Re: [Detnet] Initial DP split documents available
Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com> Mon, 23 April 2018 18:39 UTC
Return-Path: <stewart.bryant@gmail.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 BB4521241FC for <detnet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Apr 2018 11:39:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-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 DROJta73VqtD for <detnet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Apr 2018 11:39:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wr0-x232.google.com (mail-wr0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c0c::232]) (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 4BA1C120727 for <detnet@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Apr 2018 11:39:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wr0-x232.google.com with SMTP id q3-v6so33977426wrj.6 for <detnet@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Apr 2018 11:39:51 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-language; bh=TrkjSAE9DMAwl/jUF0/lp4hNq5XXCrF3qoiJsi45bz8=; b=tl/i/9ZzsH8F+lH8uDubEXotmpzrjuM7yCn4M7krb0CvOKsHvNxuEUhERrouXDpxVF ibqkwNR3uAC8YO06kqf29Pt50NuKJfdqH8P0lQRHkhzh3G9dAlmiCTr/nnkfZ/ExByNl gtHXe3+p0m6VH5/wSlJwXHsndHpn1rGgUFzc5WkcfSHYaJzs3KNAayCYGk4vb+PoY0z+ BNfCpeUtLlt5qge+33N2xFwyuEwtKF7ELyyAXJHczeCsK6ZDzzloR44Us2jZ80Ra2sTw 2v/mNJ9mInVfzAD+UgXNyRd+7DVHgpLYb75aFOxLK/awwtoX943nrHXy2eZP39eTnW7a gxVA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding :content-language; bh=TrkjSAE9DMAwl/jUF0/lp4hNq5XXCrF3qoiJsi45bz8=; b=jEWHxixNBwQ74TasvfgpZLpxMNpU4l7gvamRmEgjWJ0vhBqNkE7I1jkX8+LxoLVqAl c+Ra6ESJNrtirGNhkipvF2WF1SBymJgp7+cpzlg+uIioj7rym78A2WBszYTqf3gUG10s LnqcfNXrUo1PcKL8IBnALIQwCWaZ9buI8jrLZI2XoHwx9Zk1vQS6bYsVDCsjthufIGyz YwoY8J6P3umyociuybA1x90kZ2Y6whsjaxGz+guhJlQxYzYH7IqLa0RWxuyOG4Tg3G1x Z59EBhGOq8cUa+KQeBL3NqZ1f3H1SDsbmX4QqoeKmR4JwwlRLsWiK3bHbNQR7S6B4F2s ihLQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALQs6tD/nNkX0T/58yYcg93aHfXkRZK10Rqduhhbvvs/Hov+s6nXETQA 4f1kzyEqeNAwThs5Puk4NuJ//PIE
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AIpwx49tYhvyLHWJBDPkivIs+C2QpNWixiHRz0aEigpeLe3OZDxbL2CsMqyW8MxncrN67iwpFm0pLQ==
X-Received: by 2002:adf:c792:: with SMTP id l18-v6mr18048965wrg.224.1524508788856; Mon, 23 Apr 2018 11:39:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.2.105] (host213-123-124-182.in-addr.btopenworld.com. [213.123.124.182]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id m35-v6sm8781741wrm.51.2018.04.23.11.39.47 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 23 Apr 2018 11:39:48 -0700 (PDT)
To: Balázs Varga A <balazs.a.varga@ericsson.com>, "detnet@ietf.org" <detnet@ietf.org>
References: <DB4PR07MB065371BC2D2B6F348D24864AACB00@DB4PR07MB0653.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <DB4PR07MB0653F67DB2ACBFF68F2B2BA9AC8A0@DB4PR07MB0653.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
From: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8b3c3b8a-8af9-6e57-54b9-b95773f3a359@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2018 19:39:47 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <DB4PR07MB0653F67DB2ACBFF68F2B2BA9AC8A0@DB4PR07MB0653.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-GB
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/GNzchcHbAquV9V2-q5CNJaDbl6Y>
Subject: Re: [Detnet] Initial DP split documents available
X-BeenThere: detnet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Mon, 23 Apr 2018 18:39:55 -0000
Hi, Sorry this is so late. For some reason I though the interim was in May and I did look at my DETNET folder these last few days. - Stewart SB> Following up on the list discussion, I think that SB> we probably need: SB> - DP Arch SB> - MPLS DP SB> - IP DP SB> All as separate documents. SB> I stopped reviewing at Section 6.3 since there is huge SB> uncertainty beyont that point. SB> Given the number of detailed comments, I have made, I wonder the SB> editors and I should set up a shared screen session to deal with SB> as many as possible and present the results of our discussions SB> to the WG. SB> I see the OAM indication material did not get incorporated SB> from draft-bryant-detnet-mpls-dp-00. I think it needs to SB> be here even if we have a separate OAM draft. SB> Similarly I think the flow agregation text from