Re: [Detnet] Magnus Westerlund's Discuss on draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-11: (with DISCUSS)
Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu> Wed, 09 September 2020 16:11 UTC
Return-Path: <loa@pi.nu>
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 8BCC33A0400; Wed, 9 Sep 2020 09:11:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.845
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.845 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.948, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 5mOVTQpx5ay2; Wed, 9 Sep 2020 09:11:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pipi.pi.nu (pipi.pi.nu [83.168.239.141]) (using TLSv1.1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 594343A03FC; Wed, 9 Sep 2020 09:11:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.19] (unknown [122.2.104.35]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: loa@pi.nu) by pipi.pi.nu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 414B432198B; Wed, 9 Sep 2020 18:11:04 +0200 (CEST)
To: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>, Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
Cc: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>, "draft-ietf-detnet-mpls@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-detnet-mpls@ietf.org>, Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>, Bal?zs Varga A <balazs.a.varga@ericsson.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "detnet-chairs@ietf.org" <detnet-chairs@ietf.org>, "eagros@dolby.com" <eagros@dolby.com>, "detnet@ietf.org" <detnet@ietf.org>
References: <159957776121.26189.12459072134609921207@ietfa.amsl.com> <20200908191238.GA64458@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <AM0PR0702MB36038CF057CF2B13B7994F9EAC260@AM0PR0702MB3603.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <20200909152049.GA45828@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <58b84865-95bb-da9e-0172-8b94cee40e76@labn.net> <C6AD0E82-1DED-4223-865A-25CF833C8DDA@gmail.com>
From: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>
Message-ID: <2b59b5be-edd0-725a-bb8a-43cfc288c218@pi.nu>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2020 00:09:40 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.12.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <C6AD0E82-1DED-4223-865A-25CF833C8DDA@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/DCV0Gzij2Q0_jr3LYjdypkkfRWA>
Subject: Re: [Detnet] Magnus Westerlund's Discuss on draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-11: (with DISCUSS)
X-BeenThere: detnet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 09 Sep 2020 16:11:17 -0000
All, While I won't cry if this is dropped, I'm a little bit more than a bit concerned that every time we try to state what we can expect of a DetNet service we seem to stumble on the finish line. If it works for MPLS and is updated to match RFC 8655, I'd say we leave it in. /Loa On 09/09/2020 23:59, Stewart Bryant wrote: > I think it has to be dropped, because as the work stands I cannot see that we have a way of bounding the latency. > > I know that we are talking about MPLS, but of course we need to look at all of the data plane drafts in this respect. > > - Stewart > > > >> On 9 Sep 2020, at 16:39, Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> wrote: >> >> The doc currently reads (asterisks indicate the sentence under discussion): >> >> 1. Introduction >> >> Deterministic Networking (DetNet) is a service that can be offered by >> a network to DetNet flows. *DetNet provides these flows with >> extremely low packet loss rates and assured maximum end-to-end >> delivery latency.* General background and concepts of DetNet can be >> found in [RFC8655]. >> >> The sentence in question was copied from the draft version of RFC8655, which now reads slightly differently: >> >> ... which provides a capability for the delivery of >> data flows with extremely low packet loss rates and bounded end-to- >> end delivery latency. >> >> I suggest either (a) updating the draft to match the RFC text or (b) dropping it altogether and let the reference to RFC8655 stand alone. >> >> Lou >> >> On 9/9/2020 11:20 AM, Toerless Eckert wrote: >>> On Wed, Sep 09, 2020 at 01:50:34PM +0000, Bal?zs Varga A wrote: >>>> Hi Toerless, >>>> >>>> Many thanks for the comments. One remark: >>>> - I disagree with your statement "DetNet like any other IP/MPLS network with per-flow forwarding provides" >>>> Just as an example, PREOF functions are not available in current MPLS networks. >>> PREOF is not subject of the sentence part in question. My concern is only about: >>> >>> ... DetNet provides zero congestion loss and bounded latency and jitter >>> >>> Of course, now you mention it: The MPLS forwarding plane of this spec does >>> support PEROF, but the sentence only talks about "DetNet", for which at >>> large in my assesment this is not true (no current PREOF for IPv4/IPv6 AFAIK). >>> >>> Aka: also for the part of PREOF its better to re-scope the sentence to talk only >>> the MPLS forwarding plane of