IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] FRER example.. maybe a way forward? was Re: quick notes from call 2/14/15

Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu> Sun, 19 February 2017 07:26 UTC

Return-Path: <loa@pi.nu>
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 B1D4F128824 for <detnet-dp-dt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 18 Feb 2017 23:26:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-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 w1LstnjBlpiC for <detnet-dp-dt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 18 Feb 2017 23:26:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pipi.pi.nu (pipi.pi.nu [83.168.239.141]) (using TLSv1.1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A39EA12706D for <detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org>; Sat, 18 Feb 2017 23:26:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.11] (unknown [122.52.25.23]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: loa@pi.nu) by pipi.pi.nu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E1D8518013BE; Sun, 19 Feb 2017 08:26:45 +0100 (CET)
To: Jouni Korhonen <jouni.korhonen@broadcom.com>
References: <BDABA4E9-F3F5-4EA3-BB16-BE877A70F0B6@broadcom.com> <FBC4D57C-51D4-41A8-95D7-56AF22084852@broadcom.com> <9E4E59F6-0E62-476B-897F-D2D59E94C6EB@broadcom.com> <f3bbb70a-0f5d-b515-6c5a-1d31ba5ae5a2@pi.nu> <6F2B8081-ADB8-4B4F-BACD-78DFB63B8FBE@broadcom.com> <bbfe82c3-5127-31de-01b7-3e6e820d5142@pi.nu> <EA2608B3-C11A-444B-B1E8-379B8A195B6D@broadcom.com>
From: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>
Message-ID: <c9e9931d-6f74-9ae0-2e34-e400c5cf92b4@pi.nu>
Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2017 15:26:37 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <EA2608B3-C11A-444B-B1E8-379B8A195B6D@broadcom.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet-dp-dt/gOJT_2Uvfava6A-n7Wg0_sSkbes>
Cc: detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] FRER example.. maybe a way forward? was Re: quick notes from call 2/14/15
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: Sun, 19 Feb 2017 07:26:49 -0000


On 2017-02-19 15:22, Jouni Korhonen wrote:
>
<snip>
>> I don't follow - let us say we have one Ethernet and one TDM PW crossing
>> the domain, id e use the same d-pw label, how do we know which one we
>> do Ethernet NSP and which one we do TDM NSP on??
>
> Of course each e2e detnet flow have their own d-pw. Otherwise you cannot make a difference between them. Being the same means an e2e detnet flow would have a single d-pw label throughout the detnet/administrative domain in each x-PE.
>
OK . so what you are saying is that replicated packets will have the 
same d-pw? I agree to that!

/Loa
> - Jouni
<snip>
-- 


Loa Andersson                        email: loa@mail01.huawei.com
Senior MPLS Expert                          loa@pi.nu
Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: +46 739 81 21 64

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email