SB> draft-bryant-detnet-mpls-dp-00 should be included. SB> There needs to be some payload type discussion (section 7 of SB> draft-bryant-detnet-mpls-dp-00. ) It does not need to be that SB> text, but it does nedd to be thought through. SB> Section 9 of draft-bryant-detnet-mpls-dp-00 was an attempt SB> at talking about the elements of proceedure, and I think we SB> need something of that type in this text. SB> We need to jointly review draft-bryant-detnet-mpls-dp-00 SB> Section 10 and section 11 and move some material over. Please look for SB in the trimmed text below. ============ 1. Introduction Deterministic Networking (DetNet) is a service that can be offered by a network to DetNet flows. DetNet provides these flows extremely low packet loss rates and assured maximum end-to-end delivery latency. SB> DetNet provides these flows with an extremely low packet loss rates and an assured maximum end-to-end delivery latency. ====== 2. Terminology 2.1. Terms used in this document SB> The thing I keep looking for is a term for the DN object SB> to use in the same way that I would use the work pseudowire SB> We really need an agreed term so that we can easily talk SB> about it as an object. ======= Local-ID A DetNet Edge and Relay node internal construct that uniquely identifies a DetNet flow within a node and never appear on-wire. It may be used to select proper forwarding and/or DetNet specific service function. SB> If it does not appear on the wire this is really control plane SB> and thus out of scope. ========= PREF A Packet Replication and Elimination Function (PREF) does the replication and elimination processing of DetNet flow packets in edge or relay nodes. The replication function is essentially the existing 1+n protection mechanism. The elimination function reuses and extends the existing duplicate detection mechanism to operate over multiple (separate) DetNet member flows of a DetNet compound flow. SB> I really think that we need to split the functions: SB> PR, EF and ROF (re-order) You can have any of them at a SB> node, and so not need to have them all. ========= DetNet Control Word A control word used for sequencing and identifying duplaicate packets at the DetNet service layer. 2.2. Abbreviations PREF Packet Replication and Elimination Function. SB> So here I think we are going to need PRF, EF and ROF. ========== TSN |<---------- End to End DetNet Service ------>| TSN Service | Transit Transit | Service TSN (AC) | |<-Tunnel->| |<-Tnl->| | (AC) TSN End | V V 1 V V 2 V V | End System | +--------+ +--------+ +--------+ | System +---+ | | E1 |==========| R1 |=======| E2 | | +---+ | |--|----|._X_....|..DetNet..|.._ _...|..DF3..|...._X_.|---|---| | |CE1| | | \ | Flow 1 | X | | / | | |CE2| | | | \_.|...DF2....|._/ \_..|..DF4..|._/ | | | +---+ | |==========| |=======| | +---+ ^ +--------+ +--------+ +--------+ ^ | Edge Node Relay Node Edge Node | | | |<----- Emulated Time Sensitive Networking (TSN) Service ---->| Figure 1: IEEE 802.1TSN over DetNet Figure 2 illustrates how end to end MPLS-based DetNet service is provided in a more detail. In this case, the end systems are able to send and receive DetNet flows. For example, an end system sends data encapsulated in MPLS. SB> I don't think that this is a likely scenario. What is more SB> likely is a PE model with the Edge nodes as PEs. ======== An example MPLS DetNet network fragment and packet flow is illustrated in Figure 3 . 1111 11111111 111111 222222 2222222 333 CE1----EN1--------R1-------R2-------R3--------EN2----CE2 \2 22222/ 3 / \2222222 /----+ 3 / +------R4------------------------+ 333333333333333333333333 Figure 3: Example Packet flow in DetNet Enabled MPLS Network Customer Equipment CE1 send a packet into the DetNet enabled MPLS network. Edge Node EN1 SB> I think that this is where the MPLS encap likely happens. ======== 1. DetNet function related scenarios: * Congestion protection and latency control: usage of allocated resources (queuing, policing, shaping). * Explicit routes: select/apply the flow specific path. * Service protection: recognize DetNet compound and member flows for replication an elimination. Comment #1 I am not sure whether the correct architectural construct is flow or flow group. Flow suggests that sharing/ aggregation is not allowed but whether this is allowed or not is an application specific