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

[Lou Berger <[e-mail]>]

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