Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] about identity labels.. was Re: new versions of my slides

Folks,

On 2017-03-07 02:23, Jouni Korhonen wrote:
> Balazs,
>
> Your proposed Section 4.x would definitely be good to have. I am not too
> much for Section 4.y since I do not see it would not be needed in the
> final document, except for the definitions that should go to Section 2.

I tend to agree with Jouni on this.

>
> Regarding the two choices we have now I just add prologue text and
> describe (graphically both). The logic of the "identity label/tag" is
> mostly the same independent of the location in the stack. The processing
> is of course different.

OK - that is the right way of doing it! However I'd like to see a walk 
through on establishing the "DetNet PW" for both choices, and
eventually a clear statement of which control plane protocols we allow
for.

Given that LDP is the protocol of choice for PWs, I think we should have
a hard time to move away from LDP.

We should converge on one choice.

BTW . whatever we have in terms of a draft when we get closer to the
cut-off, just post that. If we feel that it necessary we can put in a
disclaimer saying that the jury is still out.

/Loa
>
> - Jouni
>
> 3/6/2017, 9:49 AM, Balázs Varga A kirjoitti:
>> Hi Jouni,
>>
>>
>>
>> just for clarification: Do we intend to list all options in the draft ???
>>
>> They all have pros and cons ...
>>
>>
>>
>> Anyway I think we need a structure like below in the draft for example
>>
>> in section 4. Is it inline with your intention? Shall I prepare some text
>>
>> around this items for the call on Wednesday?
>>
>>
>>
>> *4.x DP solution requirements*
>>
>> List of prerequisites for a proper solution on an x-PE:
>>
>> 1, to distinguish PWs going through (operation label-swap) and PWs need
>> DetNet serving (e.g., FRER)
>>
>> 2, to handle PW-label collisions (without major implementation
>> difficulties)
>>
>> 3, to work with both centralized control and distributed control
>> (signaling)
>>
>>
>>
>> *4.y DP solution toolset*
>>
>> Description of the toolset discussed so far:
>>
>> A, L-label: additional label between t-label and PW-label
>>
>> B, different PW-labels per segment: similar to the MS-PW label
>> allocation mechanism
>>
>> C, e2e PW label: no change of the PW-label (same PW-label value between
>> T-PE nodes)
>>
>> D, d-id label: additional label used as T-PE identification
>>
>> E, Flow-ID outside of the label stack
>>
>>
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Bala'zs
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Detnet-dp-dt [mailto:detnet-dp-dt-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
>> Loa Andersson
>> Sent: Monday, March 06, 2017 3:07 AM
>> To: Jouni Korhonen <jouni.korhonen@broadcom.com>
>> Cc: cjbc@it.uc3m.es; detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] about identity labels.. was Re: new versions
>> of my slides
>>
>>
>>
>> Jouni,
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2017-03-06 07:36, Jouni Korhonen wrote:
>>
>>>
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> - global as the special purpose labels, seems unlikely
>>
>>>> - global as unique with in the domain, though we know there is a
>>
>>>> scaling  problem
>>
>>>> - global for one sender, not that different from d-id, other that the
>>
>>>> placment in the stack
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> ???
>>
>>>
>>
>>> In my small mind I reasoned it to be unique within one domain. Since
>> the identity would now be 32 bits (there is no need to restrict it to 20
>> bits since it is part of the _encapsulation_header_ not the label
>> stack), the scaling concern is more relaxed. Assuming each node in the
>> domain would like to be able to name 4k unique detnet flows of their own
>> then the domain could host 1M such detnet nodes.. not too bad for one
>> domain.
>>
>>
>>
>> My earlier calculations estimated that we would have about the number of
>> PWs between any pair of T-DetNet-PEs would be about 400 and the number
>> T-DetNet-PEs about 1000.
>>
>>
>>
>> 32 bits is  4 000 millions, so there is ample number of flow id's even
>> if we would have to configure a range on each T-DetNet-PE.
>>
>>
>>
>> So you look at the flow-id and then compare the CW/Seq #, right?
>>
>>
>>
>> Now, range configuration is a kludge, can we find a way to avoid it,
>> maybe d-pw + node-id would work, all this would have to happen in the
>> context of the (outgoing) d-pw anyway, right?
>>
>>
>>
>> /Loa
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>> - Jouni
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> /Loa
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>>> Carlos
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>>>> - Jouni
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>>>> Detnet-dp-dt mailing list
>>
>>>>> Detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org <mailto:Detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org>
>>
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet-dp-dt
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> --
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> Loa Andersson                        email: loa@mail01.huawei.com
>> <mailto:loa@mail01.huawei.com>
>>
>>>> Senior MPLS Expert                          loa@pi.nu
>>>> <mailto:loa@pi.nu>
>>
>>>> Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: +46 739 81 21 64
>>
>>>
>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>> Detnet-dp-dt mailing list
>>
>>> Detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org <mailto:Detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org>
>>
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet-dp-dt
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Loa Andersson                        email: loa@mail01.huawei.com
>> <mailto:loa@mail01.huawei.com>
>>
>> Senior MPLS Expert                          loa@pi.nu <mailto:loa@pi.nu>
>>
>> Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: +46 739 81 21 64
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> Detnet-dp-dt mailing list
>>
>> Detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org <mailto: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

-- 

Loa Andersson                        email: loa@mail01.huawei.com
Senior MPLS Expert                          loa@pi.nu
Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: +46 739 81 21 64