issue. Discussion: Agree that a flow group would be a better characterization. SB> Agree Comment #2 I think that there needs to be some clarification as to whether FG is is understood by the DN system exclusively or whether there is an expectation that it is understood by the underlay. Discussion: Agree that more detail is needed here. DetNet aware nodes need to understand flow groups. Underlay needs to be aware of flow groups at the resource allocation level. SB> The model I was using for VPN+ seems right. The underlay SB> has resources set asside with certain properties. The SB> control plane maps the respources to the slices. SB> A Detnet FG runs on a slice. There are of course two methods SB> of describing the mapping in the DP, explicit (a label for the resource), SB> and implicit (a lable for the path which is mapped to the resource). =========== 2. OAM function related scenarios: <snip> Each DetNet node (edge, relay and transit) use an internal/ implementation specific local-ID of the DetNet-(compound)-flow in order to accomplish its role during transport. Recognizing the DetNet flow is more relaxed for edge and relay nodes, as they are fully aware of both the DetNet service and transport layers. The primary DetNet role of intermediate transport nodes is limited to ensuring congestion protection and latency control for the above listed DetNet functions. SB> A relay node can be fully aware as well. The way I had in mind SB> was for the relay nodes to recognise and operate on the SB> service label. The DetNet data plane allows for the aggregation of DetNet flows, e.g., via MPLS hierarchical LSPs, to improved scaling. When DetNet flows are aggregated, transit nodes may have limited ability to provide service on per-flow DetNet identifiers. Therefore, identifying each individual DetNet flow on a transit node may not be achieved in some network scenarios, but DetNet service can still be assured in these scenarios through resource allocation and control. Comment #3 You could introduce the concept of a flow group identified into the packet. You may also include a flow id at a lower layer. SB> So do we need heirachical service labels? SB> Not something we needed in PW, and a new MPLS construct, but SB> quite feasible. Discussion: Agree on the identification properties. Adding a specific id into actual on-wire formats is not necessarily needed. SB> I do not understand this point. On each DetNet node dealing with DetNet flows, an internal local-ID is assumed to determine what local operation a packet goes through. Therefore, local-IDs has to be unique on each edge and relay nodes. Local-ID is unambiguously bound to the DetNet flow. SB> Maybe we think of different things when you say local-id. SB> We need to discuss. SB> Is a local ID a control plane concept (out of scope) or is SB> it equivalent to a PW of VPN label. 4.2. Packet replication and elimination considerations DetNet service layer introduces packet replication and elimination functionality (PREF) for use in DetNet edge and relay node and end system packet processing. PREF MAY be enabled in a DetNet node and the required processing is only applied to packets with a positive flow identification at the DetNet service layer. PREF utilizes a sequence number carried within a DetNet flow packets. SB> Here we go back to the fundamental question of whether PREF SB> is a single function. I think it is three components and thus SB> using the term PREF in this way add confusion. At a DetNet node level the output of the PREF elimination function is always a single packet. SB> No it is not. Look at Fig 3 R4. Do you mean the PREF EF is only SB> one packet? ========== 4.3. Packet reordering considerations DetNet service layer introduces also packet reordering functionality SB>d/also/ for use in DetNet edge and relay node and end system packet processing. The reordering functionality MAY be enabled in a DetNet node. The reordeing functionality relies on a presence of sequence numbers in a DetNet (compound) flows. The reordering processing is only applied to packets with a positive flow identification at the DetNet service layer. SB> What is "a positive flow identification" 5. DetNet encapsulation 5.1. End-system specific considerations Data-flows requiring DetNet service are generated and terminated on end-systems. Encapsulation