Re: [Detnet] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-detnet-problem-statement-03
"Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com> Wed, 16 May 2018 13:09 UTC
Return-Path: <pthubert@cisco.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 DE02D1242F5 for <detnet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 May 2018 06:09:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.5
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.01, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 E1aHmXnEmqyI for <detnet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 May 2018 06:09:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.86.77]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2A3011201F8 for <detnet@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 May 2018 06:09:08 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=21002; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1526476148; x=1527685748; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: mime-version; bh=r5HvY1ON6dbi7GN/+zaPSlcwIh86cPfMGMy0XKneoGw=; b=FdT7DVM7hgwLqVqCGZsTRzn3/NTlXycI2LFxtxRq8+Yz48yg1SCS4Tzj +2HJVO3LlkgT2pn3yzqQRisCg/B05m2ZqrO0Fw8KYRnb9BjgPuYAOIUrG hS9cNwVRga2Fn+dnbptu+xfBxyT05QkHk3NZgXh2c1VPVDc3d6REqnOtk w=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0CsAgD9LPxa/5FdJa1cGQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQcBAQEBAYJNdmF8KAqDapR5gXmBD4Z/hzyEd4F4C4RsAhqDBSE2FgECAQEBAQEBAmwohSgBAQEEIwpDGQIBCBEEAQEoAwICAh8RFAkIAgQBEgiDHYEbTAMVqn6CHB+Gcg2BK4IniCeBVD+BDgGCDX+CT4JKEIJKglQChT+LTocILAkCiDqCZTSCdoE/hkmEd4omhiECERMBgSQBIgExgVJwFTuCQ4IlEo4Xb44pgRgBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.49,404,1520899200"; d="scan'208,217";a="396282487"
Received: from rcdn-core-9.cisco.com ([173.37.93.145]) by rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 16 May 2018 13:09:07 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-003.cisco.com (xch-aln-003.cisco.com [173.36.7.13]) by rcdn-core-9.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w4GD97eO031352 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 16 May 2018 13:09:07 GMT
Received: from xch-rcd-001.cisco.com (173.37.102.11) by XCH-ALN-003.cisco.com (173.36.7.13) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1320.4; Wed, 16 May 2018 08:09:06 -0500
Received: from xch-rcd-001.cisco.com ([173.37.102.11]) by XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com ([173.37.102.11]) with mapi id 15.00.1320.000; Wed, 16 May 2018 08:09:06 -0500
From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>
To: "Kiran.Makhijani" <Kiran.Makhijani@huawei.com>, Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>, János Farkas <janos.farkas@ericsson.com>, DetNet WG <detnet@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Detnet] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-detnet-problem-statement-03
Thread-Index: AQHT4jMJ2dvniwrUQkGRFI6ttpMyXKQebU+AgAANtYCAE+2DAA==
Date: Wed, 16 May 2018 13:08:51 +0000
Deferred-Delivery: Wed, 16 May 2018 13:07:56 +0000
Message-ID: <fbf8e3d6477242d58b07af39024bb2f4@XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com>
References: <12d4d02b-d8da-81b5-c610-50facc798c26@ericsson.com> <034a09e4-03a1-679f-91d4-d5c549de3996@gmail.com> <724FE0750664CC4BA0882B29E74557991E2FE7FC@sjceml521-mbx.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <724FE0750664CC4BA0882B29E74557991E2FE7FC@sjceml521-mbx.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.228.216.12]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_fbf8e3d6477242d58b07af39024bb2f4XCHRCD001ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/ZXRjWhuwV4-oJPNhaBLPRrtAapg>
Subject: Re: [Detnet] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-detnet-problem-statement-03
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: Wed, 16 May 2018 13:09:11 -0000
Yes, Kiran. We could make that statement broader to the enforcement of the security does not read as a Detnet problem, e.g., by saying; The overall security of a deterministic system must cover Works? Pascal From: detnet <detnet-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Kiran.Makhijani Sent: jeudi 3 mai 2018 17:46 To: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>; János Farkas <janos.farkas@ericsson.com>; DetNet WG <detnet@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [Detnet] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-detnet-problem-statement-03 o the protection of the signaling protocol SB> True, but isn't this currently out of scope (and not sure about the next point) I had same question, but maybe this section mentions generic signaling relating