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

Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> Fri, 14 July 2017 10:21 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 922E2131B15 for <detnet-dp-dt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Jul 2017 03:21:49 -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 5OFbH4bEQ5Fe for <detnet-dp-dt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Jul 2017 03:21:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gproxy9.mail.unifiedlayer.com (gproxy9-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com [69.89.20.122]) (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 6391A131B0E for <detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Jul 2017 03:21:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cmgw4 (unknown [10.0.90.85]) by gproxy9.mail.unifiedlayer.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CF521E0A81 for <detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Jul 2017 04:21:47 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]) by cmgw4 with id kaMj1v00d2SSUrH01aMmP6; Fri, 14 Jul 2017 04:21:47 -0600
X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.2 cv=eYdNR/MH c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=h1BC+oY+fLhyFmnTBx92Jg==:117 a=h1BC+oY+fLhyFmnTBx92Jg==:17 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=G3gG6ho9WtcA:10 a=i0EeH86SAAAA:8 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=0FD05c-RAAAA:8 a=4vgIikcKAAAA:8 a=fAiKKgH_8x_lt1E2KUIA:9 a=ldNqZwxtj9BLENrN:21 a=cL1-5D5UN0D0hPAU:21 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=w1C3t2QeGrPiZgrLijVG:22 a=l1rpMCqCXRGZwUSuRcM3:22 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:MIME-Version:Subject: References:In-Reply-To:Message-ID:Date:To:From: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=0o4hXz2/v5D58n7wsf1E7HwaX/JWV4CTknrEcrBVOtg=; b=hSDfrO6n5IzI7PVTpOs1bhthPB wxyKxRFat75Q9yju6SR2VevTC8njN+oIlwqMaLmqxmHKrLgI8KHhCM4yQpqC+zB/gith6uf6VOL9h yO5U4t40IXztC9cfFcbhLvibY;
Received: from pool-100-15-84-20.washdc.fios.verizon.net ([100.15.84.20]:57832 helo=[11.4.0.6]) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.87) (envelope-from <lberger@labn.net>) id 1dVxjD-004GNa-A0; Fri, 14 Jul 2017 04:21:43 -0600
From: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
To: Jiangyuanlong <jiangyuanlong@huawei.com>, Jouni <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>, <cjbc@it.uc3m.es>, "'Korhonen, Jouni'" <Jouni.Korhonen@nordicsemi.no>, =?UTF-8?B?J0JhbMOhenMgVmFyZ2EgQSc=?= <balazs.a.varga@ericsson.com>, <detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org>
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2017 06:21:40 -0400
Message-ID: <15d409e3f38.27d3.9b4188e636579690ba6c69f2c8a0f1fd@labn.net>
In-Reply-To: <3B0A1BED22CAD649A1B3E97BE5DDD68BBB558746@dggeml507-mbx.china.huawei.com>
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>
User-Agent: AquaMail/1.10.0-403 (build: 101000001)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
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: 1dVxjD-004GNa-A0
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
X-Source-Sender: pool-100-15-84-20.washdc.fios.verizon.net ([11.4.0.6]) [100.15.84.20]:57832
X-Source-Auth: lberger@labn.net
X-Email-Count: 10
X-Source-Cap: bGFibm1vYmk7bGFibm1vYmk7Ym94MzEzLmJsdWVob3N0LmNvbQ==
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet-dp-dt/zbZC-kIXNmf2_vwzbiUqShOATI8>
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 10:21:50 -0000

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