From nobody Mon Jul 26 23:27:28 2021 Return-Path: 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 765323A1677; Mon, 26 Jul 2021 23:27:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.086 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.086 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_REMOTE_IMAGE=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com 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 ZCaAPu1IodAn; Mon, 26 Jul 2021 23:27:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pl1-x634.google.com (mail-pl1-x634.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::634]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5C4FA3A1673; Mon, 26 Jul 2021 23:27:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pl1-x634.google.com with SMTP id f13so4137824plj.2; Mon, 26 Jul 2021 23:27:21 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Vd0D8gdsDanJko+kZ8TrI/NQSQkGAh+jM+4gtCVlXyo=; b=OK5wnVjQcbnk8WemugzZ1EE6s2MzxJuF99QyBzG41cwxVOV5jp1O9rt+Do+AG0ByTZ bhtr4NfaA4bzz3Y9AZftVcMGNLqQrxNWrdGWY/8sMZSAkLw0dJYaIX0jvLA88GnjttGc u9y/uQNLqQsfUShIH11ERCpNVzvYGrhmK9S1pjtjV1gKkvahQL8sK/jXQv7IsHQY55TZ +kCx+G7eZZIO9NUGcnFFXYkWl5cpfPRUpx0eyVtS2DSj/olXzj8gcP0AGDzNMJ+WJh5p /8PAFlDfTHtQhQmcA8xHU58tCgsAXYg9BsaqB9yA+rQcXuaRLifc69ExxHeBwTUEfI/W Ql4A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Vd0D8gdsDanJko+kZ8TrI/NQSQkGAh+jM+4gtCVlXyo=; b=KEeKyd5fDgtwSRNht42G71OsSyd4SbvWoL+2xAvQudBJjJsALykqljrJqOQktbnqnq gPCEwyBfnTYewgJ2vmtT1DTY0ZL10aU+y3R4f+Rc36N0h+a747/oF/9Bih62g/QFFlOq 4r/E74KkhXT8LmzZu+KUE+R8xbeU6uKCwDx5QG0JfuQAkldNxWMxEXYybrz+nNeyx/wy 76psFWjmr+iNUWYrhgCR36SA6Be9CXi1k7dBBN3xfxJ/mMYRVg2vNPyDJMOy1UxC4Y7R XjhCgln4ovpXu+koGZvgEFJFrfCgKn7RK7n+0XUDN58PfQhjLRhiXfEh/b3R4DR89wx0 3Dfw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530ZEqEFZWYx82zkwMQQiriFy8V0FUHjy4he0Vf0zF0oCn0LO0Sz s+2335GbMcphANDCtKRQvfIEFHN7zPu+tfSOUZfuVQmoxHk= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzOnzox+71DSZM+470ifcb2L8qA4zNBORLiQTAj8JHPL4zYoqhMc/m36gNYfV9cYbfFuzDOz2a4L/VpyNVoM2U= X-Received: by 2002:a65:40cc:: with SMTP id u12mr18125692pgp.18.1627367240490; Mon, 26 Jul 2021 23:27:20 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <047f01c93fde45aeaa2dfc6147bbf5c4@huawei.com> In-Reply-To: From: Gyan Mishra Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2021 02:27:09 -0400 Message-ID: To: =?UTF-8?Q?Bal=C3=A1zs_Varga_A?= Cc: "Yangfan (IP Standard)" , "detnet@ietf.org" , "draft-geng-spring-sr-redundancy-protection@ietf.org" , spring Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000049e24a05c814f64c" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Detnet] IETF-111 SPRING presentation on sr-redundancy-protection X-BeenThere: detnet@ietf.org 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: Tue, 27 Jul 2021 06:27:27 -0000 --00000000000049e24a05c814f64c Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Bal=C3=A1zs Very nicely put that the redundancy protection draft was inspired by DETNET framework to now provide extensions to improve the functionality of SR. We will make that clear in the draft. As for DETNET use case I think we can leave off the table for now and update the draft accordingly. After adoption we can investigate the possibilities and of making the redundancy protection inclusive of DETNET. I think the hurdle of P2MP and as that is out of scope today and as DETNET to be an inclusive use case we would have to figure out P2MP which will be challenging. Kind Regards Gyan On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 5:20 PM Bal=C3=A1zs Varga A wrote: > Hi Fan, > > > > Thanks for your prompt reply. > > I agree with your direction to redefine the target of this mechanism. In > my view your draft was =E2=80=9Cinspired by DetNet=E2=80=9D and > > intends to improve the functionality of SR. That is absolutely fine. :--)= ) > > > > Please, make it clear in the draft as well, that would avoid any > misinterpretations. > > > > Thanks & Cheers > > Bala=E2=80=99zs > > > > > > *From:* Yangfan (IP Standard) > *Sent:* Monday, July 26, 2021 11:09 PM > *To:* Bal=C3=A1zs Varga A ; > draft-geng-spring-sr-redundancy-protection@ietf.org > *Cc:* spring ; detnet@ietf.org > *Subject:* =E7=AD=94=E5=A4=8D: IETF-111 SPRING presentation on sr-redunda= ncy-protection > > > > Hi Balazs, > > > > Thank you for your comments. > > As what Gyan mentioned during the presentation, this draft redefines > redundancy protection as a general protection mechanism designed for SR > network. Firstly, it is a general mechanism can be used in many uses case= s, > not only DetNet use case. Secondly, it applies to SR network, not a gener= al > IP or MPLS data plane solution which Detnet requires. Since the scope is > changed, I don=E2=80=99t think redundancy protection is necessary to foll= ow DetNet > architecture. > > If redundancy protection is not a DetNet mechanism, I don=E2=80=99t think= it > should cover both P2P and P2MP services. > > We are happy to address the comments that relates to redundancy protectio= n > in next revision. > > > > Thanks. > > Fan > > > > *=E5=8F=91=E4=BB=B6=E4=BA=BA**:* Bal=C3=A1zs Varga A [mailto:balazs.a.var= ga@ericsson.com > ] > *=E5=8F=91=E9=80=81=E6=97=B6=E9=97=B4:* 2021=E5=B9=B47=E6=9C=8827=E6=97= =A5 4:49 > *=E6=94=B6=E4=BB=B6=E4=BA=BA:* draft-geng-spring-sr-redundancy-protection= @ietf.org > *=E6=8A=84=E9=80=81:* spring ; detnet@ietf.org > *=E4=B8=BB=E9=A2=98:* IETF-111 SPRING presentation on sr-redundancy-prote= ction > > > > Hi, > > > > As time not permitted comments during the SPRING meeting, major comments > regarding the > > redundancy protection presentation: > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/111/materials/slides-111-spring-sr-f= or-redundancy-protection-00 > > > > 1, General: despite the reference to DetNet this draft is not compliant > with Figure 1 of RFC8655 (DetNet Architecture) > > 2, Slide-9: DetNet provides both p2p and p2mp services. This draft only > p2p, so many DetNet use cases cannot be supported > > 3, Slide-9: there were many DetNet related comments on the list. Only som= e > were addressed in the latest version of the draft. > > > > Thanks & Cheers > > Bala=E2=80=99zs > > > > > _______________________________________________ > detnet mailing list > detnet@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet > --=20 *Gyan Mishra* *Network Solutions A**rchitect * *Email gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com * *M 301 502-1347* --00000000000049e24a05c814f64c Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi=C2=A0Bal=C3=A1zs

