Re: [Detnet] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-detnet-architecture-05
Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com> Wed, 23 May 2018 16:11 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 EE68A12E057; Wed, 23 May 2018 09:11:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable 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 fq75B_UZmnB0; Wed, 23 May 2018 09:11:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm0-x243.google.com (mail-wm0-x243.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::243]) (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 030F212E8AF; Wed, 23 May 2018 09:02:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm0-x243.google.com with SMTP id f6-v6so10451480wmc.4; Wed, 23 May 2018 09:02:09 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-language; bh=mptGdTKJfmiaUm+GSFlQER1rhq4ChpvdPmleS/Rnz08=; b=pS3NHkUhz2uV1F+nftQ12IJmg08m0Bnc6nUEzAzGosN54wOqjFalE6/xaH515sjtZk wkxVhlgD9CNhIDF6bMtA5KsIB0c6Q9k/lAYeceqcGsBe7O7rsP0IWhBNzxEJ0p5+obeM WYRdcvwy2rEhMvykfLD+4xiRqFxvl/nmswiHxYtrs/2YTeJNzviO4JQGhdBAGBDFEpfP KxWxInq2YvgRFyZYlYCwPI/qnrGI5b/rn5M9S6Esa3oCs53Ll1LGCPZGyDVCN/Oo2gJi QOTHmVffUTLHXLAVTyUa+LVeIIYIDtUgMWzgufPf4tFq89QATxlDr2izIoFNil09OkcA k72g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding :content-language; bh=mptGdTKJfmiaUm+GSFlQER1rhq4ChpvdPmleS/Rnz08=; b=JrxiHh6o13NChpy2he3bSwjEpstcnlPXI8dTkUL3ZMFPVbjUyDw++4tGPmcCBhrXwh +5gp4PcGbPJfaaVOv3nURrELDc77jhjofNVKkxGxVm49MMi0BfhxzIGb46Tytkq5pPLf DiPxrSXJwlHbrSaBc2NfPdwtHn3pDDriIpJ9I0KfN5JFEB/31JzgeSimATKJGVoDVdT9 VkhX8XbGICTzdZQRir2Tj0i8dnVGrvuFb28a3gq3ISwIA9fXHjaJlFfMcWQtOwmaTf/K lDeXQTHDwoYo53UeX9gZugjuy/D7Di+7oA4o3DLlGMcI5rEFcgamT9eW2g+fGsPoThqP 1iBw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALKqPwfMe/+qsCNCqapXQmdllKNz0FpQNjx8oCLim3tJ1Xj66jr+5b5F t7ghW+cn3FhB18vjiZ3GTRZj5o1Q
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AB8JxZpLmo10BS9XIswhfwWFTICcww+Mdb5i7hTz1ezNL6lmw3b9wxc2hAe3wegutKgAGeC/dHptvA==
X-Received: by 2002:a1c:7407:: with SMTP id p7-v6mr4247583wmc.132.1527091327085; Wed, 23 May 2018 09:02:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.2.105] (host213-123-124-182.in-addr.btopenworld.com. [213.123.124.182]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id j8-v6sm38433708wra.58.2018.05.23.09.02.06 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 23 May 2018 09:02:06 -0700 (PDT)
To: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>, DetNet WG <detnet@ietf.org>
Cc: DetNet Chairs <detnet-chairs@ietf.org>
References: <99657d22-f9e4-8a1a-27de-6997900f727e@labn.net>
From: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7cc44e35-cbd0-fbdb-95b7-c93ab38ec5d7@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 23 May 2018 17:02:05 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <99657d22-f9e4-8a1a-27de-6997900f727e@labn.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-GB
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/dkhDMHzopb8ykBrklCUsaMNTLXo>
Subject: Re: [Detnet] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-detnet-architecture-05
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, 23 May 2018 16:11:56 -0000
Some WG last call comments on draft-ietf-detnet-architecture Best Regards Stewart ============= Abstract The capabilities can be managed by configuration, or by manual or automatic network management. SB> I am not sure that network management (at least in the IETF is SB> quite the right term. Most people think of what is described here SB> as automatic network management as a routing protocol. =============== 1. Introduction Deterministic Networking (DetNet) is a service that can be offered by a network to DetNet flows. DetNet provides these flows extremely low s/flows/flows with/ ========= Many applications of interest to Deterministic Networking SB> That is surely the wrong way round - the applications are SB> interested in DN rather than DN being interested in the Apps? ========== source An end system capable of sourcing a DetNet flow. SB> Shouldn't that be a DetNet source, since you can have SB> both DetNet and non-DetNet sources in a DetNet enabled network. =========== DetNet transit node A node operating at the DetNet transport layer, that utilizes link layer and/or network layer switching across multiple links and/or sub-networks to provide paths for DetNet service layer functions. Optionally provides congestion protection over those paths. An MPLS LSR is an example of a DetNet transit node. SB> In that example it would have to be a DetNet enable/aware LSR. An SB> ordinary LSR would not know anything about DetNet. ============= 2.2. IEEE 802 TSN to DetNet dictionary This section also serves as a dictionary for translating from the terms used by the IEEE 802 Time-Sensitive Networking (TSN) Task Group to those of the DetNet WG. Listener The IEEE 802 term for a destination of a DetNet flow. relay system The IEEE 802 term for a DetNet intermediate node. Stream The IEEE 802 term for a DetNet flow. Talker The IEEE 802 term for the source of a DetNet flow. SB> Whilst I cannot comment on IEEE definitions, I am suprised SB> that in our text a Listener is not called an 802 TSN Listener etc ============= The paths are typically (but not necessarily) explicit routes, so that they cannot suffer temporary interruptions caused by the reconvergence of routing or bridging protocols. SB> I think cannot is too strong. I think the best that you can say SB> is "do not normally". SB> ============ These three techniques can be applied independently, giving eight possible combinations, including none (no DetNet), although some combinations are of wider utility than others. This separation keeps the protocol stack coherent and maximizes interoperability with existing and developing standards in this (IETF) and other Standards Development Organizations. Some examples of typical expected combinations: o Explicit routes plus service protection are exactly the techniques employed by [HSR-PRP]. Explicit routes are achieved by limiting the physical topology of the network, and the sequentialization, replication, and duplicate elimination are facilitated by packet tags added at the front or the end of Ethernet frames. SB> ER can be done virtually as well as physically. RSVP is a type of SB> ER, as is Adj-SID based SR, and we can design other types. o Congestion protection alone is is offered by IEEE 802.1 Audio Video bridging [IEEE802.1BA-2011]. As long as the network suffers no failures, zero congestion loss can be achieved through the use of a reservation protocol (MSRP), shapers in every bridge, and a bit of network calculus. SB> Network calculus needs a reference. It is not well known outside detnet. ================ 3.2.3. Jitter Reduction A core objective of DetNet is to enable the convergence of Non-IP networks onto a common network infrastructure. SB> I think that this needs to be clarified that it is the convergence SB> of sensitive Non-IP. PW has been doing this convergence since inception, SB> and can handle what some would expect to be sensitive applications SB> such as TDM telephony quite well. This requires the accurate emulation of currently deployed mission-specific networks, which typically rely on point-to-point analog (e.g. 4-20mA modulation) and serial-digital cables (or buses) for highly reliable, synchronized and jitter-free communications. While the latency of analog transmissions is basically the speed of light, legacy serial links are usually slow (in the order of Kbps) compared to, say, GigE, and some latency is usually acceptable. What is not acceptable is the introduction of excessive jitter, which may, for instance, affect the stability of control systems. SB> See above, I think this needs a few caveats. =============== Packet replication and elimination, also known as seamless redundancy [HSR-PRP], or 1+1 hitless protection, is a function of the DetNet service layer. It involves three capabilities: SB> I am concerned at the prominence of the HSR-PRP reference. As far SB> as I can tell this is only available for fee of 300 Euro. ============ In the simplest case, this amounts to replicating each packet in a source that has two interfaces, and conveying them through the network, along separate paths, to the similarly dual-homed destinations, that discard the extras. This ensures that one path (with zero congestion loss) remains, even if some intermediate node fails. The sequence numbers can also be used for loss detection and for re-ordering. SB> Sure, but of course you need to do SRLG risk analysis, and even then SB> two failures are not unknowm. =========== Packet replication and elimination > > > > > > > > > relay > > > > > > > > > /------------+ R node E +------------\ > > / v + ^ \ > end R + v | ^ + E end system + v | ^ + system > \ v + ^ / > > \------------+ R relay E +-----------/ > > > > > > > > > > node > > > > > > > > Figure 1 Packet replication and elimination does not react to and correct failures; it is entirely passive. Thus, intermittent failures, SB> I think it copes with intermittent failures OK. mistakenly created packet filters, or misrouted data is handled just the same as the equipment failures that are detected handled by typical routing and bridging protocols. ================ Transit nodes see DetNet nodes as end points. All DetNet enabled nodes are connect to sub-networks, where a point-to- SB> s/connect/connected/ =========== o DetNet t-aware: An extant TSN system. It knows about some TSN functions (e.g., reservation), but not about replication/ elimination. SB> Generic TSN is OK, but I would be cautious of requiring IEEE TSN. =========== o DetNet s-aware: An extant IEC 62439-3 system. It supplies sequence numbers, but doesn't know about zero congestion loss. SB> IEC62439 should surely be clarified as just an example. =========== 4.3.1. DetNet flow types A DetNet flow can have different formats during while it is SB> s/during while/as/ =========== transported between the peer end systems. Therefore, the following possible types / formats of a DetNet flow are distinguished in this document: o App-flow: native format of a DetNet flow. It does not contain any DetNet related attributes. o DetNet-t-flow: specific format of a DetNet flow. Only requires the congestion / latency features provided by the Detnet transport layer. o DetNet-s-flow: specific format of a DetNet flow. Only