this document instead of (unnecessarily?) make >>> claims about DetNet at large. >>> >>> Cheers >>> Toerless >>> >>>> Thanks >>>> Bala'zs >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de> >>>> Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2020 9:13 PM >>>> To: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com> >>>> Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>; eagros@dolby.com; detnet@ietf.org; draft-ietf-detnet-mpls@ietf.org; detnet-chairs@ietf.org >>>> Subject: Re: [Detnet] Magnus Westerlund's Discuss on draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-11: (with DISCUSS) >>>> >>>> Thanks Magnus, *: >>>> >>>> Related to your comments, i would like to raise a concern about the initial sentence in the spec: >>>> >>>> ...DetNet provides zero congestion loss and bounded latency and jitter. >>>> >>>> To me, this is overselling what DetNet actually "provides" or that uniquely distinguishes DetNet from other solutions. It sounds as if DetNet provides a novel solution whereas in reality it just allows to adopt existing or new solutions. >>>> >>>> With the definitions DetNet has done today, any IP or MPLS network where end-to-end flows can be identified as e.g.: an IP 5-tuple or an LSP identifier and that manages to figure out how to implement or operationalize one of the solutions for bounded latency such as a PHB in support of rfc2212. >>>> >>>> Aka: one could equally write: >>>> >>>> ...DetNet like any other IP/MPLS network with per-flow forwarding provides zero congestion loss and bounded latency and jitter. >>>> >>>> Which would be equally true and equally misleading. >>>> >>>> So, here is proposed IMHO more technically correct text to replace the IMHO misleading "marketing" sentence segment: >>>> >>>> ...DetNet MPLS sets up point-to-point LSPs end-to-end across DetNet domains. >>>> >>>> Because of this, DetNet MPLS can integrate with pre-existing and/or future Per-Hop-Behavior >>>> (PHB) (such one derived from RFC2212) that can provide per-flow (e.g.: LSP) bounded latency, bounded jitter and no congestion loss, as long as such a PHB does not require additional network packet header information beside the flow/LSP identification. >>>> >>>> Cheers >>>> Toerless >>>> >>>> On Tue, Sep 08, 2020 at 08:09:21AM -0700, Magnus Westerlund via Datatracker wrote: >>>>> Magnus Westerlund has entered the following ballot position for >>>>> draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-11: Discuss >>>>> >>>>> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all >>>>> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut >>>>> this introductory paragraph, however.) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Please refer to >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html >>>>> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: >>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-detnet-mpls/ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> DISCUSS: >>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> >>>>> I like to thank the TSV-ART reviewer for helping me consider one >>>>> aspect of the issue I see needing some discussion for this document. >>>>> >>>>> This relates to Section 4.2.2.2. and 4.2.2.3. >>>>> >>>>> So both of these section discuss the use of the sequence number for >>>>> removing packet duplicates and handling reorder. As the text discusses >>>>> there can be a configured limit for how deep the buffer and state are >>>>> for performing these operations. We all know that the implementation >>>>> of this will have a practical limit in both buffer space for >>>>> reordering as well as state for tracking which sequence numbers that >>>>> have been forwarded. I think that should be more clearly expressed in >>>>> the document that these practical limits exists. Thus, the >>>>> implementations will have tracking and determination of what are new packets (increasing sequence number within a window higher than previous largest seen. >>>>> And consider sequence number form currently highest seen and a bit >>>>> backwards as older packets. Thus how this is implemented will impact >>>>> how this acts in cases of disruptions of the packet flow. Thus, I >>>>> wonder if there is actually need to be a bit more specific in how >>>>> classification should be done. Especially if the wrap-around of the >>>>> sequence number space approaches a small multiple of round trip times for the path which is likely for the 16-bit space. >>>>> >>>>> Then sections fails to discuss how the duplication removal, the >>>>> reordering buffering and bound latency interacts and affet each other. >>>>> So if the latency is bounded then the reordering has an hard time >>>>> limit for the maximum delay. If there is a boundary for reordering >>>>> then there are no point in de-duplicating packets that will not be >>>>> forwarded due to the reordering. And even if there are no bounded >>>>> latency the reordering buffer size will still impact the depth of >>>>> de-duplication. These practical limits will also be limitations on the guarantees that can be