ericsson.com>; Detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] changes to document pushed & some questions... > > I just added a few word into to section 6 to highlight that it applies to > v6 and mpls: > > > This section applies equally to DetNet flows transported via IPv6 and > MPLS. While flow identification and some header related processing > will differ between the two, the considerations covered in this > section are common to both. > > feel free to check in what ever changes you want to this. > > Also I added the following comment: > > <!-- LB: I think there needs to be more text on how PREF works with > IPv6 flows. --> > > Lou > > On 6/27/2017 1:39 PM, Lou Berger wrote: > > > > On 6/27/2017 7:44 AM, Balázs Varga A wrote: > >> Hi Lou, > >> > >> - Bidirectional: proposed change is fine with me. > > okay, I'll make this and the s-label change > > > >> - PREF and IPv6: It is not clear for me why the PREF support is > considered to be different. > >> From data plane perspective the PREF related chapters are formulated > >> to be encapsulation independent. The only difference is that in case > >> of IPv6 the flow-ID does not change during the transport ("src-IPv6 + > >> Flow-label" remains unchanged), whereas it may change in case of MPLS > >> (PW-label value may change on a PREF node). But the rest is the same > from data plane function perspective (i.e., eliminate duplicates based on > seq-num; do replication). > > I didn't get this from reading the document the first time. I'll > > reread and suggest clarifications if needed. > > > >> Have I missed something? Do You mean different control plane > requirements? > > No, I was thinking data plane. > > > > Thanks, > > Lou > >> Cheers > >> Bala'zs > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Detnet-dp-dt [mailto:detnet-dp-dt-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf > >> Of Lou Berger > >> Sent: 2017. június 26. 17:55 > >> To: Balázs Varga A <balazs.a.varga@ericsson.com>; > >> Detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org > >> Subject: Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] changes to document pushed & some > questions... > >> > >> > >> > >> On 6/26/2017 11:00 AM, Balázs Varga A wrote: > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> I have reviewed all the changes. I am fine with almost all of them > >>> with the remarks below: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Figure4: In my view it should be the same figure as Figure 3, as > >>> DetNet End Systems are connected. > >>> > >>> In this case the End Systems generate IPv6 packets with included > >>> seq-num and are connected to > >>> > >>> Relay nodes, what results in no difference regarding the DetNet > >>> functionalities. > >>> > >> It's my understanding that there is major difference in PREF support in > this case. > >> > >>> It would be a more interesting figure where IPv6 DetNet End Systems > >>> are connected > >>> > >>> to an MPLS based DetNet domain, but it is similar from DetNet > >>> function perspective to Figure 2. > >>> > >>> Let's list the possible combinations: > >>> > >>> - We have three End System types: (1) TSN, (2) IPv6 and (3) > >>> MPLS-capable > >>> > >>> - We have two PSN encapsulations: (1) IPv6 and (2) PWoMPLS > >>> > >>> There are six possible combinations, however they result in 2 major > >>> variants from DetNet functions > >>> > >>> perspective: > >>> > >>> (1) End System type <> PSN type (TSN + IPv6, TSN + PWoMPLS, IPv6 + > >>> PWoMPLS, MPLS-capable + IPv6) > >>> > >>> Edge node needed to ensure PSN specific encapsulation > >>> > >>> (2) End System type = PSN type (IPv6 + IPv6, MPLS-capable + > >>> PWoMPLS) > >>> > >>> No need for Edge node as the encapsulation does not change. > >>> > >>> (Note: I think we should treat "MPLS-capable + IPv6" as an invalid > >>> combination ... ) > >>> > >>> Figure 2 and Figure 3 are the representation of these two major > >>> variants. So do we really need Figure 4? > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>> 522 DetNet composite flow, perhaps even when both LSPs appear > >>> on the > >>> > >>> 522 DetNet compound flow, perhaps even when both LSPs appear on > the > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>> doesn't the above (sec 5.2.2.) imply the PREF with IPv6 is always > >>> end-to-end, ... > >>> > >>> I think this needs further discussion. The intention is to make PREF > >>> independent of domain borders and > >>> > >>> domain encapsulations. > >>> > >> It would be good to describe how this works in the v6 case > >>> > >>> > >>>> 1033 7.4. Bidirectional traffic > >>> This chapter is very much MPLS focused, however the findings are > >>> also valid for IPv6. Should we make that > >>> > >>> more clear? > >>> > >> My objective in the first paragraph was to introduce the co-routed and > associated concepts/terminology and then say how. How about changing the > last paragraph to: > >> > >> > >> While the IPv6 and MPLS data planes must support bidirectional > DetNet flows, there > >> are no special bidirectional features with respect to the data plane > >> other than need for the two directions take the same paths. Note, > >> that there is no stated requirement for bidirectional DetNet flows > to > >> be supported using same IPv6 Flow Label or MPLS Labels in each > direction. > >> Control mechanisms will need to support such bidirectional flows for > both IPv6 and MPLS, but > >> such mechanisms are out of scope of this document. > >> > >> Lou > >> > >>> > >>> > >>> Cheers > >>> > >>> Bala'zs > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: Detnet-dp-dt [mailto:detnet-dp-dt-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf > >>> Of Lou Berger > >>> Sent: 2017. június 21. 4:25 > >>> To: Detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org > >>> Subject: [Detnet-dp-dt] changes to document pushed & some questions... > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> All, > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> I made a bunch of changes based on going though the document. Most > >>> of the comments I discussed. I put non-discussed ones in their own > >>> commits so it would be easier to eliminate them. Changes are as > follows: > >>> > >>> commit f79188034b23c80dab2985dc359176e93855376e > >>> > >>> Update txt to match change set > >>> > >>> commit 01a1798e4645518bb61acf42444b17466c3b56c1 > >>> > >>> Make capitalization of section headings consistent. > >>> > >>> Not saying I agree with what's there, but now it's > >>> consistent. > >>> > >>> commit 27103f9af301d1a270ca7d6c9bd59a358dc9d1b0 > >>> > >>> Revise CoS and QoS sections > >>> > >>> commit c98c0efda04c714db22a1cea6eefb77f04d10c4b > >>> > >>> General edits: > >>> > >>> Fix some capitalization and minor nits > >>> > >>> Add intro paragraph and pointer to arch doc, and > >>> basic scope of > >>> > >>> document > >>> > >>> Add not on why not using PW over IP > >>> > >>> Add placeholder for IP native service figure (4) > >>> > >>> Start clarification on congestion protection and > >>> latency control > >>> > >>> Add some comments > >>> > >>> commit 5355f195f205d944d21d8242738fab0a6a8363ba > >>> > >>> Cleanup L-label and T-label language > >>> > >>> commit 78e937b1a25f07618b4b221140fc7fcfc2a43d02 > >>> > >>> Move Time Sync into it's own section (new 8) > >>> > >>> commit 42bcb46dde2384cb4e3f76406780137086904bae > >>> > >>> Use arch defined terms DetNet compound flow and DetNet member > >>> flow > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> I also came up with following specific questions/comments, which are > >>> also captured in comments in the file: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> WRT the title: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> <!-- LB: doesn't "Encapsulation" better fit the scope of the > >>> current > >>> > >>> document than "Solution"? --> > >>> > >>> <title abbrev="DetNet Data Plane Solution"> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> WRT L-Label > >>> > >>> <!-- LB: why is this called L-Label, I think it'll be confused > >>> with > >>> > >>> the current DiffServ L-LSPs, perhaps a using "(S)vc" would > >>> be > >>> > >>> better and is aligned with Figure 12 of RFC5921 --> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> <!-- LB: unclear what the following means. Perhaps restate or drop. > >>> --> > >>> > >>> However, transit nodes may have limited capabilities to recognize > >>> DetNet > >>> > >>> specific fields (e.g., in case of MPLS the PW label). Therefore, > >>> identifying each > >>> > >>> individual DetNet flow on a transit node may not be achieved in > >>> some network > >>> > >>> scenarios. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> in Section 5.2.1 > >>> > >>> <!-- possibly reference new interworking considerations section > >>> --> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> In section 5.3.2 > >>> > >>> <!-- LB: doesn't the above (sec 5.2.2.) imply the PREF with IPv6 > >>> is > >>> > >>> always end-to-end, or are you PREF domains with replication > >>> of > >>> > >>> incoming packets and scoped domain elimination? I think > >>> this > >>> > >>> should be explicitly discussed either way --> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> I ran out of steam at the end, but this is enough -- I think... > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> > >>> Lou > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> PS given that I now have contributed text to the document, I should > >>> be added as a contributor (or author) but I didn't do this as there > >>> was no contributor section... > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> > >>> Detnet-dp-dt mailing list > >>> > >>> Detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org <mailto:Detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org> > >>> > >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet-dp-dt > >>> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Detnet-dp-dt mailing list > >> Detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet-dp-dt > >> > > _______________________________________________ > > Detnet-dp-dt mailing list > > Detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet-dp-dt > > _______________________________________________ > Detnet-dp-dt mailing list > Detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet-dp-dt
- [Detnet-dp-dt] changes to document pushed & some … Lou Berger
- Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] changes to document pushed & s… Balázs Varga A
- Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] changes to document pushed & s… Lou Berger
- Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] changes to document pushed & s… Balázs Varga A
- Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] changes to document pushed & s… Lou Berger
- Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] changes to document pushed & s… Lou Berger
- Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] changes to document pushed & s… Jouni
- Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] changes to document pushed & s… Lou Berger
- Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] changes to document pushed & s… Jouni
- Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] changes to document pushed & s… Jouni
- Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] changes to document pushed & s… Lou Berger
- Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] changes to document pushed & s… Loa Andersson
- Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] changes to document pushed & s… Jouni