Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] DP DT solution draft slides for IETF99

[Lou Berger <[e-mail]>]

Looks.  Just add page numbers...

Thanks,

Lou


On 7/14/2017 7:22 AM, Korhonen, Jouni wrote:
> Another update.
>
> - Jouni
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Lou Berger [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> Sent: Friday, July 14, 2017 13:22 PM
>> To: Jiangyuanlong <[e-mail]>; Jouni
>> <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; Korhonen, Jouni
>> <[e-mail]>; 'Balázs Varga A'
>> <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
>> Subject: Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] DP DT solution draft slides for IETF99
>>
>> T-label imo.
>>
>> Lou
>>
>>
>> On July 14, 2017 4:26:06 AM Jiangyuanlong <[e-mail]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Sorry, I was confused by L-label in the last version and S-Label. But
>>> we still need to harmonize the T-Lable with the S-Label.
>>> For example, if we set up a low-latency or contention-free LSP for a
>>> detnet flow (between DA-T-PEs or DA-S-PEs), most probably we need some
>>> traffic engineered LSPs (i.e., L-LSP as defined in RFC 3270).
>>> Can we regard L-LSP labels on the path to be a T-Label or an S-Label?
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Yuanlong
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Detnet-dp-dt [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
>>> Jiangyuanlong
>>> Sent: Friday, July 14, 2017 3:56 PM
>>> To: Jouni; [e-mail]; 'Korhonen, Jouni'; 'Balázs Varga A';
>>> [e-mail]
>>> Subject: Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] DP DT solution draft slides for IETF99
>>>
>>> Hi folks,
>>>
>>> I am not sure we need to introduce S-Label in the first place.
>>> As I remember, we had some consensus that PW label has carried enough
>>> information in the f2f discussion happened during the last IETF meeting.
>>> And S-label is regarded redundant for PW. Did I miss something?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Yuanlong
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Detnet-dp-dt [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
>>> Jouni
>>> Sent: Friday, July 14, 2017 1:17 PM
>>> To: [e-mail]; 'Korhonen, Jouni'; 'Balázs Varga A';
>>> [e-mail]
>>> Subject: Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] DP DT solution draft slides for IETF99
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Detnet-dp-dt [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf
>>>> Of Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano
>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2017 20:39 PM
>>>> To: Korhonen, Jouni <[e-mail]>; Balázs Varga A
>>>> <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
>>>> Subject: Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] DP DT solution draft slides for IETF99
>>>>
>>>> Hi Jouni,
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for preparing this. Some small comments below:
>>>>
>>>> - Slide 6: I'd remove "native" in "PW-based native DetNet" to be
>>>> consistent with the terms used in the draft (alternatively, I'd use
>>>> "IPv6- based native DetNet" in slide 7for consistency with "PW-based
>>>> native DetNet in slide 6).
>>> Oops. Good catch.
>>>
>>>> - Slides 11 and 12: use the same order for "Flow-ID" and "SeqNum" on
>>>> the slides (right hand side)
>>> Ok.
>>>
>>>
>>>> - Slide 11: though I have no concrete proposal, I think the S-label
>>>> could be better introduced (maybe with a figure, also introducing the
>>>> (DA-)T-PE and (DA-)S-PE node terminology).
>>> Ok. I'll come up with something.
>>>
>>>
>>>> - Slide 14: "already be seen" --> "already been seen"
>>> Ok.
>>>
>>> - Jouni
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> Carlos
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, 2017-07-13 at 13:57 +0000, Korhonen, Jouni wrote:
>>>>> An update.. I am still doing the QoS etc part of the deck.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> - Jouni
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: Balázs Varga A [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2017 12:54 PM
>>>>>> To: Korhonen, Jouni <[e-mail]>;
>>>>>> detnet-dp-dt@ie tf.org
>>>>>> Subject: RE: DP DT solution draft slides for IETF99
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Jouni,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks for preparing this. Just some fast reactions:
>>>>>> - slide5-6-7: we may receive a comment that it looks like only
>>>>>> end- hosts having same type (TSN, MPLS, IPv6) can be
>> interconnected.
>>>>>> I would propose to add a note, that other combinations as
>>>>>> depicted requires further considerations.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - slide8: we have used the MS-PW analogy during our discussions.
>>>>>> However
>>>>>> it is valid only if PREF is used.
>>>>>> I would propose to refer on the first bullet only to "PseudoWires"
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> "IPv6" as the two data plane solution.
>>>>>> A further note could highlight the MS-PW analogy for PREF
>> scenarios.
>>>>>> - slide10-11: I would pair the DetNet flow specific information
>>>>>> fields to be transported with the data plane encapsulation fields.
>>>>>> 	DetNet flow	Encapsulation fields
>>>>>> 	Flow ID:	PW label
>>>>>> 	Seq. number: 	CW
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - slide14: regarding multicast DetNet flows I would formulate
>>>>>> somewhat different. In my view we have considered p2p data plane
>>>>>> solutions.
>>>>>> The defined data plane works for DetNet flows having multicast
>>>>>> dst- address assuming that the DetNet domain provides p2p
>> connectivity.
>>>>>> We may also receive comments that many DetNet flows are multicast
>>>>>> (e.g., TSN flows using IEEE-FRER, etc.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>> Bala'zs
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: Detnet-dp-dt [mailto:[e-mail]] On
>>>>>> Behalf Of Korhonen, Jouni
>>>>>> Sent: 2017. július 12. 23:29
>>>>>> To: [e-mail]
>>>>>> Subject: [Detnet-dp-dt] DP DT solution draft slides for IETF99
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sorry about this taking so long. Please, have a look and flame on..
>>>>>> There's still time to work on the actual content. However, keep
>>>>>> in mind that this is mainly an update from last time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Jouni
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Detnet-dp-dt mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet-dp-dt