[Detnet-dp-dt] Dyslexia -- Re: new versions of my slides

[Loa Andersson <[e-mail]>]

Folks,

One thing that should be apparent now is that I have a rather bad
case of dyslexia. There are two different types of dyslexia, when you 
are writing and when you are reading. Luckily mine is when I'm writing,
and I try to use spelling support/spelling checker as much as I can.

When doing these types of slides using things like L-B3 and TG-1 there 
is no spelling checker to help.

Norm,

Tnx for fixing the slides.

/Loa

On 2017-02-27 06:44, Norman Finn wrote:
> Sorry!!  Attachment here.
>
> -- Norm
> ________________________________________
> From: Norman Finn
> Sent: Sunday, February 26, 2017 2:42 PM
> To: Loa Andersson; [e-mail]
> Subject: RE: [Detnet-dp-dt] new versions of my slides
>
> Loa,
>
> Slides 2, 4, 7, and 9 (the diagrams) had lots of very minor typos.  I made all fo the labels consistent in the attached version.
>
> Slide 3: "Consider the replicated packet that reaches B  from E and 8,"  I think you meant, "E and 6".
>
> Slide 5: 2nd sub-bullet.  "LB-3 because it is an L-level label taking the packet from F to E".  I think you meant, "A to E"?
>
> One question:
>
>  Who guarantees d-id1 != d-id2?  Maybe I missed it, but I don't see that in the discussions in the slides.
>
> Answering your questions:
>
> Q: Do we agree that this works even if is not optimal.
>
>    Yes, if d-id1 != d-id2.
>
> Q: Do we want to eliminate any of the control plane alternatives.
>
>    I don't.
>
> Q: By using the L-labels as containers for QoS and BW, neither T-Labels or PW-lables can do that, is it clear that we need L-Labels?
>
> As far as the data plane is concerned, I think we need either the L-labels or the d-id labels, but not both.  (Although, without the d-id labels, you have to know that LB-3 + d-pw1 is the same flow as LB-4 + d-pw1, so perhaps it's easier to do without the L-labels.)  Either label could be used for QoS.
>
> But, perhaps we have an issue when creating d-pw labels and/or d-id labels.  The PW creation exchange operates over a tunnel, right?  We have a complex tunnel, not a point-to-point tunnel.  How does the PW creation exchange know what path to follow?  Over what path are the d-id labels created?  In other words, how are the L-labels stitched together?  Equivalently, how are the d-id labels distributed over the paths.
>
> Q: We talk about “detnet pseudo wire”, is that a new type of pseudo wire?
>
> I wouldn't call it anything different.
>
> Q: How do we handle the already existing pseudo wires?
>
> Same as always.  Again, I think the key is defining how you negotiate the path that the branched pseudowire follows.  In my opinion, (subject to finding a counter example that screws everything up), you nail down the paths, either with L-labels or d-id labels, and each d-pw creation (or perhaps first use) creates an instance of the packet discard machine at each combination point.  But, I'm not sufficiently versed in the label protocols to offer an opinion of how that happens.
>
> -- Norm
>
> ________________________________________
> From: Detnet-dp-dt [[e-mail]] on behalf of Loa Andersson [[e-mail]]
> Sent: Sunday, February 26, 2017 2:34 AM
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: [Detnet-dp-dt] new versions of my slides
>
> Folks,
>
> I gone over my slides and tighten them up a bit.
>
> I think it is time that we start agree on some of the design decisions
> we are making and start taking them as the basis for what we are doing
> next.
>
> Slides should be self-explaining, but you can jump slide 3 and get
> back to it in the end.
>
> /Loa
> --
>
>
> Loa Andersson                        email: [e-mail]
> Senior MPLS Expert                          [e-mail]
> Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: [phone]
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Detnet-dp-dt mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet-dp-dt
>

-- 


Loa Andersson                        email: [e-mail]
Senior MPLS Expert                          [e-mail]
Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: [phone]