Re: [Detnet] L2/L3 model?
Philippe Klein <philippe@broadcom.com> Sun, 23 November 2014 07:41 UTC
Return-Path: <philippe@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 E41641A1AF9 for <detnet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 22 Nov 2014 23:41:59 -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 i6YaW-de1t28 for <detnet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 22 Nov 2014 23:41:57 -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 507FD1A1AEA for <detnet@ietf.org>; Sat, 22 Nov 2014 23:41:57 -0800 (PST)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.07,442,1413270000"; d="scan'208";a="51423292"
Received: from irvexchcas06.broadcom.com (HELO IRVEXCHCAS06.corp.ad.broadcom.com) ([10.9.208.53]) by mail-gw2-out.broadcom.com with ESMTP; 23 Nov 2014 00:09:38 -0800
Received: from SJEXCHCAS05.corp.ad.broadcom.com (10.16.203.12) by IRVEXCHCAS06.corp.ad.broadcom.com (10.9.208.53) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.174.1; Sat, 22 Nov 2014 23:41:56 -0800
Received: from SJEXCHMB06.corp.ad.broadcom.com ([fe80::65ea:1de7:41c4:e948]) by SJEXCHCAS05.corp.ad.broadcom.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Sat, 22 Nov 2014 23:41:57 -0800
From: Philippe Klein <philippe@broadcom.com>
To: "Norman Finn (nfinn)" <nfinn@cisco.com>
Thread-Topic: [Detnet] L2/L3 model?
Thread-Index: AQHQApHsARBLnH7SD0eX20wvya89SJxlLNtYgACObICAACsSQIAAjEWA//99jvuABjWPgIABtsag
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2014 07:41:33 +0000
Deferred-Delivery: Sun, 23 Nov 2014 07:42:00 +0000
Message-ID: <E3164327BB56B14B9162ABA2F0078A5B20CCF312@SJEXCHMB06.corp.ad.broadcom.com>
References: <38B7ABF9-00B4-462E-9788-3B40A7BE9460@broadcom.com> <D09007FF.C888F%ancaz@cisco.com> <E3164327BB56B14B9162ABA2F0078A5B20CC98AB@SJEXCHMB06.corp.ad.broadcom.com> <E045AECD98228444A58C61C200AE1BD848A6881D@xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com> <113D6FCE-84EC-4A91-BCCD-E9965DBEBD4C@broadcom.com> <D094EBF1.3540B%nfinn@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <D094EBF1.3540B%nfinn@cisco.com>
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="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/hSc34bZsC7AvJ5LSxIQCm46qdRg
Cc: "detnet@ietf.org" <detnet@ietf.org>
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: Sun, 23 Nov 2014 07:42:00 -0000
Thank you Norm. We are in synch and I apologize if my mail was not clear enough /Ph -----Original Message----- From: Norman Finn (nfinn) [mailto:nfinn@cisco.com] Sent: Friday, November 21, 2014 11:31 PM To: Philippe Klein Cc: detnet@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Detnet] L2/L3 model? Philippe, After speaking with you on the weekly TSN call, I think we’re mostly in sync, now. Testing that thought ... - Neither you nor I (and, I hope, no one else) is asking routers to know their adjacent L2 networks’ topologies, or for bridges to know their attached L3 topologies. - For a central controller to meet the L2/L3 problem posed in the current problem statement draft, it would need to know both the logical (L2/L3) topology (topologies) and the physical topology of the networks over which it is creating paths and assigning resources. - Scaling this up to a network larger than a single controller can practically serve, or across authority boundaries, is a non-trivial problem. We’ll have to decide whether and/or when to tackle it. — Norm -----Original Message----- From: Philippe Klein <philippe@broadcom.com> Date: Monday, November 17, 2014 at 22:41 PM To: Pascal Thubert <pthubert@cisco.com> Cc: Erik Nordmark <nordmark@acm.org>, "detnet@ietf.org" <detnet@ietf.org>, "Anca Zamfir (ancaz)" <ancaz@cisco.com> Subject: Re: [Detnet] L2/L3 model? >In my view the PCE will be both a L3 and L2 PCE but L3 will get >services from L2 to establish a path based on the circuit constraints. >They could be many L2 parameters that do not need to be exposed to L3 >and and in my view this L2/L3 interface is the key but against this is >my humble view and we are at the start of this discussion with wise open minds. >Trying to blend the L2/L3 in a single path computation might be very >difficult. Having said that the L3 and L2 topology DB could be unified > >Sent from my iPhone > >> On Nov 18, 2014, at 8:28, "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" >><pthubert@cisco.com> wrote: >> >> I do not think so Philippe. >> >> I do not see the PCE talking only to L3 devices and let the L3 >>devices set up a path through a UNI interface. The PCE needs to know >>the capabilities and topology of all the hops, so as to guarantee an >>optimized path. >> Whether a hop is L2 or L3 is actually a secondary artifact from that >>perspective; and in practice, I expect that the L3 TSN switching will >>often be L2.5, MPLS or TSCH. >> From the detnet and the 6TiSHC meetings, I gathered that: >> - the IETF is forming a TEAS WG that would define a Yang data model >>for topologies. We could probably extend that. >> - we could extend PCEP to configure and maintain the paths and >>related state info if we use the model whereby the PCE talks >>individually to the intermediate nodes >> - OTOH, if we decide to set up the path hop-by-hop using a >>source-route indication computed by the PCE, then CCAMP may become >>useful, to be monitorind for new work just being started. