Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] Section 4.1 added (DP solution requirements)

[Jouni Korhonen <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

DA-S-PE (like.. das PE ;)

- Jouni

3/8/2017, 12:20 PM, Lou Berger kirjoitti:
> Which option do you prefer?
>
>
> On 3/8/2017 3:18 PM, Jouni Korhonen wrote:
>> WFM.
>>
>> 3/8/2017, 5:56 AM, Lou Berger kirjoitti:
>>> On 3/8/2017 7:35 AM, Loa Andersson wrote:
>>>> Folks,
>>>>
>>>> One terminology question, I don't really have any opinion on what we
>>>> call things, but I'm definitely for that we only have one name for one
>>>> thing.
>>>>
>>>> Today we use T-PE and S-PE, but also T-DetNet-PE and S-DetNet-PE, can we
>>>> converge. My slight preference would be  T-DetNet-PE and S-DetNet-PE,
>>>> to differentiate it from "normal" S-PE and T-PE.
>>> The architecture defines this as:
>>>
>>>    DetNet intermediate node
>>>            A DetNet relay node or transit node.
>>>
>>> And some good examples are in the DP Alternatives draft
>>>
>>>   TSN              Edge          Transit        Relay        DetNet
>>>   End System       Node            Node         Node         End System
>>>
>>>   +---------+    +.........+                                 +---------+
>>>   |  Appl.  |<---:Svc Proxy:-- End to End Service ---------->|  Appl.  |
>>>   +---------+    +---------+                   +---------+   +---------+
>>>   |   TSN   |    |TSN| |Svc|<-- DetNet flow ---: Service :-->| Service |
>>>   +---------+    +---+ +---+    +---------+    +---------+   +---------+
>>>   |Transport|    |Trp| |Trp|    |Transport|    |Trp| |Trp|   |Transport|
>>>   +-------.-+    +-.-+ +-.-+    +--.----.-+    +-.-+ +-.-+   +---.-----+
>>>           :  Link  :    /  ,-----.  \   :  Link  :    /  ,-----.  \
>>>           +........+    +-[  Sub  ]-+   +........+    +-[  Sub  ]-+
>>>                           [Network]                     [Network]
>>>                            `-----'                       `-----'
>>>
>>>                  Figure 1: A Simple DetNet Enabled Network
>>>
>>>
>>>           DetNet                                           DetNet
>>>           Service         Transit          Transit        Service
>>>    DetNet   |          |<-Tunnel->|     |<-Tunnel->|         |    DetNet
>>>    End      |          V     1    V     V     2    V         |    End
>>>    System   |    +-----+          +-----+          +-----+   |    System
>>>    +---+    |    |S-PE1|==========|S-PE2|==========|S-PE3|   |    +---+
>>>    |  X....DFa.....X_.......DF1.......X_....DF3........X.....DFa...X  |
>>>    |CE1|=========|  \  |          |  /  |          |  /  |========|CE2|
>>>    |   |    |    |   \......DF2.....X_......DF4....../   |   |    |   |
>>>    +---+         |     |==========|     |==========|     |        +---+
>>>        ^         +-----+          +-----+          +-----+        ^
>>>        |        Relay Node       Relay Node       Relay Node      |
>>>        |                                                          |
>>>        |<------------- End to End DetNet Service ---------------->|
>>>
>>>                           Figure 5: Native DetNet
>>>
>>>
>>> So I think what you are asking for is a shorthand for a 'S-PE that is a
>>> DetNet (aware) Relay Node' , right?
>>> How about one or more of the following:
>>>     - DetNet S-PE
>>>     - DA-S-PE (DA=DetNet Aware)
>>>     - DC-S-PE (DA=DetNet Capable)
>>>     - DR-S-PE (DR=DetNet Relay)
>>>     - DRN-S-PE (DRN=DetNet Relay Node)
>>>
>>> Lou
>>>
>>>> /Loa
>>>>
>>>> On 2017-03-08 13:46, Balázs Varga A wrote:
>>>>> Hi Jouni,
>>>>>
>>>>> OK, I think my text may not be clear enough. Local-ID is not meant as a router id.
>>>>> " Each node (T-PE, S-PE and P) use a local-ID of the detnet-(compound)-flow in order to accomplish its role during transport."
>>>>> Local-ID refers to an ID used by a node to identify internally a DetNet-flow. Maybe "local-Flow-ID" would express it better.
>>>>> Such a "local-Flow-ID" value may or may not differ from the "Flow-ID" value encoded in the DetNet packet. If it is different
>>>>> we fallback to what You have called "virtual-label".
>>>>>
>>>>> I hope that clarifies your concerns.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers
>>>>> Bala'zs
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Jouni Korhonen [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2017 8:21 PM
>>>>> To: Balázs Varga A <[e-mail]>
>>>>> Cc: [e-mail]
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] Section 4.1 added (DP solution requirements)
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks Balazs,
>>>>>
>>>>> I am not quite sure about the local-id text:
>>>>> "Local-ID MUST be unambiguously bounded to the Flow-ID encoded in the DetNet packet."
>>>>>
>>>>> By default each router has their unique router id with the autonomous system that you need e.g., with routing protocols.
>>>>>
>>>>> If the flow-id is unique within the detnet domain I am not sure what mapping the above is talking about. Do you mean that a set of flow-ids would belong to a router (identified by a local-id)?
>>>>>
>>>>> - Jouni
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 3/7/2017, 10:23 AM, Balázs Varga A kirjoitti:
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>> Section 4.1 added on the GitHub.
>>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>> Bala'zs
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: Jouni Korhonen [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>>>>> Sent: Monday, March 06, 2017 7:23 PM
>>>>>> To: Balázs Varga A <[e-mail]>om>; Loa Andersson
>>>>>> <[e-mail]>
>>>>>> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] about identity labels.. was Re: new
>>>>>> versions of my slides
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Balazs,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your proposed Section 4.x would definitely be good to have. I am not too much for Section 4.y since I do not see it would not be needed in the final document, except for the definitions that should go to Section 2.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regarding the two choices we have now I just add prologue text and describe (graphically both). The logic of the "identity label/tag" is mostly the same independent of the location in the stack. The processing is of course different.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Jouni
