Re: [Detnet] L2/L3 model?

Pat Thaler <pthaler@broadcom.com> Mon, 17 November 2014 19:23 UTC

Return-Path: <pthaler@broadcom.com>
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 AE1DB1A8A12 for <detnet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Nov 2014 11:23:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.794
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.794 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.594] autolearn=ham
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 7jg_yOCZ8BXu for <detnet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Nov 2014 11:23:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-gw2-out.broadcom.com (mail-gw2-out.broadcom.com [216.31.210.63]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E7E91A8A0C for <detnet@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Nov 2014 11:23:04 -0800 (PST)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.07,404,1413270000"; d="scan'208";a="50891943"
Received: from irvexchcas07.broadcom.com (HELO IRVEXCHCAS07.corp.ad.broadcom.com) ([10.9.208.55]) by mail-gw2-out.broadcom.com with ESMTP; 17 Nov 2014 11:49:52 -0800
Received: from SJEXCHCAS04.corp.ad.broadcom.com (10.16.203.10) by IRVEXCHCAS07.corp.ad.broadcom.com (10.9.208.55) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.174.1; Mon, 17 Nov 2014 11:23:09 -0800
Received: from SJEXCHMB09.corp.ad.broadcom.com ([fe80::3da7:665e:cc78:181f]) by SJEXCHCAS04.corp.ad.broadcom.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Mon, 17 Nov 2014 11:23:01 -0800
From: Pat Thaler <pthaler@broadcom.com>
To: Erik Nordmark <nordmark@acm.org>, "detnet@ietf.org" <detnet@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Detnet] L2/L3 model?
Thread-Index: AQHQApHsoYo5XYeZBU2RVu8ERjXPq5xlKsZA
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 19:23:00 +0000
Message-ID: <EB9B93801780FD4CA165E0FBCB3C3E672B1C7FD5@SJEXCHMB09.corp.ad.broadcom.com>
References: <546A3A37.7070205@acm.org>
In-Reply-To: <546A3A37.7070205@acm.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.16.203.100]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/YxQ5F2FN9SMfYvQqLMMwkN2JXXk
Subject: Re: [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 19:23:06 -0000

Hi Erik,

One of the L2/L3 use cases is in industrial networks. 

In a typical industrial use case, there would be: 
Dedicated control networks (i.e. the network for machine or a group of machines with an L2 network connecting the controllers, sensors and actuators connected to
A supervisory control network (a L2 network or mixed L2 and L3 depending on the size of the plant)  by L3 forwarding devices connected to
An Enterprise network (e.g. a data center - probably multiple L3 subnets with L2 forwarding within the subnets)

The tightest timing requirements would be in the dedicated control networks, but time synchronization and some scheduled traffic would extend up the to the supervisory control network and perhaps the Enterprise network.

You might look at slides 11 and 12 of this IEEE 802 tutorial for a couple of figures relevant to this use case. 
http://www.ieee802.org/802_tutorials/2013-07/Winkel_00_0713_DMLT_SG_Tutorial_v04.pdf

The type of path in the arbitrary use case would fit here. 

If one has an L3 PCE that sees the L3 topology, it would need an accurate view of the L2 cost (i.e. latency) of the L3 hops to choose a good path and an interface to something in L2 (perhaps the L2 PCE) to create a reservation for scheduled traffic through the L2 forwarders for an L3 hop.

Regards,
Pat

-----Original Message-----
From: detnet [mailto:detnet-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Erik Nordmark
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2014 10:11 AM
To: detnet@ietf.org
Subject: [Detnet] L2/L3 model?


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

_______________________________________________
detnet mailing list
detnet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet