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

["Korhonen, Jouni" <[e-mail]>]

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
>