Re: [Detnet] Transport sub-layer name change (Was Re: Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-detnet-architecture-08)

["Andrew G. Malis" <[e-mail]>]

I also support DetNet Forwarding sub-layer. Unlike Lou, I've always
regarded queuing as a fundamental part of an overall forwarding
architecture.

Cheers,
Andy


On Fri, Dec 7, 2018 at 11:13 AM Lou Berger <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Focusing on the proposal:
>
> > In order to have another alternative on the table I propose renaming
> > "DetNet Transport sub-layer" to "DetNet Forwarding sub-layer"
> This is a bit of a new usage for 'Forwarding' but not totally --
> thinking about FIBs.  My main reservation is that forwarding is usually
> considered separately from queuing, while this sub-layer embodies both.
> I do accept that TE usually considers both forwarding/steering and
> queuing, and that some assume that sophisticated queuing is required for
> TE -- which is actually service dependent.
>
> Even with this caveat and my personal preference for the 'TE' option, I
> (as contributor) can live with "DetNet Forwarding sub-layer".
>
> Lou
>
> On 12/7/2018 10:45 AM, János Farkas wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I have a similar concern with the change. It of course depends on the
> > definition of Traffic Engineering, but the term "DetNet TE sub-layer"
> > may imply to the reader that Traffic Engineering is a must even for
> > DetNet transit nodes. As far as I recall, the intention is to make
> > possible that DetNet transit nodes can be kept simple. Depending on the
> > actual DetNet service provided, DetNet transit nodes can be actually
> simple.
> >
> > The idea behind the introduction of the two DetNet sub-layers was to
> > make it easier to tackle the problem. The lower layer provides simpler
> > packet forwarding related functions, the higher DetNet Service sub-layer
> > provides more complex DetNet service related functions.
> >
> > In order to have another alternative on the table I propose renaming
> > "DetNet Transport sub-layer" to "DetNet Forwarding sub-layer"
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Janos
> >
> >
> > On 11/20/2018 10:10 PM, Lou Berger wrote:
> >> On 11/20/2018 3:11 PM, Andrew G. Malis wrote:
> >>> This terminology is certainly appropriate for TEAS. For DetNet, this
> >>> seems to make the assertion that the DetNet underlay is always
> >>> traffic-engineered, even if IPv4 or IPv6 (which is certainly possible
> >>> using TE extensions for the IGPs).
> >> This is certainly a fair point and one that does lead me to have a
> >> slight reservation about the change, that said, it seems the benefit
> >> out ways the downsides.
> >>
> >>> As long as people are OK with this assertion, then I'm OK with it as
> >>> well. That should be made clear in the architecture spec where the
> >>> term "DetNet TE sub-layer" is introduced/defined.
> >> agreed.
> >>
> >> Lou
> >>
> >>> Cheers,
> >>> Andy
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 1:29 PM Grossman, Ethan A. <[e-mail]
> >>> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>      I like it.
> >>>      Ethan.
> >>>
> >>>      -----Original Message-----
> >>>      From: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <[e-mail]
> >>>      <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> >>>      Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2018 10:27 AM
> >>>      To: Lou Berger <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>;
> >>>      Scharf, Michael <[e-mail]
> >>>      <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> >>>      Cc: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>;
> >>>      [e-mail]
> >>>      <mailto:[e-mail]>
> >>>      Subject: RE: Transport sub-layer name change (Was Re: [Detnet]
> >>>      Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-detnet-architecture-08)
> >>>
> >>>      I support this change;
> >>>
> >>>      Pascal
> >>>
> >>>      > -----Original Message-----
> >>>      > From: Lou Berger <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> >>>      > Sent: mardi 20 novembre 2018 19:19
> >>>      > To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <[e-mail]
> >>>      <mailto:[e-mail]>>; Scharf, Michael
> >>>      > <[e-mail]
> >>>      <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> >>>      > Cc: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>;
> >>>      [e-mail]
> >>>      <mailto:[e-mail]>
> >>>      > Subject: Transport sub-layer name change (Was Re: [Detnet]
> >>>      Tsvart last
> >>>      > call review of draft-ietf-detnet-architecture-08)
> >>>      >
> >>>      > ALL,
> >>>      >
> >>>      > There is a desire to replace the word "Transport" from the
> DetNet
> >>>      > Transport sub-layer to avoid confusion with L$ Transport
> >>> protocols.
> >>>      >
> >>>      > In the TEAS WG we had a similar discussion and we replaced
> >>>      "Transport"
> >>>      > with "Traffic Engineered (TE) ".
> >>>      >
> >>>      > While a bit more verbose, what do people think about this
> change?
> >>>      >
> >>>      > To be clear, the suggestion is:
> >>>      >
> >>>      > OLD
> >>>      >
> >>>      >                     .
> >>>      >                     .
> >>>      >       +----------------------------+
> >>>      >       |  DetNet Service sub-layer  | PW, UDP, GRE
> >>>      >       +----------------------------+
> >>>      >       | DetNet Transport sub-layer | IPv6, IPv4, MPLS TE LSPs,
> >>>      MPLS SR
> >>>      >       +----------------------------+
> >>>      >                     .
> >>>      >                     .
> >>>      >
> >>>      >                   Figure 4: DetNet adaptation to data plane
> >>>      >
> >>>      > NEW
> >>>      >
> >>>      >                     .
> >>>      >                     .
> >>>      >       +----------------------------+
> >>>      >       |  DetNet Service sub-layer  | PW, UDP, GRE
> >>>      >       +----------------------------+
> >>>      >       |      DetNet TE sub-layer   | IPv6, IPv4, MPLS TE LSPs,
> >>>      MPLS SR
> >>>      >       +----------------------------+
> >>>      >                     .
> >>>      >                     .
> >>>      >
> >>>      >                   Figure 4: DetNet adaptation to data plane
> >>>      >
> >>>      > Lou
> >>>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> detnet mailing list
> >> [e-mail]
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet
> >
>