requires the replication/elimination feature ensured by the DetNet service layer. o DetNet-st-flow: specific format of a DetNet flow. It requires both DetNet service layer and DetNet transport layer functions during forwarding. SB> I find the relisting of these types confusing. Wheren't they defined SB> in the section above? =========== 4.3.2. Source guarantees For the purposes of congestion protection, DetNet flows can be synchronous or asynchronous. In synchronous DetNet flows, at least the intermediate nodes (and possibly the end systems) are closely time synchronized, typically to better than 1 microsecond. SB> Are you talking about the flows being sync, or the network handling of the SB> the flows here. We have carried synchronous traffic over MPLS in the past SB> so I think this is a topic that requires quite careful handling to make sure that SB> we do not set up an over-engineered solution. ========== The source promises that these limits will not be exceeded. If the source transmits less data than this limit allows, the unused resources such as link bandwidth can be made available by the system SB> s/can be made/to be made/ ========== 4.4. Traffic Engineering for DetNet Traffic Engineering Architecture and Signaling (TEAS) [TEAS] defines traffic-engineering architectures for generic applicability across packet and non-packet networks. From TEAS perspective, Traffic SB> s/from/from a/ ========== ..... to translate from a flow specification to a set of values for the managed objects that control each relay or end system. The IEEE 802 has specified (and is SB> Should that be IEEE 802 Standards Group or some such? ============= The DetNet network reference model is shown in Figure 8 for a DetNet- Service scenario (i.e. between two DetNet-UNIs). In this figure, the end systems ("A" and "B") are connected directly to the edge nodes of the IP/MPLS network ("PE1" and "PE2"). SB> I am confused as to when we should use the terms "relay node", "edge node" SB> and "PE". There seem.s to be inconsistency in the project on the use SB> of these terms =========== The tunnel between the service instances may have some special characteristics. For example, in case of a "packet PW" based tunnel, SB> I don't think we should use the term "packet PW" since SB> that points to a specific PW technology and that is not SB> the direction we are going in the data-plane part of the SB> project. SB> I think the text above and the text in the rest of the SB> para is confusing for the reader. SB> I suggest that we write something much more generic and SB> let the DP team have a clear hand to design a good solution. there are differences in the usage of the packet PW for DetNet traffic compared to the network model described in [RFC6658]. In the DetNet scenario, the packet PW is used exclusively by the DetNet flow, whereas [RFC6658] states: "The packet PW appears as a single point-to-point link to the client layer. Network-layer adjacency formation and maintenance between the client equipments will follow the normal practice needed to support the required relationship in the client layer ... This packet pseudowire is used to transport all of the required layer 2 and layer 3 protocols between LSR1 and LSR2". =========== The need for a lower-level DetNet node to be aware of individual higher-layer flows is not unique to DetNet. But, given the endless complexity of layering and relayering over tunnels that is available to network designers, DetNet needs to provide a model for flow identification that is at least somewhat better than packet SB> "at least somewhat better is a strange turn of phrase" =========== Thus, rather than packet inspection, there is the option to export higher-layer information to the lower layer. The requirement to support one or the other method for flow identification (or both) is the essential complexity that DetNet brings to existing control plane models. SB> A very strange way of expressing the point, sounds like complexity SB> is a virtue. =========== Flow-IDs The additional (domain specific) Flow-ID can be o created by a domain specific function or o derived from the Flow-ID added to the App-flow, so that it must be unique inside the given domain. SB> very strange English. Note that the Flow-ID added to the App-flow is still present in the packet, but transport nodes may lack the function to recognize it; that's why the additional Flow-ID is added (pushed). SB> Again rather strange English and an unnecessary pointer to a particular SB> implementation technique (pushed). Same comment applies to para 1 of 4.7.3 ============ 4.9. Provisioning model SB> Sections 4.9.1 and 4.9.2 seem rather tentative for an RFC SB> that we are about to publish. 