IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] high level questions on detnet dataplane

"jouni.nospam" <jouni.nospam@gmail.com> Wed, 22 February 2017 15:49 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 ACCD7129A38; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 07:49:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 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] 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 ueXXOsa26Pg6; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 07:49:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pg0-x241.google.com (mail-pg0-x241.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c05::241]) (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 58F4A129A37; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 07:49:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pg0-x241.google.com with SMTP id z128so936435pgb.3; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 07:49:27 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=mFmKN/dp8+tOv5ZB0a8UemccwkpLsAAM8pl2e/LUG9Y=; b=PO5gCYiMK0mDs7awxaPMc7O4O3WyZyTUUwnMRjGxkdPQ+Y4s8MPmzt1916d7bk6Gi8 h0Y+xqc+zFkkI07n7N2t3yEi/VXHzUoefPGkaZ+T6C8i8s/JIIC9P3c1uEIwC92qRoXp 5RUX36ebf6manu+Q0LWTBf2p0pSfvdbQaUn05brM4B90ssznVmzOB/bqofrGLvQpHdFG xsxeDb13qQ45RV1SRWeQYSPc+18l2xL6ffvhHCUuDOU1O3QIWSz1xAiy07ssmHab/GGh 0a7gZVZRJyyNBva+XakhC0zwd5i9zSio0hg/GgbBCUbOsxe3Gk04DfPFPe0oQXm7SCeD aLkg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=mFmKN/dp8+tOv5ZB0a8UemccwkpLsAAM8pl2e/LUG9Y=; b=dZhxU8B15lhnJOatL22IDp9qbyudL+h+GFYg4TSH9IExytqHHwxFZ4ggwooG9oPvlq z9231SWgN2nz/Ap0NSA75UsWQdrM4ocaCBve0XNPfNz24jmajctcjGCrpvJ1+OVwm27Y JvdD8Bg80OQHOR54cH31Htf1qe/9Dpfw3NYn6e0BzIxdAXfCnlP5HpfBvT/PReRVD//c 1EDl3BiGSYkn0/8WWnBfiWxYM0pJ9mCZmMEY5RrHtp29LrpjFzizTpb9ZQrcZdNfRj33 exJhqFrZMiGd35QJCi1oVbj0FciYottEu7OHf+KI6mh86rilRad3krmafCi6AMYNm2Ty bxAQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39mTc7a0hy2pFpt4n3HrljrT+SOejJ+7MyNYfDRAmrp3D4lfge8LkZeA/nrWu3dhXw==
X-Received: by 10.84.128.8 with SMTP id 8mr14674706pla.24.1487778566935; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 07:49:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.89.94] ([216.31.219.19]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id u28sm4561729pgo.20.2017.02.22.07.49.25 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 22 Feb 2017 07:49:25 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\))
From: "jouni.nospam" <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <1645a73b-0260-327f-c45b-8bb084235689@pi.nu>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 07:49:24 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <B3001E3F-39E4-4F10-95F4-622700F95203@gmail.com>
References: <DBXPR07MB12832861ED58D86FD3D0A09AC510@DBXPR07MB128.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <F278A381-1E43-4607-8015-5CFDE871D382@broadcom.com> <DBXPR07MB1287715CE1D6AA6B6CC932DAC500@DBXPR07MB128.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <1645a73b-0260-327f-c45b-8bb084235689@pi.nu>
To: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet-dp-dt/jL9_Zrs5aP42bHoFro3ngibH8xg>
Cc: DetNet Chairs <detnet-chairs@ietf.org>, detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] high level questions on detnet dataplane
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: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 15:49:29 -0000

Hi,

> On Feb 22, 2017, at 2:32 AM, Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu> wrote:
> 
> Folks,
> 
> two questions, the first because I've be taling it for granted, the second brought up bu two indenpendent people I talked about DetNet with.
> 
> - is a design criteria that the existing MPLS control plane protocols
>  shall be able to use with the DetNet dataplane?

My understanding is “as much as possible” but not restricted by it if something is missing at this point.

> - I’ve heard the opinion (from two different directions) that doing

Who are? Because, I have not heard complaints myself other than those we have discussed in the DT..

>  replication/elimination other than at the egress/ingress will make the

This I definitely agree, but still want to solve it.

>  solution to complicated. Do we have a good motiation why we need it?

Too complicated meaning:
1) it changes too many things architecturally/conceptually, or
2) the current sw would need a facelift, or
3) the current hw would need a facelift

Replication/elimination was one of the criterias we set up when we started working on data plane alternatives. That originates from the “service protection”, and in a case of protection we wanted to match what 802.1CB is capable of at the L2.

- Jouni

> 
> /Loa
> -- 
> 
> 
> 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