provided. >>>>> >>>>> Thus, from my perspective there is need for more text on the >>>>> requirements of the implementation of these functions and their >>>>> interactions of creating limitations. >>>>> >>>>> Another point on 4.2.2.2: >>>>> >>>>> When configured, the >>>>> implementation MUST track the sequence number contained in received >>>>> d-CWs and MUST ensure that duplicate (replicated) instances of a >>>>> particular sequence number are discarded. >>>>> >>>>> That second MUST I think is possible to meet given that one discard >>>>> all packets outside of the current window where one have information >>>>> if a packet sequence number have been forwarded or not. Given that a >>>>> very late packet beyond the amount of state for the flow likely anyway >>>>> have little utility that is likely the right choice. However, I think >>>>> it needs to be made explicit that this is okay. >>>>> >>>>> In Section 4.2.2.3: >>>>> >>>>> When configured, the >>>>> implementation MUST track the sequence number contained in received >>>>> d-CWs and MUST ensure that packets are processed in the order >>>>> indicated in the received d-CW sequence number field, which may not >>>>> be in the order the packets are received. >>>>> >>>>> I think this part needs to be explicit that packets that are to fare >>>>> out of order for the implementation to handle will/shall be dropped. >>>>> >>>>> Note that an implementation MAY wish to constrain the maximum number >>>>> of out of order packets that can be processed, on platform-wide or >>>>> per flow basis. Some implementations MAY support the provisioning of >>>>> this number on either a platform-wide or per flow basis. The number >>>>> of out of order packets that can be processed also impacts the >>>>> latency of a flow. >>>>> >>>>> If there exists a latency requirement then that will interact with >>>>> this when it comes to reordering. In fact a significant issue here is >>>>> that if the packet flow is not periodic at a steady pace the maximum >>>>> latency in the reordering buffers based on packet sequence numbers can >>>>> not be ensured. Instead some form of time limit needs to exist also. >>>>> If that time limit is only local then there exists a risk that over >>>>> multiple reordering buffers if multiple independent service labels are >>>>> used the jitter and latency becomes cumulative. If the goal is to >>>>> avoid this then the individual packets would need to carry a time >>>>> stamp to ensure that from ingress of the service label path until the egress a maximum latency is added. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> detnet mailing list >>>>> detnet@ietf.org >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet >>>> -- >>>> --- >>>> tte@cs.fau.de > > _______________________________________________ > detnet mailing list > detnet@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet > -- Loa Andersson email: loa@pi.nu Senior MPLS Expert loa.pi.nu@gmail.com Bronze Dragon Consulting phone: +46 739 81 21 64
- [Detnet] Magnus Westerlund's Discuss on draft-iet… Magnus Westerlund via Datatracker
- Re: [Detnet] Magnus Westerlund's Discuss on draft… Stewart Bryant
- Re: [Detnet] Magnus Westerlund's Discuss on draft… Stewart Bryant
- Re: [Detnet] Magnus Westerlund's Discuss on draft… Stewart Bryant
- Re: [Detnet] Magnus Westerlund's Discuss on draft… Toerless Eckert
- Re: [Detnet] Magnus Westerlund's Discuss on draft… Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [Detnet] Magnus Westerlund's Discuss on draft… Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [Detnet] Magnus Westerlund's Discuss on draft… Balázs Varga A
- Re: [Detnet] Magnus Westerlund's Discuss on draft… Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [Detnet] Magnus Westerlund's Discuss on draft… Toerless Eckert
- Re: [Detnet] Magnus Westerlund's Discuss on draft… Lou Berger
- Re: [Detnet] Magnus Westerlund's Discuss on draft… Stewart Bryant
- Re: [Detnet] Magnus Westerlund's Discuss on draft… Loa Andersson
- Re: [Detnet] Magnus Westerlund's Discuss on draft… Jeff Tantsura
- Re: [Detnet] Magnus Westerlund's Discuss on draft… Balázs Varga A
- Re: [Detnet] Magnus Westerlund's Discuss on draft… Toerless Eckert
- Re: [Detnet] Magnus Westerlund's Discuss on draft… Toerless Eckert
- Re: [Detnet] Magnus Westerlund's Discuss on draft… Uma Chunduri
- Re: [Detnet] Magnus Westerlund's Discuss on draft… Janos Farkas
- Re: [Detnet] Magnus Westerlund's Discuss on draft… Loa Andersson
- Re: [Detnet] Magnus Westerlund's Discuss on draft… Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [Detnet] Magnus Westerlund's Discuss on draft… Janos Farkas
- Re: [Detnet] Magnus Westerlund's Discuss on draft… Lou Berger
- Re: [Detnet] Magnus Westerlund's Discuss on draft… Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [Detnet] Magnus Westerlund's Discuss on draft… Lou Berger
- Re: [Detnet] Magnus Westerlund's Discuss on draft… Balázs Varga A
- Re: [Detnet] Magnus Westerlund's Discuss on draft… Balázs Varga A
- Re: [Detnet] Magnus Westerlund's Discuss on draft… Magnus Westerlund