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

Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> Fri, 14 July 2017 14:53 UTC

Return-Path: <lberger@labn.net>
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 B79E812869B for <detnet-dp-dt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Jul 2017 07:53:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-2.8, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (768-bit key) header.d=labn.net
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 kCw1hMXtQHuB for <detnet-dp-dt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Jul 2017 07:52:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gproxy5.mail.unifiedlayer.com (gproxy5-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com [67.222.38.55]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 863761200ED for <detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Jul 2017 07:52:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cmgw3 (unknown [10.0.90.84]) by gproxy5.mail.unifiedlayer.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E45F141A74 for <detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Jul 2017 08:29:32 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]) by cmgw3 with id keVU1v00X2SSUrH01eVXqX; Fri, 14 Jul 2017 08:29:32 -0600
X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.2 cv=UM2tJGXy c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=h1BC+oY+fLhyFmnTBx92Jg==:117 a=h1BC+oY+fLhyFmnTBx92Jg==:17 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=xqWC_Br6kY4A:10 a=G3gG6ho9WtcA:10 a=wU2YTnxGAAAA:8 a=i0EeH86SAAAA:8 a=pGLkceISAAAA:8 a=0FD05c-RAAAA:8 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=4vgIikcKAAAA:8 a=8KiGhRXamLxjgxw2_BkA:9 a=dppBeuojQ7yNhcGH:21 a=mByaEUjadN4j7Nis:21 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=Yz9wTY_ffGCQnEDHKrcv:22 a=6kGIvZw6iX1k4Y-7sg4_:22 a=l1rpMCqCXRGZwUSuRcM3:22 a=w1C3t2QeGrPiZgrLijVG:22 a=ipQbvPNi_c68zfI9_CwI:22
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=labn.net; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version :Date:Message-ID:From:References:To:Subject:Sender:Reply-To:Cc:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe: List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=9MkhQ+GD6XWNW/uq8nW/8GDpvTYyv8k8HHcRW+JejjU=; b=jLF4RDt4yAsVyOzqsjgx6wP6Wz ZiaeBy0mq533sKWazPqxV00XJx28mwdrfaur1TdIeOibJXdIxkVHmXREnCCS6Hw5DKk8U+nwaWVCO xy/qqyfVfPPX2boemSLhseDSX;
Received: from pool-100-15-84-20.washdc.fios.verizon.net ([100.15.84.20]:41964 helo=[IPv6:::1]) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.87) (envelope-from <lberger@labn.net>) id 1dW1ay-000aJ7-9A; Fri, 14 Jul 2017 08:29:28 -0600
To: "Korhonen, Jouni" <Jouni.Korhonen@nordicsemi.no>, Jiangyuanlong <jiangyuanlong@huawei.com>, Jouni <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>, "cjbc@it.uc3m.es" <cjbc@it.uc3m.es>, =?UTF-8?Q?'Bal=c3=a1zs_Varga_A'?= <balazs.a.varga@ericsson.com>, "detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org" <detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org>
References: <c815dbfd9d574366aa7775976fe24bce@nordicsemi.no> <DBXPR07MB128CD2139DFCC357D03F8A6ACAC0@DBXPR07MB128.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <d7377e8b99b249c6ad852854225999b3@nordicsemi.no> <1499967565.8611.13.camel@it.uc3m.es> <3cff01d2fc60$73416050$59c420f0$@gmail.com> <3B0A1BED22CAD649A1B3E97BE5DDD68BBB558728@dggeml507-mbx.china.huawei.com> <3B0A1BED22CAD649A1B3E97BE5DDD68BBB558746@dggeml507-mbx.china.huawei.com> <15d409e3f38.27d3.9b4188e636579690ba6c69f2c8a0f1fd@labn.net> <09f6c022465f4efb9e441dc994497c53@nordicsemi.no>
From: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
Message-ID: <1720e29b-25d2-0a45-9e55-1cda9ff97ebd@labn.net>
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2017 10:29:25 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <09f6c022465f4efb9e441dc994497c53@nordicsemi.no>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - box313.bluehost.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - labn.net
X-BWhitelist: no
X-Source-IP: 100.15.84.20
X-Exim-ID: 1dW1ay-000aJ7-9A
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
X-Source-Sender: pool-100-15-84-20.washdc.fios.verizon.net ([IPv6:::1]) [100.15.84.20]:41964
X-Source-Auth: lberger@labn.net
X-Email-Count: 7
X-Source-Cap: bGFibm1vYmk7bGFibm1vYmk7Ym94MzEzLmJsdWVob3N0LmNvbQ==
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet-dp-dt/qs7L0i8GixlwStOq5ufqL20IHLc>
Subject: Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] DP DT solution draft slides for IETF99
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: Fri, 14 Jul 2017 14:53:02 -0000

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:lberger@labn.net]
>> Sent: Friday, July 14, 2017 13:22 PM
>> To: Jiangyuanlong <jiangyuanlong@huawei.com>om>; Jouni
>> <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>om>; cjbc@it.uc3m.es; Korhonen, Jouni
>> <Jouni.Korhonen@nordicsemi.no>no>; 'Balázs Varga A'
>> <balazs.a.varga@ericsson.com>om>; detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org
>> 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 <jiangyuanlong@huawei.com>
>> 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:detnet-dp-dt-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
>>> Jiangyuanlong
>>> Sent: Friday, July 14, 2017 3:56 PM
>>> To: Jouni; cjbc@it.uc3m.es; 'Korhonen, Jouni'; 'Balázs Varga A';
>>> detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org
>>> 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:detnet-dp-dt-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
>>> Jouni
>>> Sent: Friday, July 14, 2017 1:17 PM
>>> To: cjbc@it.uc3m.es; 'Korhonen, Jouni'; 'Balázs Varga A';
>>> detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org
>>> Subject: Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] DP DT solution draft slides for IETF99
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Detnet-dp-dt [mailto:detnet-dp-dt-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
>>>> Of Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano
>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2017 20:39 PM
>>>> To: Korhonen, Jouni <Jouni.Korhonen@nordicsemi.no>no>; Balázs Varga A
>>>> <balazs.a.varga@ericsson.com>om>; detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org
>>>> 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:balazs.a.varga@ericsson.com]
>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2017 12:54 PM
>>>>>> To: Korhonen, Jouni <Jouni.Korhonen@nordicsemi.no>no>;
>>>>>> 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:detnet-dp-dt-bounces@ietf.org] On
>>>>>> Behalf Of Korhonen, Jouni
>>>>>> Sent: 2017. július 12. 23:29
>>>>>> To: detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org
>>>>>> 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
>>>>> 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 mailing list
>>> Detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet-dp-dt