Re: [Detnet] L2/L3 model?

Jouni Korhonen <jouni.korhonen@broadcom.com> Mon, 17 November 2014 23:19 UTC

Return-Path: <jouni.korhonen@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 31D881ACE73 for <detnet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Nov 2014 15:19:42 -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 ZmhvjpZGCsxQ for <detnet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Nov 2014 15:19:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-gw1-out.broadcom.com (mail-gw1-out.broadcom.com [216.31.210.62]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05CD01ACE72 for <detnet@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Nov 2014 15:19:40 -0800 (PST)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.07,405,1413270000"; d="scan'208";a="51114406"
Received: from irvexchcas07.broadcom.com (HELO IRVEXCHCAS07.corp.ad.broadcom.com) ([10.9.208.55]) by mail-gw1-out.broadcom.com with ESMTP; 17 Nov 2014 16:56:43 -0800
Received: from SJEXCHCAS05.corp.ad.broadcom.com (10.16.203.12) by IRVEXCHCAS07.corp.ad.broadcom.com (10.9.208.55) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.174.1; Mon, 17 Nov 2014 15:19:48 -0800
Received: from SJEXCHMB09.corp.ad.broadcom.com ([fe80::3da7:665e:cc78:181f]) by SJEXCHCAS05.corp.ad.broadcom.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Mon, 17 Nov 2014 15:19:40 -0800
From: Jouni Korhonen <jouni.korhonen@broadcom.com>
To: Philippe Klein <philippe@broadcom.com>, Erik Nordmark <nordmark@acm.org>
Thread-Topic: [Detnet] L2/L3 model?
Thread-Index: AQHQApHstrgYAID93UCBUQQCIExRGpxlsvcA///AcXA=
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 23:19:39 +0000
Message-ID: <72CC502C2C615C42B081A9E5FC057D05186662@SJEXCHMB09.corp.ad.broadcom.com>
References: <546A3A37.7070205@acm.org> <38B7ABF9-00B4-462E-9788-3B40A7BE9460@broadcom.com>
In-Reply-To: <38B7ABF9-00B4-462E-9788-3B40A7BE9460@broadcom.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="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/mAgxxmsoAlqn67sNjKqhvf5VXV0
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: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 23:19:42 -0000

You mean an L3 router who needs an L2 circuit would ask for an L2 path computation element possibly in the same node to provide a service for setting up the L2 circuit between two L3 nodes?

- Jouni

> -----Original Message-----
> From: detnet [mailto:detnet-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Philippe Klein
> Sent: Monday, November 17, 2014 9:02 PM
> To: Erik Nordmark
> Cc: detnet@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Detnet] L2/L3 model?
> 
> 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