[Detnet] L2/L3 model?

Erik Nordmark <nordmark@acm.org> Mon, 17 November 2014 18:11 UTC

Return-Path: <nordmark@acm.org>
X-Original-To: detnet@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: detnet@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A7441A870A for <detnet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Nov 2014 10:11:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.935
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.935 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=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 6NAFLFIJU8Nc for <detnet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Nov 2014 10:11:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from c.mail.sonic.net (c.mail.sonic.net [64.142.111.80]) (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 3E5871A8713 for <detnet@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Nov 2014 10:11:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [172.22.227.199] ([162.210.130.3]) (authenticated bits=0) by c.mail.sonic.net (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id sAHIB3O5002247 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 17 Nov 2014 10:11:04 -0800
Message-ID: <546A3A37.7070205@acm.org>
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 10:11:03 -0800
From: Erik Nordmark <nordmark@acm.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "detnet@ietf.org" <detnet@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Sonic-CAuth: UmFuZG9tSVYkmUcVPnwaMZyLrYHrxsNRe/PUYUYg1m9GP3pej19+Joz5nvD1qom5wlXYp2UHigS2ENpVNN5Y4HLRivUAk2Uz
X-Sonic-ID: C;0HzaF4Vu5BGUu95Egs/dsg== M;QIACGIVu5BGUu95Egs/dsg==
X-Sonic-Spam-Details: 0.0/5.0 by cerberusd
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/Kg-olx09y4bQ0s-rm0r05frXXNI
Subject: [Detnet] L2/L3 model?
X-BeenThere: detnet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussions on Deterministic Networking, characterized by 1\) resource reservation; 2\) 0 congestion loss and guaranteed latency; 3\) over L2-only and mixed L2 and L3 networks; and 5\) 1+1 replication/deletion." <detnet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/detnet>, <mailto:detnet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 17 Nov 2014 18:11:21 -0000

After the BoF I realized there was one thing we didn't talk about which 
is what combined L2 and L3 topologies that folks have in mind.
It is true that from a packet forwarding perspective both L2 and L3 have 
queues and clocks, but the interaction with the control plane and the 
approach might be different for different forms of combinations.

First of all we have 6TISCH which is an L3-only network.

But in combined L2/L3 networks we could have at least
  - interconnecting L2 islands using L3
  - arbitrary topologies with mixtures of L2 and L3 forwarding devices

A suggestion (at the mike during the BoF) was to consider pseudo-wires. 
That might make sense when interconnecting L2 islands.
But with arbitrary topologies one could end with with a path that as a 
mixture of bridges and routers e.g.

      Sender - B1 - B2 - R1 - B3 - B4 - B5 - R2 - R3 - Listener

Are there use cases that result in such topologies/paths?

Would one need one controller which is aware of both the L2 and L3 
devices and can pick paths (with resources) that include both?
(Typically we separate the layers thus we might have a PCE which sees 
the L3 topology but not the L2 devices in between the routers.)

I think it would be good to explore the combined L2/L3 use cases and 
models in more detail.

    Erik