Re: [Detnet] Magnus Westerlund's Discuss on draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-11: (with DISCUSS)

Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com> Tue, 08 September 2020 16:13 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 C75103A0F28; Tue, 8 Sep 2020 09:13:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 5II5hjVmmLWx; Tue, 8 Sep 2020 09:13:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wr1-x42f.google.com (mail-wr1-x42f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::42f]) (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 0E86C3A0F1B; Tue, 8 Sep 2020 09:13:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wr1-x42f.google.com with SMTP id z1so19792130wrt.3; Tue, 08 Sep 2020 09:13:30 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=lYuuW+8ybD3BVb3qeDjAk3awg6KiJa9BKwUluGv9SsU=; b=OmOQfcmeTNUIfh4IAP4KK7lPU5CUhOdCZup4QwRA6wFmo0nItieOx8p61WMemm1OH9 mQ0RpOkQySOrqnPszfx8VseTMO/oeyuOX9Rxr40ZPdQsFRCErjr1FoaBO8v1odsurO2x 685TSde0sGQE8DjR9JFEQPe2IEbetebl8FyAPSy8bUJwdSkciqGdZSkiOohNAKRLKb3L SnlMWXy4KGk6dJrWxz50EL0O23ZkJfE1SpPD9+9wb+YT8+XzXhNjqu7Q7pChY/jJnbm2 usG2mZfrlXRGzc/428jgMGCgoJiVd6+6wXW9GoqO7HcAs5VwqRMUfWh9hmlYBieOJk1I YaOA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=lYuuW+8ybD3BVb3qeDjAk3awg6KiJa9BKwUluGv9SsU=; b=ZKbZXQeYBfWQwlO1+Ptu0ERUIkRxjXPO3O0xuY37AJZUgIzhVfWYy2eZ6xtnwzaBgY uALiPkFQWciG+VJpovLTbTEOmU2C/iOFIyrisV+b8mSSoaqfdLGe+N2D85wvjTwVKOtI SmeF4Djyy0JObtEc4wpwqYx0j5D+pbi8NamascKqsQI3+ZeuQSG6r/XH5R0m2RoPM5a1 uGbOIK7+e2JldeFh61LsiUVfKd/7R9v3pxuWtK0qMw7vNixiQqIKeB8bMBL9dBZgy/rU zKbhE2R2XkFnLMs4n3iAwfJWKA46LOrDlZJ52SfLkXK0nIS9yDCBPwrKBDuRdKr0Voe7 iO2w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5321iWyiy4Q0sPULDszehhtUvuE86Ucq/PBy9c/rVpKnADBMuyoA lp75qeJCY8A6BgWtO2W4ThM=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzxIsHXg/essztk2iwGKmz5TJER46plCfcOJXR9WqoI+Oc6VRk8clM5WPEzpJClnOQe4zNB5Q==
X-Received: by 2002:adf:dcd1:: with SMTP id x17mr444031wrm.150.1599581609370; Tue, 08 Sep 2020 09:13:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.178.46] ([62.3.64.16]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id m3sm11020106wme.31.2020.09.08.09.13.28 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 08 Sep 2020 09:13:28 -0700 (PDT)
From: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>
Message-Id: <C67179BF-8ABF-48B7-A577-6DDF547AA56F@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_A1ECA916-0C3E-40A1-AA0F-FF75D47E9CD2"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.1\))
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 2020 17:12:57 +0100
In-Reply-To: <159957776121.26189.12459072134609921207@ietfa.amsl.com>
Cc: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-detnet-mpls@ietf.org, DetNet Chairs <detnet-chairs@ietf.org>, DetNet WG <detnet@ietf.org>, Ethan Grossman <eagros@dolby.com>
To: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
References: <159957776121.26189.12459072134609921207@ietfa.amsl.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/Ud7mERoBuZ2LSLQ2HSkleJpCLXI>
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: Tue, 08 Sep 2020 16:13:33 -0000


> On 8 Sep 2020, at 16:09, Magnus Westerlund via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> wrote:
> 
> 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.

It seems to me that this is getting into the realms of in-time and on-time delivery which is outside the scope  of this work. Indeed it is quite a significant increase in the technology to address that which needs to be thought through very carefully rather than added on the fly.

At this stage we should accept that the design mitigates the loss characteristics of the network and leave the more advanced work such as in network latency management to future work.

- Stewart