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

[Jouni Korhonen <[e-mail]>]

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
>