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 3/6/2017, 9:49 AM, Balázs Varga A kirjoitti:
>>>>>>> Hi Jouni,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> just for clarification: Do we intend to list all options in the draft ???
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They all have pros and cons ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Anyway I think we need a structure like below in the draft for
>>>>>>> example
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> in section 4. Is it inline with your intention? Shall I prepare some
>>>>>>> text
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> around this items for the call on Wednesday?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *4.x DP solution requirements*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> List of prerequisites for a proper solution on an x-PE:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1, to distinguish PWs going through (operation label-swap) and PWs
>>>>>>> need DetNet serving (e.g., FRER)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2, to handle PW-label collisions (without major implementation
>>>>>>> difficulties)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 3, to work with both centralized control and distributed control
>>>>>>> (signaling)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *4.y DP solution toolset*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Description of the toolset discussed so far:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A, L-label: additional label between t-label and PW-label
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> B, different PW-labels per segment: similar to the MS-PW label
>>>>>>> allocation mechanism
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> C, e2e PW label: no change of the PW-label (same PW-label value
>>>>>>> between T-PE nodes)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> D, d-id label: additional label used as T-PE identification
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> E, Flow-ID outside of the label stack
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bala'zs
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>> From: Detnet-dp-dt [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf
>>>>>>> Of Loa Andersson
>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, March 06, 2017 3:07 AM
>>>>>>> To: Jouni Korhonen <[e-mail]>
>>>>>>> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] about identity labels.. was Re: new
>>>>>>> versions of my slides
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jouni,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2017-03-06 07:36, Jouni Korhonen wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> - global as the special purpose labels, seems unlikely
>>>>>>>>> - global as unique with in the domain, though we know there is a
>>>>>>>>> scaling  problem
>>>>>>>>> - global for one sender, not that different from d-id, other that
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> placment in the stack
>>>>>>>>> ???
>>>>>>>> In my small mind I reasoned it to be unique within one domain. Since
>>>>>>> the identity would now be 32 bits (there is no need to restrict it to
>>>>>>> 20 bits since it is part of the _encapsulation_header_ not the label
>>>>>>> stack), the scaling concern is more relaxed. Assuming each node in
>>>>>>> the domain would like to be able to name 4k unique detnet flows of
>>>>>>> their own then the domain could host 1M such detnet nodes.. not too
>>>>>>> bad for one domain.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My earlier calculations estimated that we would have about the number
>>>>>>> of PWs between any pair of T-DetNet-PEs would be about 400 and the
>>>>>>> number T-DetNet-PEs about 1000.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 32 bits is  4 000 millions, so there is ample number of flow id's
>>>>>>> even if we would have to configure a range on each T-DetNet-PE.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So you look at the flow-id and then compare the CW/Seq #, right?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Now, range configuration is a kludge, can we find a way to avoid it,
>>>>>>> maybe d-pw + node-id would work, all this would have to happen in the
>>>>>>> context of the (outgoing) d-pw anyway, right?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> /Loa
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - Jouni
>>>>>>>>> /Loa
>>>>>>>>>> Carlos
>>>>>>>>>>> - Jouni
>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>> Detnet-dp-dt mailing list
>>>>>>>>>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet-dp-dt
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Loa Andersson                        email: [e-mail]
>>>>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Senior MPLS Expert                          [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>>>>>>> Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: [phone]
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> Detnet-dp-dt mailing list
>>>>>>>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet-dp-dt
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Loa Andersson                        email: [e-mail]
>>>>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Senior MPLS Expert                          [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: [phone]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Detnet-dp-dt mailing list
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet-dp-dt
>>>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Detnet-dp-dt mailing list
>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet-dp-dt
>>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Detnet-dp-dt mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet-dp-dt
>>>
>