4.9.1. Centralized Path Computation and Installation 4.9.2. Distributed Path Setup ============== 5. Security Considerations Furthermore, in a control system where millions of dollars of equipment, or even human lives, can be lost if the DetNet QoS is not delivered, one must consider not only simple equipment failures, where the box or wire instantly becomes perfectly silent, but bizarre errors such as can be caused by software failures. SB> Bizare is a strange term to use. I am sure that later reviewers SB> will ask for more text on this. SB> I might use the term "subtle, complex, intermittent and state dependent" ============ [HSR-PRP] IEC, "High availability seamless redundancy (HSR) is a further development of the PRP approach, although HSR functions primarily as a protocol for creating media redundancy while PRP, as described in the previous section, creates network redundancy. PRP and HSR are both described in the IEC 62439 3 standard.", <http://webstore.iec.ch/webstore/webstore.nsf/ artnum/046615!opendocument>. SB> Not available at the time of this review, but my recollection is that SB> this is not readily available without paying a large fee. =========== [ISA95] ANSI/ISA, "Enterprise-Control System Integration Part 1: Models and Terminology", 2000, <https://www.isa.org/isa95/>. SB> Should that be 2000, or 2010. SB> Note that this seems to be a very expensive document to access. =========
- Re: [Detnet] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-detnet-arch… Stewart Bryant
- Re: [Detnet] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-detnet-arch… Black, David
- Re: [Detnet] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-detnet-arch… Balázs Varga A
- Re: [Detnet] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-detnet-arch… Black, David
- Re: [Detnet] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-detnet-arch… Balázs Varga A
- Re: [Detnet] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-detnet-arch… János Farkas
- [Detnet] Extended WG Last Call: draft-ietf-detnet… Lou Berger
- Re: [Detnet] Extended WG Last Call: draft-ietf-de… Andrew G. Malis
- Re: [Detnet] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-detnet-arch… Black, David
- Re: [Detnet] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-detnet-arch… János Farkas
- [Detnet] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-detnet-architec… Lou Berger
- Re: [Detnet] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-detnet-arch… Andrew G. Malis
- Re: [Detnet] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-detnet-arch… Stewart Bryant
- Re: [Detnet] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-detnet-arch… Black, David
- Re: [Detnet] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-detnet-arch… Lou Berger
- Re: [Detnet] Extended WG Last Call: draft-ietf-de… Lou Berger
- Re: [Detnet] Extended WG Last Call: draft-ietf-de… Andrew G. Malis
- Re: [Detnet] Extended WG Last Call: draft-ietf-de… Lou Berger
- Re: [Detnet] Extended WG Last Call: draft-ietf-de… Norman Finn
- Re: [Detnet] Extended WG Last Call: draft-ietf-de… BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A
- Re: [Detnet] Extended WG Last Call: draft-ietf-de… Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [Detnet] Extended WG Last Call: draft-ietf-de… Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [Detnet] Extended WG Last Call: draft-ietf-de… Lou Berger
- Re: [Detnet] Extended WG Last Call: draft-ietf-de… Lou Berger
- Re: [Detnet] Extended WG Last Call: draft-ietf-de… Andrew G. Malis
- Re: [Detnet] Extended WG Last Call: draft-ietf-de… BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A
- Re: [Detnet] Extended WG Last Call: draft-ietf-de… BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A
- Re: [Detnet] Extended WG Last Call: draft-ietf-de… Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [Detnet] Extended WG Last Call: draft-ietf-de… Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [Detnet] Extended WG Last Call: draft-ietf-de… Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [Detnet] Extended WG Last Call: draft-ietf-de… Andrew G. Malis
- Re: [Detnet] Extended WG Last Call: draft-ietf-de… Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [Detnet] Extended WG Last Call: draft-ietf-de… Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [Detnet] Extended WG Last Call: draft-ietf-de… Lou Berger
- Re: [Detnet] Extended WG Last Call: draft-ietf-de… Lou Berger
- Re: [Detnet] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-detnet-arch… János Farkas
- Re: [Detnet] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-detnet-arch… Black, David
- Re: [Detnet] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-detnet-arch… János Farkas
- Re: [Detnet] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-detnet-arch… Black, David
- Re: [Detnet] Extended WG Last Call: draft-ietf-de… Norman Finn
- Re: [Detnet] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-detnet-arch… Janos Farkas
- Re: [Detnet] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-detnet-arch… Black, David
- Re: [Detnet] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-detnet-arch… Janos Farkas
- Re: [Detnet] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-detnet-arch… Norman Finn
- Re: [Detnet] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-detnet-arch… Lou Berger
- Re: [Detnet] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-detnet-arch… Black, David
- Re: [Detnet] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-detnet-arch… Prof. Diego Dujovne
- [Detnet] draft-ietf-detnet-architecture-07 János Farkas
- Re: [Detnet] draft-ietf-detnet-architecture-07 János Farkas