Re: [Detnet] IPv6 encapsulation in dataplane doc
Jouni <jouni.nospam@gmail.com> Sun, 11 February 2018 21:43 UTC
Return-Path: <jouni.nospam@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 77AF21271DF for <detnet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 11 Feb 2018 13:43:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 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_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-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 b2MkGHQ6SRHP for <detnet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 11 Feb 2018 13:42:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lf0-x22c.google.com (mail-lf0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::22c]) (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 B55E21200B9 for <detnet@ietf.org>; Sun, 11 Feb 2018 13:42:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lf0-x22c.google.com with SMTP id t79so17987310lfe.3 for <detnet@ietf.org>; Sun, 11 Feb 2018 13:42:57 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=UaR13lNuHQXg+/nhsTyi9T0kQWsR7Pd4w6cr/cOHdW0=; b=Tdibm/6a3WlXKmwaRRTefi7FR+ZHBVeLLKPu/n52qgmjzSs3Cns2P7V18gITKzZIRv wY1QAJqiE/yAfKJX3m/tbLpGx8A8oybgOXsiDpDgR87hlJKCexT2eGlUmTqToJmumAO5 9bsLy2j0vXbf+F4+0XxqXbDuFyiQZGWaq6/t8R6rwFoB13A5dwtoadaLfpA6YnjroMwP fyWqDIUsftckOU6ksODZoYCzfVfLvhMOUSy1+fE89WWmzO39SuLA9MkSTIfvqcJH+kiJ wAleSYGlIO/+jCFUwx2BMum6kXvb0R/Hq0+6CiXOsKkK0LU8/Ct9sI/KU6m25Z+jSvjv rKlg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=UaR13lNuHQXg+/nhsTyi9T0kQWsR7Pd4w6cr/cOHdW0=; b=k5CRvmUBvF0bJrUMb7t1YS2ck/2HqJV4g3hUfNqAixWHsNARe3KWRIN2BBN16rUJUK 5qe4ZWicQIXgDeo/PHGvX6gGgMO3hV04P5I6/ShUU27r5Q5wHpPCp0TQKX/NHvdblYTx T2g5bZaRGm896LQytdUPhxENpZ8m6hX9jLPNZn5SK8JyStCDpLobeAkwo4mw8dXKM3j8 JRsNGU6uEXBYfd+7HqiZ0q6OV6Wmj4WztKfw57lUK4+uwvbr20X8pRmi88JIjD1jcMSI pLHCtAEEbzsPduPIrS167B3omumVVBfi95K6TTPaDI1h/4iEvu5V0segH/BAJ+U0wbDI MUpw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APf1xPBsPw23QCmz57n0QLzHSB2w2imgo9gXM534OJNZp6AyOlO7Lyk0 3Ss11sXGbJ9COslMNcD8HFk=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x224Ol1OQpwZHBJpIwIGmJGKIWLZpNabtzWBhwO419de0hl9sM1tBjMSWPIpCPha+GkmTYi1s/w==
X-Received: by 10.46.20.8 with SMTP id u8mr6581831ljd.12.1518385375836; Sun, 11 Feb 2018 13:42:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from jounis-imac.home ([83.150.126.201]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id e11sm1314678ljf.44.2018.02.11.13.42.54 (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 11 Feb 2018 13:42:55 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2104\))
From: Jouni <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <b9c9fe85-fbd9-9859-51ca-27c9bda061a5@labn.net>
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2018 23:42:53 +0200
Cc: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>, detnet@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <7CF3359D-204E-46E9-B7C6-B6134120502E@gmail.com>
References: <cff50c52d2f945cfa8eff149f5242fb0@XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com> <16170c78f30.27d3.9b4188e636579690ba6c69f2c8a0f1fd@labn.net> <22c101d3a0bc$5795b080$06c11180$@gmail.com> <b17a1c79-010d-b4a0-aa07-8182b72f2577@labn.net> <00A9AB24-830A-46C7-B3DB-5C17D2AC91EC@gmail.com> <b9c9fe85-fbd9-9859-51ca-27c9bda061a5@labn.net>
To: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2104)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/x2NY2vObJRyx_EIykQilpUyawqA>
Subject: Re: [Detnet] IPv6 encapsulation in dataplane doc
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: Sun, 11 Feb 2018 21:43:00 -0000
>>>> * End systems cannot participate to DetNet service layer packet >>>> elimination & duplication business. If they still do e.g. using DetNet >>>> DstOpt that is separate from subnet/transport layer provided service. >>> >>> True, end station participation in PREF wouldn't be possible in this >>> simplified approach for IP, but the end stations *could* still >>> participate in the equivalent function provided by a sub-net layer such >>> as TSN. So end to end detnet traffic protection is not possible, but it >>> doesn't mean it can't be provided by lower network layers. The gain >>> here is a simplified and unified IP solution and simplified host >>> processing/support, albeit with a loss of one of the three end to end >>> detnet service attributes. >> >> Yes, that’s true (as I already clarified in my latest mail to Pascal). >> > > yes. It's good for all to remember that DetNet is just as much (if not > more) about supporting explicit routes with congestion protection and > latency control.... Indeed.. >>>> * Different subnet/transport layer segments in the DetNet domain are >>>> likely to use their own sequencing and duplication & elimination >>>> solutions. I am not sure how independent those will be e.g., is the >>>> sequence numbering unified across or only per segment. The former is not >>>> IMO easy and the latter easily reduces to single points between segments >>>> to handle number book keeping properly. >>> >>> Agreed. The question for the WG is this a reasonable compromise in >>> order to in our *initial* solution defined by the WG. -- Nothing says >>> we can't come back and improve on this in the future, but it will allow >>> us to get *something* useful defined with less complexity. >> >> I would first specify the required steps that make IP as-is work within one subnet/transport layer segment. That should be an achievable goal with a limitation of e.g. a single interconnection point between subnet/transport layer segments of different types/solutions. >> > > sure. as long as one of the 'attached stations' can be a router. Yes. That’s the plan at least from my side. - Juoni > >> After that look into solving multiple interconnection points.. and there the L4 path that Pascal mentioned or that IPv6 DetNet DstOpt of mine could be way forward. >> > > yes, this would be good follow on work... > > Cheers, > Lou >> - Jouni >> >> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> Regardless the above I am keen to explore this alternative approach.. >>>> >>> >>> Great - look forward to hear the results! >>> Lou >>> >>>> >>>> - Jouni >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *From:* detnet [mailto:detnet-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Lou Berger >>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 7, 2018 17:00 PM >>>> *To:* Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert@cisco.com>; detnet@ietf.org >>>> *Subject:* Re: [Detnet] IPv6 encapsulation in dataplane doc >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Pascal/all, >>>> >>>> At the last interim a proposal was made to simplify IP processing, at >>>> least for the initial detnet solution, by leaving PREF to the >>>> subnet/transport layers (i.e., TSN and MPLS) and providing DetNet flow >>>> identification based on typical IP 5-tuple perhaps + dscp. This approach >>>> has several benefits beyond simplification, notably it will work for >>>> both ipv4 and IPv6, and doesn't require any modification to >>>> encapsulation / formats. >>>> >>>> It would be really valuable to get feedback from the whole working group >>>> if this simplification is acceptable or has unacceptable limitations. >>>> >>>> Lou >>>> >>>> On February 7, 2018 8:28:02 AM "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" >>>> <pthubert@cisco.com <mailto:pthubert@cisco.com>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Dear all >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> This is about the IPv6 encapsulation and more precisely >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Therefore, if a DetNet-aware end system only >>>> >>>> inserted the DetNet Destination Option into the IPv6 but e.g., a >>>> >>>> DetNet Edge node is configured to enforce an explicit route for the >>>> >>>> IPv6 packet using a source routing header, then it has no other >>>> >>>> possibility than add an outer tunneling IPv6 header with required >>>> >>>> extension headers in it. The processing of IPv6 packets in a DetNet >>>> >>>> Edge node is discussed further in Section 6.4.1 >>>> <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-detnet-dp-sol-01#section-6.4.1>. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> With the current spec, a source sends a DetNet packet as >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> +---------------------------------+ >>>> >>>> | | >>>> >>>> | DetNet Flow | >>>> >>>> | Payload | >>>> >>>> | | >>>> >>>> /---------------------------------\ >>>> >>>> H Optional DetNet DstOpt Hdr H >>>> >>>> \---------------------------------/ >>>> >>>> | IPv6 header | >>>> >>>> | (with set Flow label) | >>>> >>>> +---------------------------------+ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> And then the ingress node needs to re-encapsulate as >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> +---------------------------------+ >>>> >>>> | | >>>> >>>> | DetNet Flow | >>>> >>>> | Payload | >>>> >>>> | | >>>> >>>> /---------------------------------\ >>>> >>>> H DetNet DstOpt Hdr H >>>> >>>> \---------------------------------/ >>>> >>>> | IPv6 header | >>>> >>>> | (with set Flow label) | >>>> >>>> +=================================+ >>>> >>>> | Routing header | >>>> >>>> /---------------------------------\ >>>> >>>> H DetNet DstOpt Hdr H >>>> >>>> \---------------------------------/ >>>> >>>> | IPv6 header | >>>> >>>> | (with set Flow label) | >>>> >>>> +---------------------------------+ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> This creates a duplication of the DetNet Destination Option. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> There are alternatives >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> a) whereby the packet is tunneled from the source to the detnet >>>> ingress, and based on its state the DetNet ingress accepts the >>>> packet, processes it and then resends it. The tunneled version of >>>> this could be: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> +---------------------------------+ >>>> >>>> | | >>>> >>>> | DetNet Flow | >>>> >>>> | Payload | >>>> >>>> | | >>>> >>>> +---------------------------------+ >>>> >>>> | IPv6 header | >>>> >>>> | (dest = final destination) | >>>> >>>> /=================================\ >>>> >>>> H Optional DetNet DstOpt Hdr H >>>> >>>> \---------------------------------/ >>>> >>>> | IPv6 header | >>>> >>>> | (dest = DetNet ingress edge) | >>>> >>>> | (with set Flow label) | >>>> >>>> +---------------------------------+ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Which allows the ingress to tunnel to the egress as follows: >>>> >>>> +---------------------------------+ >>>> >>>> | | >>>> >>>> | DetNet Flow | >>>> >>>> | Payload | >>>> >>>> | | >>>> >>>> +---------------------------------+ >>>> >>>> | IPv6 header | >>>> >>>> | (to final destination) | >>>> >>>> +=================================+ >>>> >>>> | Routing header | >>>> >>>> /---------------------------------\ >>>> >>>> H Optional DetNet DstOpt Hdr H >>>> >>>> \---------------------------------/ >>>> >>>> | IPv6 header | >>>> >>>> | (dest = DetNet egress edge) | >>>> >>>> | (with set Flow label) | >>>> >>>> +---------------------------------+ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> b) whereby the PREF is done by the end nodes and the tunnel is >>>> transport only, meaning that there are 2 tunnels A and B and that >>>> the source sends twice a packet like this: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> +---------------------------------+ >>>> >>>> | | >>>> >>>> | DetNet Flow | >>>> >>>> | Payload | >>>> >>>> | | >>>> >>>> /---------------------------------\ >>>> >>>> H Optional DetNet DstOpt Hdr H >>>> >>>> \---------------------------------/ >>>> >>>> | IPv6 header | >>>> >>>> | (dest = DetNet ingress edge X)| >>>> >>>> | (with set Flow label) | >>>> >>>> +---------------------------------+ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> And then the ingress node needs to re-encapsulate as >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> +---------------------------------+ >>>> >>>> | | >>>> >>>> | DetNet Flow | >>>> >>>> | Payload | >>>> >>>> | | >>>> >>>> /---------------------------------\ >>>> >>>> H DetNet DstOpt Hdr H >>>> >>>> \---------------------------------/ >>>> >>>> | IPv6 header | >>>> >>>> | (dest = final destination) | >>>> >>>> | (with set Flow label) | >>>> >>>> +=================================+ >>>> >>>> | Routing header | >>>> >>>> +---------------------------------+ >>>> >>>> | IPv6 header | >>>> >>>> | (dest = DetNet egress edge X) | >>>> >>>> | (with set Flow label) | >>>> >>>> +---------------------------------+ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Pascal >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> detnet mailing list >>>> detnet@ietf.org <mailto:detnet%40ietf.org> >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet >>>> >>> >> >> >
- [Detnet] IPv6 encapsulation in dataplane doc Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [Detnet] IPv6 encapsulation in dataplane doc Lou Berger
- Re: [Detnet] IPv6 encapsulation in dataplane doc Jouni
- Re: [Detnet] IPv6 encapsulation in dataplane doc Jouni
- Re: [Detnet] IPv6 encapsulation in dataplane doc Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [Detnet] IPv6 encapsulation in dataplane doc Jouni
- Re: [Detnet] IPv6 encapsulation in dataplane doc Lou Berger
- Re: [Detnet] IPv6 encapsulation in dataplane doc Jouni
- Re: [Detnet] IPv6 encapsulation in dataplane doc Lou Berger
- Re: [Detnet] IPv6 encapsulation in dataplane doc Jouni
- Re: [Detnet] IPv6 encapsulation in dataplane doc Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [Detnet] IPv6 encapsulation in dataplane doc Lou Berger
- Re: [Detnet] IPv6 encapsulation in dataplane doc Balázs Varga A
- Re: [Detnet] IPv6 encapsulation in dataplane doc Andrew G. Malis
- Re: [Detnet] IPv6 encapsulation in dataplane doc Andrew G. Malis
- Re: [Detnet] IPv6 encapsulation in dataplane doc Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [Detnet] IPv6 encapsulation in dataplane doc Lou Berger
- Re: [Detnet] IPv6 encapsulation in dataplane doc Balázs Varga A