Re: [Detnet] Question on TSN over IP data plane

Jeff Koftinoff <jeff.koftinoff@gmail.com> Sat, 11 September 2021 06:16 UTC

Return-Path: <jeff.koftinoff@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 81E8D3A0D6B for <detnet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Sep 2021 23:16:25 -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 lGK4ufPdfOa9 for <detnet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Sep 2021 23:16:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk1-x731.google.com (mail-qk1-x731.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::731]) (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 C0B5A3A0D69 for <detnet@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Sep 2021 23:16:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qk1-x731.google.com with SMTP id m21so4561911qkm.13 for <detnet@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Sep 2021 23:16:20 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=date:from:to:message-id:in-reply-to:references:subject:mime-version; bh=B8GfaLpfFAmYhYGNyKhnApvkcjNHGEtEG3Pt+3Xb2So=; b=Ir/j8rXAwviURdouLrYjhro0nd30rVkNrHoN3XYjM0lniKiYj15uIFf25nM11OrQOP dRrKbN2dtNuXJIOawo9nkViJf1UNoKmlMny0x5pE6ybZcewlt3w+2cdyUf7JluX5OrZr MhCJTEaC33SZ/AZhzUcc8tQ+kHqVQJrxl8P0nL7HaSP1j45j1n9x3tXO4mlZw1nwCirZ KF66YlJ9HNjzrLl6EPRk6mq62ULDB2zVE+P3/pksCn4k/Rz4koAR30aUyZmbfqVr5d0q rQeCd5EQ4lK6BWuh8u3SA2SalGuyiHLdo+69qb9Hxc8LwHd6+RL9bNXDm2k2IHGupmAL DbLg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:message-id:in-reply-to:references :subject:mime-version; bh=B8GfaLpfFAmYhYGNyKhnApvkcjNHGEtEG3Pt+3Xb2So=; b=eIczJaDKAye0APExf4W55hj8vkpFgrlq7THDUuOFh7kCnaIJFm0E3t2lsvpveIBgeY nNOzCAVW9O3ceutDrhAO3ZttvVU/WJ597ghj+RbbV+gL/AFnEofER5w07ATl6ar5avGb qifKrL/A6dLJpeTMpWptw80JiSAaSXt2hOd/YL0dlOfXueJEz2AsmcoOZduRb6pEbZEd Eqg3br+uBeRxLDpdRr2TcMoKALAsgWFdH85ewkUV5uzcJnuo1Qynr6qvggtJnXqYep30 yIkvNkfYhZq0ojhJ/PUSQ6MUeV+rBe6cOdck7+maGO2PCuQMtAHSUJRKSkQJBKnfpd3m 81UQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531V6viRjMuxZqCE+H5695EBmzy4I9K0Nq+0SzrAI6hfprBe2DIF 0yKKHFHJadcX/5jMo9upi+w=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJz2C0o2tPD8903+KEQXm6r0Hj6wVvz3J2nS7u1EqwmKeDV6Yqudn9386mTkFDrHjGjdfjJk6w==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:e12:: with SMTP id y18mr885673qkm.464.1631340978999; Fri, 10 Sep 2021 23:16:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [2600:1700:dc40:1fa0:703b:8580:ff7f:0] ([2600:1700:dc40:1fa0:7512:354f:c696:5f60]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id o23sm575384qtq.7.2021.09.10.23.16.17 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 10 Sep 2021 23:16:18 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2021 23:15:57 -0700
From: Jeff Koftinoff <jeff.koftinoff@gmail.com>
To: "Yangfan (IP Standard)" <shirley.yangfan@huawei.com>, "=?utf-8?Q?detnet=40ietf.org?=" <detnet@ietf.org>, =?utf-8?Q?Bal=C3=A1zs_Varga_A?= <balazs.a.varga=40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Message-ID: <85f45d49-8ba4-44fe-a3b6-c7355829850f@Spark>
In-Reply-To: <AM0PR07MB5347A80CA6A8DC8FD63B7E8DACD69@AM0PR07MB5347.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
References: <40d0e5a07b4e4da5b007a64ede52c08c@huawei.com> <AM0PR07MB5347A80CA6A8DC8FD63B7E8DACD69@AM0PR07MB5347.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
X-Readdle-Message-ID: 85f45d49-8ba4-44fe-a3b6-c7355829850f@Spark
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="613c49b0_79e2a9e3_1c05"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/hGYr30lE2CtbGjv4sJMI5NhbtMU>
Subject: Re: [Detnet] Question on TSN over IP data plane
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: Sat, 11 Sep 2021 06:16:26 -0000

For TSN flows they typically have a presentation timestamp in the messages which is the time at which the final receiver deserializes the content.  In order to do this it assumes you have a common time clock domain and synchronization between the original TSN talker and the final TSN listener.   For IEEE Std. 1722-2016 based TSN streams, Annex J describes the IP encapsulation of the TSN stream.

Regards,
Jeff Koftinoff
On Sep 10, 2021, 7:28 AM -0700, Balázs Varga A <balazs.a.varga=40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org>rg>, wrote:
> Hi Fan,
>
> Yes, it has some history in DetNet discussions. There are many RFCs
> dealing with encapsulating Ethernet in IP. They can be applied for
> “TSN over IP” case:
> 1, Encapsulate TSN Streams in IP. RFCs already exist on this.
> 2, Forward the resulted IP Flows as DetNet IP flows (RFC8939).
> 3, At egress: Decapsulate the TSN Streams from IP.
>
> Cheers
> Bala’zs
>
> From: detnet <detnet-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Yangfan (IP Standard)
> Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2021 1:08 PM
> To: detnet@ietf.org
> Subject: [Detnet] Question on TSN over IP data plane
>
> Hi DetNet,
>
> Please excuse me to ask this dumb question in the following.
> I found there are many compositions of TSN/IP/MPLS in DetNet data plane, but TSN over IP is missing. Could anyone kindly explain the reason, or maybe some history if there was?
> The reason why I asked this question originates from a case when TSN LAN networks are considered to be connected by a WAN network. Based on the data planes provided by DetNet, it seems MPLS is the only solution for TSN interconnection. Is it the reason that IP itself couldn’t provide the entire DetNet capabilities?
> Do I miss anything else?
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Regard,
> Fan
> _______________________________________________
> detnet mailing list
> detnet@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet