Re: [Detnet] IPv6 encapsulation in dataplane doc
Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> Wed, 07 February 2018 14:59 UTC
Return-Path: <lberger@labn.net>
X-Original-To: detnet@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: detnet@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD32D12D7ED for <detnet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Feb 2018 06:59:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, 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 eiHzBtVg3VhC for <detnet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Feb 2018 06:59:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gproxy3-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com (gproxy3-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com [69.89.30.42]) (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 5654C120454 for <detnet@ietf.org>; Wed, 7 Feb 2018 06:59:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cmgw3 (unknown [10.0.90.84]) by gproxy3.mail.unifiedlayer.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBAAF40090 for <detnet@ietf.org>; Wed, 7 Feb 2018 07:59:48 -0700 (MST)
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]) by cmgw3 with id 7qzk1x00l2SSUrH01qzneT; Wed, 07 Feb 2018 07:59:48 -0700
X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.2 cv=XM9AcUpE c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=h1BC+oY+fLhyFmnTBx92Jg==:117 a=h1BC+oY+fLhyFmnTBx92Jg==:17 a=xqWC_Br6kY4A:10 a=Op4juWPpsa0A:10 a=r77TgQKjGQsHNAKrUKIA:9 a=AUd_NHdVAAAA:8 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=edVRhR5uXvItvEUqdWMA:9 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=dNJ83vk1-jzlG1m8c9sA:9 a=t8RzVVZd_nQIQRLl:21 a=UiCQ7L4-1S4A:10 a=_W_S_7VecoQA:10 a=frz4AuCg-hUA:10 a=w1C3t2QeGrPiZgrLijVG:22
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=labn.net; s=default; h=Content-Type:MIME-Version:Subject:References:In-Reply-To: Message-ID:Date:To:From:Sender:Reply-To:Cc:Content-Transfer-Encoding: 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=T4DvZzjFH3eXogmcZ2NsO3Ul3YpSm3KcPwGTJlhMrfU=; b=z1MJErSdk/5A5fBZEZEsTOpVRw IEI04wF3O3zfqcH8sOoYkHYAwijd28s/RJBb7hhnuchFIxznF5sNGEnAcik7m4bDmL/WosPuEbZZD uHTByXAbqtteVZMHejk15iWtr;
Received: from [172.58.185.2] (port=33241 helo=[IPV6:2607:fb90:6443:9639:0:47:ab3a:2b01]) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.89_1) (envelope-from <lberger@labn.net>) id 1ejRCK-001Yz2-1m; Wed, 07 Feb 2018 07:59:44 -0700
From: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
To: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>, detnet@ietf.org
Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2018 09:59:42 -0500
Message-ID: <16170c78f30.27d3.9b4188e636579690ba6c69f2c8a0f1fd@labn.net>
In-Reply-To: <cff50c52d2f945cfa8eff149f5242fb0@XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com>
References: <cff50c52d2f945cfa8eff149f5242fb0@XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com>
User-Agent: AquaMail/1.13.2-730 (build: 101300200)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----------16170c7918341de27d39d32005"
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: 172.58.185.2
X-Exim-ID: 1ejRCK-001Yz2-1m
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
X-Source-Sender: ([IPV6:2607:fb90:6443:9639:0:47:ab3a:2b01]) [172.58.185.2]:33241
X-Source-Auth: lberger@labn.net
X-Email-Count: 7
X-Source-Cap: bGFibm1vYmk7bGFibm1vYmk7Ym94MzEzLmJsdWVob3N0LmNvbQ==
X-Local-Domain: yes
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/9u-2PBhDG7LuZuoUWHFVJd5ddGo>
Subject: Re: [Detnet] IPv6 encapsulation in dataplane doc
X-BeenThere: detnet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions on Deterministic Networking BoF and Proposed WG <detnet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/detnet>, <mailto:detnet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/detnet/>
List-Post: <mailto:detnet@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:detnet-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet>, <mailto:detnet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2018 14:59:54 -0000
Pascal/all, At the last interim a proposal was made to simplify IP processing, at least for the initial detnet solution, by leaving PREF to the subnet/transport layers (i.e., TSN and MPLS) and providing DetNet flow identification based on typical IP 5-tuple perhaps + dscp. This approach has several benefits beyond simplification, notably it will work for both ipv4 and IPv6, and doesn't require any modification to encapsulation / formats. It would be really valuable to get feedback from the whole working group if this simplification is acceptable or has unacceptable limitations. Lou On February 7, 2018 8:28:02 AM "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com> wrote: > Dear all > > This is about the IPv6 encapsulation and more precisely > > > Therefore, if a DetNet-aware end system only > > inserted the DetNet Destination Option into the IPv6 but e.g., a > > DetNet Edge node is