Re: [Detnet] 1st stage of WG adoption poll: draft-dt-detnet-dp-sol

Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> Thu, 20 July 2017 12:45 UTC

Return-Path: <lberger@labn.net>
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 9B6BB131C27 for <detnet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Jul 2017 05:45:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-2.8, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (768-bit key) header.d=labn.net
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 W5Y2BgBMeFrC for <detnet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Jul 2017 05:45:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gproxy9.mail.unifiedlayer.com (gproxy9-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com [69.89.20.122]) (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 DDED9131C1E for <detnet@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Jul 2017 05:45:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cmgw2 (unknown [10.0.90.83]) by gproxy9.mail.unifiedlayer.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99A381E0934 for <detnet@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Jul 2017 06:45:46 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]) by cmgw2 with id n0li1v00W2SSUrH010llNX; Thu, 20 Jul 2017 06:45:46 -0600
X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.2 cv=UvYTD64B c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=h1BC+oY+fLhyFmnTBx92Jg==:117 a=h1BC+oY+fLhyFmnTBx92Jg==:17 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=xqWC_Br6kY4A:10 a=G3gG6ho9WtcA:10 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=pGLkceISAAAA:8 a=quGxFbwMTfe2KjTaQ5EA:9 a=SS9IlLgqd5IsHjVM:21 a=ptWdIVC0GCHyApz1:21 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=w1C3t2QeGrPiZgrLijVG:22 a=6kGIvZw6iX1k4Y-7sg4_:22
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=labn.net; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version :Date:Message-ID:From:References:To:Subject:Sender:Reply-To:Cc:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe: List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=b6rxaLMfSCXkrK2gxmSq9aI6jwqnLyCyXgnO2OpqRwg=; b=xeuipTRdtbTJcGwKL/edFewT1G Xh9GwERipVzyDOJxLJk6+IwFi/adRNQ5aF2yJfoYvLVG3xUvlcWw1ddcUOlCpTzA+B/gXfexzDEh8 bPpZ4KLLDQUxqvqF9hRm72XfE;
Received: from pool-100-15-84-20.washdc.fios.verizon.net ([100.15.84.20]:45224 helo=[IPv6:::1]) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.87) (envelope-from <lberger@labn.net>) id 1dYApq-002jzi-3V; Thu, 20 Jul 2017 06:45:42 -0600
To: Norman Finn <norman.finn@mail01.huawei.com>, Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>, "detnet@ietf.org" <detnet@ietf.org>
References: <be3ed0c9-ff8d-5108-bb00-5b79c089b0d3@labn.net> <de9a4e34-31bb-fa90-d51e-6c57eb610763@pi.nu> <c4c41bea-cf22-0384-ec0c-34b108b06be8@gmail.com> <3DF0466E9510274382F5B74499ACD6F8CADFF1@dfwpml702-chm.exmail.huawei.com>
From: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
Message-ID: <94733f38-8d06-054d-cc1a-5afaf9dfd818@labn.net>
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2017 14:45:39 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <3DF0466E9510274382F5B74499ACD6F8CADFF1@dfwpml702-chm.exmail.huawei.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - box313.bluehost.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - labn.net
X-BWhitelist: no
X-Source-IP: 100.15.84.20
X-Exim-ID: 1dYApq-002jzi-3V
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
X-Source-Sender: pool-100-15-84-20.washdc.fios.verizon.net ([IPv6:::1]) [100.15.84.20]:45224
X-Source-Auth: lberger@labn.net
X-Email-Count: 13
X-Source-Cap: bGFibm1vYmk7bGFibm1vYmk7Ym94MzEzLmJsdWVob3N0LmNvbQ==
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/Z5w2nhj0zOly_WPLZtpWhrVKD8A>
Subject: Re: [Detnet] 1st stage of WG adoption poll: draft-dt-detnet-dp-sol
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: Thu, 20 Jul 2017 12:45:54 -0000

I think it's worth noting, and capturing in the -02 version, Jeff T's
comment regarding using the EVPN (data plane),with all-active for DetNet
encapsulation and foundation for protection.

Lou

On 7/20/2017 2:33 PM, Norman Finn wrote:
> Stewart,
>
> Detnet in no way removes the standard 1+1 approaches from the repertoire of features available to use cases not encompassed by the currently-adopted use cases draft.  However, a number of our use cases place a limit on the number of consecutive packets lost that the standard 1+1 approach cannot meet.  That's why we are exploring techniques that are both more capable and more difficult to implement.  I'm happy to hear about a new use case (network slicing), but that does not invalidate the requirements that we have already addressed successfully.  The same arguments apply to other irrelevant solutions such as congestion notification.
>
> Certainly, if you posit a different set of use cases with different requirements, you'll get a different answer.  That is not helpful.  Please read the use cases and architecture documents to better understand what is driving the other current drafts.  You might look at the problems statement, also.  I apologize for letting it lapse.
>
> -- Norm
> ________________________________________
> From: detnet [detnet-bounces@ietf.org] on behalf of Stewart Bryant [stewart.bryant@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2017 4:57 AM
> To: detnet@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Detnet] 1st stage of WG adoption poll: draft-dt-detnet-dp-sol
>
> I will do a detailed review a bit later, but I think we need to mark the
> IPv6 encapsulation as undecided, and I think that we need to have a
> serious discussion in the WG about the proposal to perform an
> intermediate triage of duplicate packets. Doing the triage at S-PEs adds
> a lot of complexity and posiibly a lot of silicon expense whereas a
> simpler approach that would be to do standard 1+1 or even 1+n and
> de-duplicate at the edge of the network. So I think we need to donsider
> that as undecided at this stage.
>
> I am not sure what the scaling constraints that are proposed are, but
> S-PE can have huge numbers of PWs flowing through them.
>
> - Stewart
>
>
>
> On 20/07/2017 12:51, Loa Andersson wrote:
>> Lou,
>>
>> One thing I feel that we need to do is to look at how GACh works with
>> replication and elimination.
>>
>> The document does not specify OAM functions, but I think that the data
>> channels for OAM should be within scope of the document.
>>
>> /Loa
>>
>> On 2017-07-20 12:00, Lou Berger wrote:
>>> All,
>>>
>>> In this morning sessions we discussed a two stage adoption call for the
>>> proposed data plane solution:
>>>
>>> - in the first stage we collect issues with the -01 individual draft
>>> that WG members would like to see addressed as part of the normal WG
>>> processing of the document.  These issues will then be captured in -02
>>> rev of the individual draft.
>>>
>>> - The second stage will be the normal WG adoption process
>>>
>>> This message initiates the first stage of adoption.  In this stage we'd
>>> like to collect technical issues to be captured in the -01 draft.
>>> Specifically, if you have an issue with the draft please:
>>>
>>> (a) if an issue with a particular section or sections, please identify
>>> the section(s) and summarize the issue to be captured in the -02 rev of
>>> the draft (your text may be copied verbatim or
>>> paraphrased/summarized), or
>>>
>>> (b) if not section specific, identify the general issue you'd like to
>>> see captured in an "open issues" section.  Again, your text may be
>>> copied verbatim, paraphrased or summarized.
>>>
>>> Please send comments in the next 3 weeks, no later than Thursday,
>>> August 10.
>>>
>>> Thank you,
>>>
>>> Pat and Lou
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> detnet mailing list
>>> detnet@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet
>>>
> _______________________________________________
> detnet mailing list
> detnet@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet
>
> _______________________________________________
> detnet mailing list
> detnet@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet
>