Re: [Detnet] About the E2E latency of C-SCORE

Jinoo Joung <jjoung@smu.ac.kr> Sun, 24 March 2024 01:41 UTC

Return-Path: <jjoung@smu.ac.kr>
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 0343CC14F68E for <detnet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 23 Mar 2024 18:41:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.906
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.906 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=smu-ac-kr.20230601.gappssmtp.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jFPmoGpdurTY for <detnet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 23 Mar 2024 18:41:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oo1-xc2b.google.com (mail-oo1-xc2b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::c2b]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 195BBC14F5EE for <detnet@ietf.org>; Sat, 23 Mar 2024 18:41:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oo1-xc2b.google.com with SMTP id 006d021491bc7-5a4df75138eso1782382eaf.3 for <detnet@ietf.org>; Sat, 23 Mar 2024 18:41:30 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=smu-ac-kr.20230601.gappssmtp.com; s=20230601; t=1711244490; x=1711849290; darn=ietf.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=GlCJQWYuvRpSR8SglW0ZxJUusL37KHk2ELPoO1dG12k=; b=G6DosPI+XeHDChhfaN+Uv5TgPTuuRz+sXF8nXp3klZ9zacUU5F8iue1DY5zqrFrPMr hWfLLoEPPBBUnxuBF2u7lRT3eME8xwwwMfWc/58OxBtDVJjyEg71ZWYn+5eTZr+9Dc1R NIM1ahrI99r9aT3UUd7RwhPLKw0OGLfyJ/s3C3XiOlhfV0tx3Lgvk8prmp0H6ldqlnQU 6rGOg173aKLj17HK3o2sFGB4on6+bGYxctbb8FEgV22yXyBDY+r2IvWAedzPhegcbt46 lj+ym3FHJe9qpV+wD4n7+dpApu8EFPb3XYurCB9x8VWY6Mz5Cn+mSYp+H4adodNrDxwE CqaQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1711244490; x=1711849290; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=GlCJQWYuvRpSR8SglW0ZxJUusL37KHk2ELPoO1dG12k=; b=GBiWSct/Zr2T/E/m3nQDM/oQpruMAcGDxFamubUxLluArBbisU7cZtZwmJOqS1ZhRW ElYaYZJzI/WJGymgDmoJ3aNB4Pt05DJ+MFuFY+Gf3uasxaKkW+/2h0Z8PiJDPpMV92Aa lM0JH7eTUKwKhdyCHZRdjXT9iJ0MXZ/2dkAhpsN4kdAvrO4DggHuprzBk1+Au8oOBCw6 yMh9et04aaHrt8F3/obFqh/y9aut+zD9tAbnJ9lkbl4IxtzbYwcgs0P+TePXtFYOEHG0 oJj6NUvpJc1xwKCleAWJi5CIC0TvR6JcTBkN6ZBEStoBN0+EyNCq6uJobGcOs1zRCj4Q R+lg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YyUJUF+Nk7ygYdHeID7kY36CUc7yFRL84iiWPawHVUXRJD27qq0 KQjYeOl08XLmBg9wEoG1ZidONiPpTouRHosKEkiT60gv0HRLqgbmWqDDsu6anOzsDhPfkw5TgRi uEY81NOwyjn6SaNlJ8l2Me0d7XFDfo0Zs/oNXy1yP7WjUDU0+HtA=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IF+wjlLebxNje+FUOmE6BolE7A8kWcDwIPVN5+RUQImcRDVcNsQzGBBgBTszeKoKaChOU7IyN2xh6xYFWFF+BA=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6358:e4a0:b0:17e:c7bb:43b5 with SMTP id by32-20020a056358e4a000b0017ec7bb43b5mr4272855rwb.0.1711244489596; Sat, 23 Mar 2024 18:41:29 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <202403221535396660460@zte.com.cn>
In-Reply-To: <202403221535396660460@zte.com.cn>
From: Jinoo Joung <jjoung@smu.ac.kr>
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2024 10:41:22 +0900
Message-ID: <CA+8ZkcTdyx7cC5G3EFwbKDH6zioStk8=Ynd7Sb7CCAHHsQYUmg@mail.gmail.com>
To: peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn
Cc: detnet@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000ed406c06145e27a7"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/AocWlYpcf3VAasi9GaUbMhqugiA>
Subject: Re: [Detnet] About the E2E latency of C-SCORE
X-BeenThere: detnet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Sun, 24 Mar 2024 01:41:32 -0000

Hello Shaofu,

Yes, you are correct.
The SLi is the decisive factor in node i.

However,
SLi = Lmax_i/Ri + L/r.

And L/r is much larger than Lmax_i/Ri.
Thus, according to the definition of "per-hope dominant factor", which is
the largest sum term,
the per-hop dominant factor is L/r.

Best,
Jinoo

On Fri, Mar 22, 2024 at 4:35 PM <peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn> wrote:

>
> Hi Jinoo,
>
>
> Thank you for patiently explaining the latency of C-SCORE during the
> meeting.
>
> I just check the E2E latency equation provided
> in draft-joung-detnet-stateless-fair-queuing-02, it is:
>
>     Dh(p) <= (B-L)/r + SL0 + SL1 + ... + SLh,     (5)
>
>
> Now I realize that we are talking about different things.
>
> The PBOO (pay bursts only once) you mentioned is actually (B-L)/r, right ?
>
> But I (and maybe there are other people who also pay more attention to the
> worst-case latency per-hop), am more concerned about SL0 + SL1 + ... + SLh,
> that is actually an evaluation formula based on *the worst-case latency
> per-hop multiplied by the number of hops*.
>
>
> IMO, (B-L)/r is negligible, especially when the flow is policing on the
> network entrance node and B = L.
>
> That is, the worst-case per-hop latency SLi on each node i is the
> dominator factor.
>
>
> Please correct me if I have any misunderstanding.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> PSF
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>