Very nicely put that the redundancy protection= draft was inspired by DETNET framework =C2=A0to now provide extensions to = improve the functionality of SR. =C2=A0

We will make that clear in the draft. =C2=A0

As for DETNET use case I think we can= leave off the table for now and update the draft accordingly.=C2=A0 After = adoption we can investigate the possibilities and of making the redundancy = protection inclusive of DETNET.=C2=A0 I think the hurdle of P2MP and as tha= t is out of scope today and as DETNET to be an inclusive use case we would = have to figure out P2MP which will be challenging.
<= br>
Kind Regards=C2=A0

Gyan=C2=A0
On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 5:20 PM Bal=C3=A1z= s Varga A <balazs.a.varga=3D40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:

Hi Fan,

=C2=A0

Thanks for your prompt reply.

I agree with your direction to redefine the target o= f this mechanism. In my view your draft was =E2=80=9Cinspired by DetNet=E2= =80=9D and

intends to improve the functionality of SR. That is = absolutely fine. :--))

=C2=A0

Please, make it clear in the draft as well, that wou= ld avoid any misinterpretations.

=C2=A0

Thanks & Cheers

Bala=E2=80=99zs

=C2=A0

=C2=A0

From: Yangfan (IP Standard) <shirley.yangfan@huawei.c= om>
Sent: Monday, July 26, 2021 11:09 PM
To: Bal=C3=A1zs Varga A <balazs.a.varga@ericsson.com>; draft-geng-spring-sr-redundancy-protection@ietf.org
Cc: spring <= spring@ietf.org>; detnet@ietf.org
Subject: =E7=AD=94= =E5=A4=8D: IETF-111 SPRING presentation on sr-redundancy-protection<= u>

=C2=A0

Hi Ba= lazs,

=C2=A0

Thank= you for your comments.

As wh= at Gyan mentioned during the presentation, this draft redefines redundancy = protection as a general protection mechanism designed for SR network. First= ly, it is a general mechanism can be used in many uses cases, not only DetNet use ca= se. Secondly, it applies to SR network, not a general IP or MPLS data plane= solution which Detnet requires. Since the scope is changed, I don=E2=80=99= t think redundancy protection is necessary to follow DetNet architecture.

If re= dundancy protection is not a DetNet mechanism, I don=E2=80=99t think it sho= uld cover both P2P and P2MP services.

We ar= e happy to address the comments that relates to redundancy protection in ne= xt revision.

=C2=A0

Thank= s.

Fan

=C2=A0

=E5=8F=91=E4=BB=B6=E4=BA=BA<= span style=3D"font-family:"Microsoft YaHei",sans-serif">:<= /b> Bal=C3=A1zs Varga A [mailto:balazs.a.varga@ericsson.com<= /a>]
=E5=8F=91=E9=80=81=E6=97=B6=E9=97=B4: 20= 21=E5=B9=B47=E6=9C=8827=E6=97=A5 4:49
=E6=94=B6=E4=BB=B6=E4=BA=BA: draft-geng-spring-sr-redundancy-protection@ietf.org
=E6=8A=84=E9=80=81: spring <spring@ietf.org>; detnet@ietf.org =E4=B8=BB=E9=A2=98: IETF-111 SPRING pres= entation on sr-redundancy-protection

=C2=A0

Hi,

=C2=A0

As time not permitted comments during the SPRI= NG meeting, major comments regarding the

redundancy protection presentation:<= /u>

https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/111/materials/slides-111-s= pring-sr-for-redundancy-protection-00

=C2=A0

1, General: despite the reference to DetNet th= is draft is not compliant with Figure 1 of RFC8655 (DetNet Architecture)=

2, Slide-9: DetNet provides both p2p and p2mp = services. This draft only p2p, so many DetNet use cases cannot be supported=

3, Slide-9: there were many DetNet related com= ments on the list. Only some were addressed in the latest version of the dr= aft.

=C2=A0

Thanks & Cheers

Bala=E2=80=99zs

=C2=A0

=C2=A0

_______________________________________________
detnet mailing list
detnet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet
--
--00000000000049e24a05c814f64c--