to detnet (in the current scope SDN signaling from controller to nodes and/or even PCEP). From: detnet <detnet-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:detnet-bounces@ietf.org>> On Behalf Of Stewart Bryant Sent: Thursday, May 3, 2018 7:57 AM To: János Farkas <janos.farkas@ericsson.com<mailto:janos.farkas@ericsson.com>>; DetNet WG <detnet@ietf.org<mailto:detnet@ietf.org>> Subject: Re: [Detnet] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-detnet-problem-statement-03 This is basically ready, but I think a few items need attention before this goes to the IESG: As a result of this work, it will be possible to establish a multi- hop path over the IP network, SB> I think that should be an IP or MPLS network ============= The goals of Deterministic Networking are to enable the migration of applications that use special-purpose fieldbus technologies (HDMI, CANbus, ProfiBus, etc... even RS-232!) to packet technologies in general, and the Internet Protocol in particular, and to support both these new applications, and existing packet network applications, over the same physical network. SB> I think there should be some text here indicating that DN is SB> required to support these migrations when there are critical SB> timing and reliability issues. SB> SB> Where such issues are not critical, the Pseudowires or L2TP tunnels SB> will normally be adequate. Indeed they have proved adequate for TDM SB> and SDH emulation which are quite fickle services to emulate. ============== * Need a packet loss ratio beyond the classical range for a particular medium, in the range of 10^-9 to 10^-12, or better, on Ethernet, and in the order of 10^-5 in Wireless Sensor Mesh Networks; SB> I am worried whether or not we are setting unreasonable expectations SB> here. How many packet copies do we think we need to send SB> to reduce the BER by 10? =============== 4. Robust defenses against misbehaving hosts, routers, or bridges, SB> s/defenses/defences/ both in the data and control planes, with guarantees that a critical flow within its guaranteed resources cannot be affected by other flows whatever the pressures on the network; ================= These limits may depend in the technology that is used to seu th epath up, whether it is centralized or distributed. SB> Hopefully no my fat fingers in my marked up copy, but it should be: SB> "set the path" ================= 3. The path is installed using RSVP-TE, associated with flow identification, per-hop behavior such as replication and elimination, blocked resources, and flow timing information. SB> This is too prescriptive on approach for a problem statement. SB> There might well be an approach that surfaces from the Segment Routing SB> or VPN+ work based on use of the IGP. ================ Security must cover: SB> I think should be "Security must also cover". If not the dynamic SB> requirement which is unique to DN should be top of the list. o the protection of the signaling protocol SB> True, but isn't this currently out of scope (and not sure about the next point) Best Regards - Stewart
- Re: [Detnet] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-detnet-prob… Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [Detnet] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-detnet-prob… Stewart Bryant
- Re: [Detnet] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-detnet-prob… János Farkas
- Re: [Detnet] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-detnet-prob… Stewart Bryant
- Re: [Detnet] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-detnet-prob… János Farkas
- [Detnet] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-detnet-problem-… János Farkas
- Re: [Detnet] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-detnet-prob… Andrew G. Malis
- Re: [Detnet] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-detnet-prob… Kiran.Makhijani
- Re: [Detnet] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-detnet-prob… Stewart Bryant
- Re: [Detnet] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-detnet-prob… Kiran.Makhijani
- Re: [Detnet] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-detnet-prob… Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [Detnet] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-detnet-prob… Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [Detnet] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-detnet-prob… Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [Detnet] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-detnet-prob… Kiran.Makhijani
- Re: [Detnet] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-detnet-prob… János Farkas