depends on application and its preferences. In a DetNet (or even a TSN) domain the DN (TSN) functions use at most two flow parameters, namely Flow-ID and Sequence Number. However, an application may exchange further flow related parameters (e.g., time-stamp), which are not considered by DN functions. SB> So Greg, Yaakov and I had a discussion at the Paris MPLS SB> mtg abou this. We think that we will likely need the concept SB> of strict flow re-order, but also a time-based function SB> in which we only re-order "young" packets. This lead us to SB> considering the s/n to be a timesstamp in some implimentations. ============= As a general rule, DetNet domains MUST be capable to forward any SB> s/capable to forward/capable of forwarding/ Data-flows and the DetNet domain MUST NOT intend to mandate end- SB> d/intend to/ system encapsulation format. ============== 5.2. DetNet domain specific considerations From connection type perspective three scenarios are distinguished: SB> s/From/From a/ 1. Directly attached: end-system is directly connected to an edge node 2. Indirectly attached: end-system is behind a (L2-TSN / L3-DetNet) sub-net 3. DN integrated: end-system is part of the DetNet domain L3 end-systems may use any of these connection types, however L2 end- systems may use only the first two (directly or indirectly attached). Korhonen & Varga Expires October 25, 2018 [Page 11] Internet-Draft DetNet MPLS Data Plane April 2018 DetNet domain MUST allow communication between any end-systems of the same type (L2-L2, L3-L3), independent of their connection type and DetNet capability. SB> I think you ought to build L2 only, L3 only and mixed mode. SB> this may be important in terms of the cost of the relay nodes. However directly attached and indirectly attached end-systems have no knowledge about the DetNet domain and its encapsulation format at all. See the figure below for L3 end-system scenarios. ____+----+ +----+ _____ / | ES3| | ES1|____ / \__/ +----+___ +----+ \ / \ + | ____ \ _/ +----+ __/ \ +__ DetNet domain / | ES2|____/ L2/L3 |___/ \ __ __/ +----+ \_______/ \_______/ \___/ Figure 5: Connection types of L3 end-systems 5.2.1. DetNet Bridging Service The simplest DetNet service is to provide bridging (i.e., tunneling for L2), where the connected hosts are in the same broadcast (BC) domain. Forwarding over the DetNet domain is based on L2 (MAC) addresses (i.e. dst-MAC), so L2 headers MUST be kept. For both IP and MPLS PSN a DetNet specific tunnel encapsulation MUST be introduced. SB> There is a simpler model that may also be of interest the SB> PW model where it is the interface that is used to select the SB> destination. ============== ============ +------+ | X | +------+ +------+ | X | | IP | +------+ +------+ End+system | L2 | | L2 | +-----+======+-+======+--+======+-+======++ DetNet tunnel | IP | | MPLS | +------+ +------+ | L2 | | L2 | +------+ +------+ Examples +------+ +------+ | X | | X | +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ | X | | X | | IP | | IP | +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ | L2 | | L2 | | L2 | | L2 | ++======+-+======+--+======+-+======++ | IP | | MPLS | | IP | | MPLS | +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ | L2 | | L2 | | L2 | | L2 | +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ Figure 6: Encapsulation format for DetNet Bridging SB> That is not quite right. We need the d-CW in the layering. SB> This may be explicity called out of symbolically included SB> as a shim. =========== 5.2.2.1. MPLS PSN In case of an MPLS PSN at the ingress/egress (i.e., PE nodes of DetNet domain) the IP packets are encapsulated in MPLS. The data- flow IP header MUST be preserved as-is. Korhonen & Varga Expires October 25, 2018 [Page 13] Internet-Draft DetNet MPLS Data Plane April 2018 +------+ +------+ | X | | X | +------+ +------+ End+system | IP | | IP | -----+------+-------+======+--- --+======+-- DetNet | MPLS | | MPLS | +------+ +------+ | L2 | | L2 | +------+ +------+ SB> This really does need the shim since the stack on the right SB> may be confused with ordinary IP over MPLS Figure 7: Encapsulation format for DetNet Routing in MPLS PSN for L3 end-systems 5.3. DetNet Inter-Working Function (DN-IWF) 5.3.1. Networks with multiple technology segments There are network scenarios, where the DetNet