Re: [Detnet] questions about draft-eckert-detnet-mpls-tc-tcqf Thu, 18 November 2021 01:31 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C31CE3A0591; Wed, 17 Nov 2021 17:31:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.105
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.105 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, CTE_8BIT_MISMATCH=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, RDNS_NONE=0.793, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vDnl9Dw0cQFg; Wed, 17 Nov 2021 17:31:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (unknown []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 335313A0767; Wed, 17 Nov 2021 17:31:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (unknown []) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTPS id 8C34B856DC336139DEBC; Thu, 18 Nov 2021 09:31:03 +0800 (CST)
Received: from (unknown []) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTPS id 6ACEAFCB87C89F878B94; Thu, 18 Nov 2021 09:31:03 +0800 (CST)
Received: from ([]) by with SMTP id 1AI1UuWv012488; Thu, 18 Nov 2021 09:30:56 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from
Received: from mapi (njxapp02[null]) by mapi (Zmail) with MAPI id mid201; Thu, 18 Nov 2021 09:30:56 +0800 (CST)
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2021 09:30:56 +0800
X-Zmail-TransId: 2afa6195acd0164044c6
X-Mailer: Zmail v1.0
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-MAIL: 1AI1UuWv012488
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Detnet] questions about  draft-eckert-detnet-mpls-tc-tcqf
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions on Deterministic Networking BoF and Proposed WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2021 01:31:11 -0000

Hi Norm,

Many thanks for your response.
CQF is a great idea, hope to see it gradually improved for use in large networks. : )


日 期 :2021年11月18日 04:37
主 题 :Re: [Detnet] questions about  draft-eckert-detnet-mpls-tc-tcqf
A follow-on.
CQF is under consideration for improvement for use in TSN, where network sizes are relatively small.  My paper, referenced by Janos, does not address the issue of bundling many flows into a single flow, then merging or splitting them arbitrarily.  Without bundling, TSN CQF has scaling issues; a large number of flows requires large buffers, which increase the per-hop delays.  But, bundling is not a trivial operation.  Bundling may require buffers and state machines, itself, and may therefore reduce the no-touch advantage of CQF.  My next step for the CQF proposals in TSN will be to address this issue.  I imagine that Janos will keep you informed if progress is made.
-- Norm
> On Nov 15, 2021, at 22:56, Norman Finn <nfinn@NFINNCONSULTING.COM> wrote:
> You’ve got it.  Admission control is the key. Either through a reservation protocol or a central supervisor, you have to ensure that no output interface is given more load than can be handled in a single transmission period. No sender can proceed without permission.
> Reservation-before-transmission is required by all TSN techniques. You can't guarantee zero congestion loss to an arbitrarily large load. The nice thing about CQF is that, with centralized control, you don't have to touch any intermediate nodes to admit or delete a flow; only contract enforcement at the ingress node has to be configured.
> — Norm
>> On Nov 10, 2021, at 23:00, wrote:
>> Hi authors,
>> Thanks for the effort to introduce TSN CQF to IP network, especially, a large scale WAN.
>> Can you help me to understand how does T-CQF solve the congestion ?  For example, an intermediate node with multiple incoming ports may receive T-CQF packets from many sources, and  these packets are put into the same cycle-id related queue. Can they be guaranteed to be sent together in the next cycle?  Appreciate for additional description of that in the document.
>> I have seen examples of single T-CQF flow competed with best-effor backgroup flows, that is OK. However, the competetion between multiple T-CQF flows may be more interesting.
>> One may say that there is a central controller to plan and arrange T-CQF flows, and never permit more T-CQF flows match the same local cycle-id at the intermediate node then to avoid congestion. I think that may be possible for a small network, but may be challange for large scale WAN.
>> Regards,
>> PSF
>> _______________________________________________
>> detnet mailing list