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

"Korhonen, Jouni" <Jouni.Korhonen@nordicsemi.no> Fri, 14 July 2017 11:22 UTC

Return-Path: <Jouni.Korhonen@nordicsemi.no>
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 653F0120227 for <detnet-dp-dt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Jul 2017 04:22:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 Oimtc0Z2J9RI for <detnet-dp-dt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Jul 2017 04:22:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ironport01.nordicsemi.no (mail.nordicsemi.no [194.19.86.146]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3155D131B4A for <detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Jul 2017 04:22:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.40,358,1496095200"; d="xml'?pptx'72,48?emf'72,48?scan'72,48,208,145,72,48?rels'72,48,208,145,72,48?jpeg'72,48,208,145,72,48,145"; a="7358039"
From: "Korhonen, Jouni" <Jouni.Korhonen@nordicsemi.no>
To: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>, Jiangyuanlong <jiangyuanlong@huawei.com>, Jouni <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>, "cjbc@it.uc3m.es" <cjbc@it.uc3m.es>, =?utf-8?B?J0JhbMOhenMgVmFyZ2EgQSc=?= <balazs.a.varga@ericsson.com>, "detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org" <detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Detnet-dp-dt] DP DT solution draft slides for IETF99
Thread-Index: AdL7VbJhRw14DqiURNu5NaedHIODigAZSslQAAk8ghAAA5lBgAAYXqsAAAWKvoAAAQZCgAAEESUAAAZF4IA=
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2017 11:22:03 +0000
Message-ID: <09f6c022465f4efb9e441dc994497c53@nordicsemi.no>
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>
In-Reply-To: <15d409e3f38.27d3.9b4188e636579690ba6c69f2c8a0f1fd@labn.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [192.9.200.83]
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="_002_09f6c022465f4efb9e441dc994497c53nordicsemino_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet-dp-dt/vHnKtxn3jfpGDybhOsRS0jkx3PA>
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 11:22:11 -0000

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
>