domain contains multiple technology segments (IP, MPLS) and all those segments are under the same administrative control (see Figure 8). Furthermore, DetNet nodes may be interconnected via TSN segments. An important aspect of DetNet network design is placement of DetNet functions across the domain. Designs based on segment-by-segment optimization can provide only suboptimal solutions. In order to achieve global optimum Inter-Working Functions (DN-IWF) can be placed at segment border nodes, which stich together DetNet flows across connected segments. DN-IWF may ensure that flow attributes are correlated across segment borders. For example, there are two DetNet functions which require Sequence Numbers: (1) Elimination: removes duplications from flows and (2) IOD: ensures in-order-delivery of packet in a flow. Stitching flows together and correlating attributes means for example that replication of packets can happen in one segment and elimination of duplicates in a different one. SB> Do we really need this? It will add a lot of complexity and SB> in practice such IWFs are rearely implemented. If one SB> is needed it is likely to end up being proprietary. ============== ______ _____ / \__ ____ / \__/ \___ ______ +----+ __/ +======+ +==+ \ +----+ |src |__/ Seg1 ) | | \ Seg3 \____| dst| +----+ \_______+ \ Segment-2 | \+_____/ +----+ \======+__ _+===/ \ __ __/ \_______/ \___/ +------------+ +------------------E----+ | | +----+ | | +----R---+ | +----+ |src |-------R +---+ | E----------+ dst| +----+ | | E--------+ +----+ +--------------R | +-----------------+ Figure 8: Optimal replication and elimination placement across technology segments example SB> So here we have separated the R and the E functions. ========== ========= SB> This ought to be the core of this document with most of the earlier SB> text in a data-plane arch draft. 6. MPLS-based DetNet data plane solution 6.1. DetNet over MPLS Encapsulation Components ======== ====== 6.3. DetNet control word A DetNet control word (d-CW) conforms to the Generic PW MPLS Control Word (PWMCW) defined in [RFC4385] and is illustrated in Figure 11. The upper nibble of the d-CW MUST be set to zero (0). The effective sequence number bit length is between 0 and 28 bits, and configured either by a control plane or manually for each DetNet flow. The sequence number is aligned to the right (least significant bits) and unused bits MUST be set to zero (0). Each DetNet flow MUST have its own sequence number counter. The sequence number is incremented by one for each new packet. The d-CW MUST always be present in a packet. In a case the sequence number is not used (e.g., for DetNet-t-flows) the control plane or the manual configuration has to define zero (0) bit length seqeunce number and the value of the sequence number MUST be set to zero (0). [Editor's'note: TSN compatibility to be ensured (16 bits vs. 28 bits).] SB> If we want to we can put the 16 bits in the bottom of the 28 bits SB> and configure the DN to be 16 bits by configuration. 7.4. Bidirectional traffic [Editor's NOTE: delete this section and treat bi-dir flows as two uni-dir ???] SB> That is what PWs do, but then we found this problematic in MPLS-TP SB> we need to discuss. 8. Time synchronization [Editor's NOTE: delete this section (scope time synchronization solution outside data plane).] Comment #10 SB> This section should point the reader to RFC8169 (residence time in MPLS n/w. We need to consider if we need to introduce the same concept in IP. Discussion: Agree. For IP we could reference to PTPv2 or v3 over UDP/IP, since it measures residence time among other things. SB> We need a voice discussion, perhaps at an interim.
- [Detnet] Initial DP split documents available Balázs Varga A
- Re: [Detnet] Initial DP split documents available Balázs Varga A
- Re: [Detnet] Initial DP split documents available Andrew G. Malis
- Re: [Detnet] Initial DP split documents available Balázs Varga A
- Re: [Detnet] Initial DP split documents available Lou Berger
- Re: [Detnet] Initial DP split documents available Andrew G. Malis
- Re: [Detnet] Initial DP split documents available Lou Berger
- Re: [Detnet] Initial DP split documents available Andrew G. Malis
- Re: [Detnet] Initial DP split documents available Stewart Bryant
- Re: [Detnet] Initial DP split documents available Stewart Bryant