configured to enforce an explicit route for the > > IPv6 packet using a source routing header, then it has no other > > possibility than add an outer tunneling IPv6 header with required > > extension headers in it. The processing of IPv6 packets in a DetNet > > Edge node is discussed further in Section > 6.4.1<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-detnet-dp-sol-01#section-6.4.1>. > > > With the current spec, a source sends a DetNet packet as > > +---------------------------------+ > | | > | DetNet Flow | > | Payload | > | | > /---------------------------------\ > H Optional DetNet DstOpt Hdr H > \---------------------------------/ > | IPv6 header | > | (with set Flow label) | > +---------------------------------+ > > And then the ingress node needs to re-encapsulate as > > > > +---------------------------------+ > > | | > > | DetNet Flow | > > | Payload | > > | | > > /---------------------------------\ > > H DetNet DstOpt Hdr H > \---------------------------------/ > | IPv6 header | > | (with set Flow label) | > +=================================+ > > | Routing header | > > /---------------------------------\ > > H DetNet DstOpt Hdr H > > \---------------------------------/ > > | IPv6 header | > > | (with set Flow label) | > > +---------------------------------+ > > This creates a duplication of the DetNet Destination Option. > > There are alternatives > > > a) whereby the packet is tunneled from the source to the detnet ingress, > and based on its state the DetNet ingress accepts the packet, processes it > and then resends it. The tunneled version of this could be: > > +---------------------------------+ > | | > | DetNet Flow | > | Payload | > | | > +---------------------------------+ > | IPv6 header | > | (dest = final destination) | > /=================================\ > H Optional DetNet DstOpt Hdr H > \---------------------------------/ > | IPv6 header | > | (dest = DetNet ingress edge) | > | (with set Flow label) | > +---------------------------------+ > > Which allows the ingress to tunnel to the egress as follows: > +---------------------------------+ > | | > | DetNet Flow | > | Payload | > | | > +---------------------------------+ > | IPv6 header | > | (to final destination) | > +=================================+ > > | Routing header | > > /---------------------------------\ > H Optional DetNet DstOpt Hdr H > \---------------------------------/ > | IPv6 header | > | (dest = DetNet egress edge) | > | (with set Flow label) | > +---------------------------------+ > > > > b) whereby the PREF is done by the end nodes and the tunnel is transport > only, meaning that there are 2 tunnels A and B and that the source sends > twice a packet like this: > > +---------------------------------+ > | | > | DetNet Flow | > | Payload | > | | > /---------------------------------\ > H Optional DetNet DstOpt Hdr H > \---------------------------------/ > | IPv6 header | > | (dest = DetNet ingress edge X)| > | (with set Flow label) | > +---------------------------------+ > > And then the ingress node needs to re-encapsulate as > > > > +---------------------------------+ > > | | > > | DetNet Flow | > > | Payload | > > | | > > /---------------------------------\ > > H DetNet DstOpt Hdr H > \---------------------------------/ > | IPv6 header | > | (dest = final destination) | > | (with set Flow label) | > +=================================+ > > | Routing header | > > +---------------------------------+ > > | IPv6 header | > > | (dest = DetNet egress edge X) | > > | (with set Flow label) | > > +---------------------------------+ > > Cheers, > > Pascal > > > > ---------- > _______________________________________________ > detnet mailing list > detnet@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet >
- [Detnet] IPv6 encapsulation in dataplane doc Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [Detnet] IPv6 encapsulation in dataplane doc Lou Berger
- Re: [Detnet] IPv6 encapsulation in dataplane doc Jouni
- Re: [Detnet] IPv6 encapsulation in dataplane doc Jouni
- Re: [Detnet] IPv6 encapsulation in dataplane doc Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [Detnet] IPv6 encapsulation in dataplane doc Jouni
- Re: [Detnet] IPv6 encapsulation in dataplane doc Lou Berger
- Re: [Detnet] IPv6 encapsulation in dataplane doc Jouni
- Re: [Detnet] IPv6 encapsulation in dataplane doc Lou Berger
- Re: [Detnet] IPv6 encapsulation in dataplane doc Jouni
- Re: [Detnet] IPv6 encapsulation in dataplane doc Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [Detnet] IPv6 encapsulation in dataplane doc Lou Berger
- Re: [Detnet] IPv6 encapsulation in dataplane doc Balázs Varga A
- Re: [Detnet] IPv6 encapsulation in dataplane doc Andrew G. Malis
- Re: [Detnet] IPv6 encapsulation in dataplane doc Andrew G. Malis
- Re: [Detnet] IPv6 encapsulation in dataplane doc Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [Detnet] IPv6 encapsulation in dataplane doc Lou Berger
- Re: [Detnet] IPv6 encapsulation in dataplane doc Balázs Varga A