Re: [Detnet] [DetNet] DetNet YANG Model Update

"Gengxuesong (Geng Xuesong)" <gengxuesong@huawei.com> Sun, 17 May 2020 07:34 UTC

Return-Path: <gengxuesong@huawei.com>
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 6340D3A081F; Sun, 17 May 2020 00:34:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.004
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.004 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[HTML_IMAGE_RATIO_04=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 apO1bJL31lGr; Sun, 17 May 2020 00:34:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (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 281EB3A081C; Sun, 17 May 2020 00:34:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhreml703-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.106]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id AD088129BA1FE67D723A; Sun, 17 May 2020 08:34:40 +0100 (IST)
Received: from dggeme754-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.100) by lhreml703-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.52) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1913.5; Sun, 17 May 2020 08:34:39 +0100
Received: from dggeme702-chm.china.huawei.com (10.1.199.98) by dggeme754-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.100) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1913.5; Sun, 17 May 2020 15:34:35 +0800
Received: from dggeme702-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.9.48.229]) by dggeme702-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.9.48.229]) with mapi id 15.01.1913.007; Sun, 17 May 2020 15:34:36 +0800
From: "Gengxuesong (Geng Xuesong)" <gengxuesong@huawei.com>
To: Don Fedyk <dfedyk@labn.net>
CC: '유연철' <dbduscjf@etri.re.kr>, 'DetNet WG' <detnet@ietf.org>, 'DetNet Chairs' <detnet-chairs@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Detnet] [DetNet] DetNet YANG Model Update
Thread-Index: AdYoVow813b+yy0GTX60nxHehfQpjP//98qA//h7BPA=
Date: Sun, 17 May 2020 07:34:36 +0000
Message-ID: <e0f49355b783439bb4c37677771b3223@huawei.com>
References: <129f23f6a7d24a34b8b168b9a5fbdc8c@huawei.com> <003401d62895$80c105a0$824310e0$@labn.net>
In-Reply-To: <003401d62895$80c105a0$824310e0$@labn.net>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.45.12.186]
Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="_009_e0f49355b783439bb4c37677771b3223huaweicom_"; type="multipart/alternative"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/F6JeDXcEgjwqzYsVJHGFn22dgWU>
Subject: Re: [Detnet] [DetNet] DetNet YANG Model Update
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: Sun, 17 May 2020 07:34:47 -0000

Hi Don,

Sorry for the delay of response. I agree to split the slides, and let’s do it in the call meeting of next Monday.
Here are some questions about the current version of the parameters. (in this email, please allow me to still keep them in the same figure for convenience):

1.      Traffic  Requirement/Specification
[cid:image003.jpg@01D62C60.AA2F08A0]
These two groups of parameters exist in all three layers. What is the relationship between them:  same, mapping with each other, or totally different?


2.      Rank
[cid:image005.jpg@01D62C60.AA2F08A0]
Quote from draft-ietf-detnet-flow-information-model-10#section-5.7:
“The DnFlowRank attribute provides the rank of this flow relative to
   other flows in the DetNet domain.  Rank (range: 0-255) is used by the
   DetNet domain to decide which flows can and cannot exist when network
   resources reach their limit.  Rank is used to help to determine which
   flows can be bumped (i.e., removed from node configuration thereby
   releasing its resources) if for example a port of a node becomes
   oversubscribed (e.g., due to network re-configuration).”
I think the meaning of “rank” here is the same as above. The question is whether it only exists in service sub-layer.


3.      Classifier
[cid:image011.jpg@01D62C60.AA2F08A0]
I think the “classifier” here is similar as “flow identification” in the existing YANG Model. If it is, why there is “classifier” in the forwarding sub-layer?
And there are two “classifier” in service sub-layer, what is the difference?


4.      Encapsulation/decapsulation
Why encap/decap only exists in service sub-layer?
I have asked this question in the last call meeting and I remember the answer is that in forwarding sub-layer, encap/decap will reuse the current YANG Model in IETF. I think even if that is the case, a proper reference should be included in forwarding sub-layer. So the element should not be lost.


5.      Aggregation
As we have discussed in the call meetings, different degree of aggregation should be allowed in the Yang Model. If I understand this right, it is implemented by the “Service sub-layer Ref” in service sub-layer and “forwarding sub-layer Ref” in forwarding sub-layer. I think more discussions are needed in this point, because aggregation may not need a brand new service sub-layer/forwarding sub-layer instance, and only limited parameters are necessary.


6.      Direction
As showed in the slide:
[cid:image016.jpg@01D62C60.AA2F08A0]
The direction of the flow influence the use of the parameters. In the existing YANG model, this is showed with “in-segment” and “out-segment”. It may require some discussions about how to do this in the new YANG Model.


Best Regards
Xuesong

From: Don Fedyk [mailto:dfedyk@labn.net]
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2020 3:43 AM
To: Gengxuesong (Geng Xuesong) <gengxuesong@huawei.com>
Cc: '유연철' <dbduscjf@etri.re.kr>; 'DetNet WG' <detnet@ietf.org>; 'DetNet Chairs' <detnet-chairs@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: [Detnet] [DetNet] DetNet YANG Model Update

Hi Xuesong

Yes that is one way to do it. I think maybe if we had a slide per IP/ MPLS/ and Ethernet that covers the current drafts it would be beneficial.
Trying to put it all on one page may be confusing.

Cheers
Don

From: detnet <detnet-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:detnet-bounces@ietf.org>> On Behalf Of Gengxuesong (Geng Xuesong)
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 8:23 AM
To: Don Fedyk <dfedyk@labn.net<mailto:dfedyk@labn.net>>
Cc: '유연철' <dbduscjf@etri.re.kr<mailto:dbduscjf@etri.re.kr>>; 'DetNet WG' <detnet@ietf.org<mailto:detnet@ietf.org>>; 'DetNet Chairs' <detnet-chairs@ietf.org<mailto:detnet-chairs@ietf.org>>
Subject: [Detnet] [DetNet] DetNet YANG Model Update

Hi Don,

As discussed in the call meeting yesterday, I reorganize the figure(the first one is the original one comes from your slide, and the second one is the updated one):

[cid:image017.jpg@01D62C60.AA2F08A0]

[cid:image018.jpg@01D62C60.AA2F08A0]

Please check whether it goes along with your intention. If it does, we could continue the discussion based on this figure.


Best Regards
Xuesong