Re: [Detnet] Implementing the discussion at IETF 97 on architecture doc

Hello Lou:

None of us could do the merge properly before cut off so I published what we did so far and we'll work on putting things together with the DT draft as soon as possible.

Take care,

Pascal

-----Original Message-----
From: Lou Berger [mailto:lberger@labn.net] 
Sent: jeudi 9 mars 2017 15:13
To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert@cisco.com>; jouni.korhonen@broadcom.com; detnet@ietf.org
Cc: draft-ietf-detnet-architecture@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Detnet] Implementing the discussion at IETF 97 on architecture doc

Pascal,

    Another thing to consider bringing into the Architecture document are some of the diagrams and related text from Section 3 of draft-ietf-detnet-dp-alt.  I think the whole section, with the exception of the last two paragraphs on page 5, is good text to bring over.  

Lou
(as contributor, co-author of dp-alt)

On 3/9/2017 3:06 AM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote:
> I agree, Jouni,
>
> we seem to be placing the horses before the cart.
> Let us comment out that text for now.
>
> Take care,
>
> Pascal
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jouni Korhonen [mailto:jouni.korhonen@broadcom.com]
> Sent: mercredi 8 mars 2017 21:37
> To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert@cisco.com>; detnet@ietf.org
> Cc: draft-ietf-detnet-architecture-all@tools.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Detnet] Implementing the discussion at IETF 97 on 
> architecture doc
>
> Hi,
>
> [snip]
>
>> 4.9.2.  Flow attribute mapping between layers
>>
>>
>>    Transport of DetNet flows over multiple technology domains may
>>    require that lower layers are aware of specific flows of higher
>>    layers.  Such an "exporting of flow identification" is needed each
>>    time when the forwarding paradigm is changed on the transport path
>>    (e.g., two LSRs are interconnected by a L2 bridged domain, etc.).
>>    The three main forwarding methods considered for deterministic
>>    networking are:
>>
>>    o  IP routing
>>
>>    o  MPLS label switching
>>
>>    o  Ethernet bridging
>>
>>    The simplest solution for generalized flow identification could be to
>>    define a unique Flow-ID triplet per DetNet flow (e.g., [IP: "IPv6-
>>    flow-label"+"IPv6-address"; MPLS: "PW-label"+"LSP-label"; Ethernet:
> The discussion on this part has not yet completed in DP design team. I am a bit worried writing this specific part down before we actually know how we are going to implement on the data plane. The above is not, as far as I understand, aligned with the DT progress. To get around the chicken-egg thing here either defer documenting for now or emphasize more that the above is an example.
>
> - Jouni
>
>>    "VLAN-ID"+"MAC-address").  This triplet can be used by the DetNet
>>    encoding function of technology border nodes (where forwarding
>>    paradigm changes) to adapt to capabilities of the next hop node.  It
>>    means that a packet may contain multiple (forwarding paradigm
>>    specific) Flow-IDs during its transport.  Technology border nodes may
>>    add / remove a (forwarding paradigm specific) Flow-ID.
> [snap]
>
>> What do you think?
>>
>>
>>
>> Pascal and Norm
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> detnet mailing list
>> detnet@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet
>>
> _______________________________________________
> detnet mailing list
> detnet@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet
>