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Pascal >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: detnet [mailto:detnet-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Philippe >>>Klein >>> Sent: mardi 18 novembre 2014 07:15 >>> To: Anca Zamfir (ancaz); Erik Nordmark >>> Cc: detnet@ietf.org >>> Subject: Re: [Detnet] L2/L3 model? >>> >>> Ana, >>> Thank you for your question. >>> In my humble view I am not sure we must create a single >>>heterogeneous view of the network. It seems to me that we must keep >>>both topology separated and let the L3 ask the L2 to create a path >>>with the given QoS (delay, jitter, bw...AND REDUNDACY if needed) >>>constrains. >>> >>> /Philippe >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Anca Zamfir (ancaz) [mailto:ancaz@cisco.com] >>> Sent: Monday, November 17, 2014 9:32 PM >>> To: Philippe Klein; Erik Nordmark >>> Cc: detnet@ietf.org >>> Subject: Re: [Detnet] L2/L3 model? >>> >>> Hi Philippe, >>> My understanding is that QoS (delay, jitter, b/w, etc) must be >>>guaranteed for the end-to-end path, whether the path spans L3 only, >>>L2 only or a mixture. >>>One >>> solution would be for PCE to get the L2 and L3 island topologies >>>(yes, make PCE work at L2 with SPB + extensions which is new) and >>>create a single heterogeneous view of the network. Once the path is >>>computed, PCE can determine how the different segments (could be TE >>>LSPs in L3 or multicast groups for L2) should be created. I think >>>PW-s (if >>> used) would be carried inside these segments and it would be good to >>>only expose the label at the termination point (listener or the node >>>that eliminates the duplicates). This is to avoid having to do >>>stitching. >>> There are other possibilities to explore, with some (like where L2 >>>and >>>L3 islands >>> independently establish these paths) I am struggling with the >>>end-to-end guarantee. >>> >>> thanks >>> -ana >>> >>>> On 11/17/14 8:02 PM, "Philippe Klein" <philippe@broadcom.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Erik, >>>> In my humble view, the L3 must only indicate the L3 router path >>>>over of the L2 island with its path attributes and let the L2 >>>>protocol select the constrained path. >>>> Essentially the inner L2 topology could be ignored by the L3. >>>> >>>> /Philippe >>>> Broadcom >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>> >>>>> On Nov 17, 2014, at 20:11, "Erik Nordmark" <nordmark@acm.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 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 >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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
- [Detnet] L2/L3 model? Erik Nordmark
- Re: [Detnet] L2/L3 model? Philippe Klein
- Re: [Detnet] L2/L3 model? Pat Thaler
- Re: [Detnet] L2/L3 model? Anca Zamfir (ancaz)
- Re: [Detnet] L2/L3 model? Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [Detnet] L2/L3 model? Jouni Korhonen
- Re: [Detnet] L2/L3 model? Philippe Klein
- Re: [Detnet] L2/L3 model? Philippe Klein
- Re: [Detnet] L2/L3 model? Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [Detnet] L2/L3 model? Philippe Klein
- Re: [Detnet] L2/L3 model? Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [Detnet] L2/L3 model? Vengada Prasad Govindan (venggovi)
- Re: [Detnet] L2/L3 model? Anca Zamfir (ancaz)
- Re: [Detnet] L2/L3 model? Philippe Klein
- Re: [Detnet] L2/L3 model? Anca Zamfir (ancaz)
- Re: [Detnet] L2/L3 model? Shitanshu Shah (svshah)
- Re: [Detnet] L2/L3 model? Erik Nordmark
- Re: [Detnet] L2/L3 model? Norman Finn (nfinn)
- Re: [Detnet] L2/L3 model? Norman Finn (nfinn)
- Re: [Detnet] L2/L3 model? Norman Finn (nfinn)
- Re: [Detnet] L2/L3 model? Philippe Klein
- Re: [Detnet] L2/L3 model? Peter Jones (petejone)
- Re: [Detnet] L2/L3 model? Philippe Klein
- Re: [Detnet] L2/L3 model? Xialiang (Frank)
- Re: [Detnet] L2/L3 model? Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [Detnet] L2/L3 model? Norman Finn (nfinn)