Re: [Pce] new draft on segment routing approach to TSN

Yaakov Stein <yaakov_s@rad.com> Thu, 25 February 2021 20:33 UTC

Return-Path: <yaakov_s@rad.com>
X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0AB73A0650; Thu, 25 Feb 2021 12:33:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.799
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.799 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTTPS_HTTP_MISMATCH=0.1, LOTS_OF_MONEY=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=rad365.onmicrosoft.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 HHCiI9IC-Ejk; Thu, 25 Feb 2021 12:33:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from EUR01-VE1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-eopbgr140040.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.107.14.40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DBE983A0801; Thu, 25 Feb 2021 12:33:07 -0800 (PST)
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=NjfYN6x/MKOGHOxtmsPjLYXBtPpKL2Qb/t5JQswHqIwhhEUX7fu3F9RxcJ8GVJr9FGfjC+9xSHjmpPuw1qHxFkWMA89IvPSQOB0SGkN2lPoVckX3mmi2q2nxdlwrP2q4ScOfq+d7nAEbGRu0d2P+fAw/OgqTiYMpuc7BG+nwTFLnR39vT4S9tnlGIYkX5FzVy8DjDzf0609WUkKbTHLOBKPnf38gETgfeEihFs5wSGUFo7c+TKtSfAF/OYzbM3/+WypCa8bZyoDVtkuO9gw9F7M/1AFy0xxATngHEDi/baoeLGJ4xfQ07TXbDcq8HsO759PJNhwuKFk/a5ShKzDQ0Q==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=cCooidva7xP6gEMliicdYxxMNmsVofliInHDGYgziG0=; b=GIGNmUuEtjz8whZKjvUhdndtZvWF3v4OgoSc7tCLbI+2ryk7pIG6x2UGvTfFQsj5MGlNkOzKzZ9tG3z09ofP2hpjvBhhpOkwr57v3gabVBUBPnnHRbPdDhoz9ehRcs82OiBK+cmK2+ftVkdukSsWMcK6G8AEH4eJ1kJ8htn+QgpbiOj7Nt2iHbBo0w6ePBvIUNUFJ5zURWOROf/i+hV+iKVRy9/DrKxYSZs9GrfCj+K6ea5Jq0ElHbbeUYbmghcktUGYW86nDmgdGKGPTKnTH5k7mSvF8YWsTvaITdeqCM14JN5IKxMefHGjMbwE2x5Zv/svgw87npVrQfiQzKUcsA==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=rad.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=rad.com; dkim=pass header.d=rad.com; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rad365.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-rad365-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=cCooidva7xP6gEMliicdYxxMNmsVofliInHDGYgziG0=; b=VOMWpOymIIF4TPfeSc1+OzriehN4taHUdoY1+95LBGNTTrazH0SKzWKF00C9oDwjC9kVua37dwQm/vcfpxf19n0A8WvBnlGE03YWdE9qAxKouVemLecZqdwHassV058HmnZPI1q6sVMtZH0Ud9avQRtvzEQjr54fRtn0lrs0h4g=
Received: from AM0PR03MB3522.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com (2603:10a6:208:42::23) by AM9PR03MB7377.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com (2603:10a6:20b:26a::19) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.3890.20; Thu, 25 Feb 2021 20:33:05 +0000
Received: from AM0PR03MB3522.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::10eb:24f4:1a5e:bc0a]) by AM0PR03MB3522.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::10eb:24f4:1a5e:bc0a%4]) with mapi id 15.20.3890.020; Thu, 25 Feb 2021 20:33:05 +0000
From: Yaakov Stein <yaakov_s@rad.com>
To: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>, Tianran Zhou <zhoutianran@huawei.com>, "detnet@ietf.org" <detnet@ietf.org>, "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>, "pce@ietf.org" <pce@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: new draft on segment routing approach to TSN
Thread-Index: AdcJ5AjgmuXpLt94R1Stsoh/vUDwUABaAaLAAAtVwoAADcpzUA==
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2021 20:33:05 +0000
Message-ID: <AM0PR03MB35227928249020BC6D0B6806E59E9@AM0PR03MB3522.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com>
References: <AM0PR03MB35228092287B38B95D7056F7E5809@AM0PR03MB3522.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com> <3c69571d0bcb4a6ea1d08bee53c0277d@huawei.com> <CO1PR11MB488181838180DBE6F5DB3B5BD89E9@CO1PR11MB4881.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <CO1PR11MB488181838180DBE6F5DB3B5BD89E9@CO1PR11MB4881.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: cisco.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;cisco.com; dmarc=none action=none header.from=rad.com;
x-originating-ip: [176.230.181.21]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-ht: Tenant
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: b2d97957-66a3-4c6c-246e-08d8d9cc8e2b
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: AM9PR03MB7377:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <AM9PR03MB7377E99DD6FB150DA3113B85E59E9@AM9PR03MB7377.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:5797;
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: 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
x-forefront-antispam-report: CIP:255.255.255.255; CTRY:; LANG:en; SCL:1; SRV:; IPV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; H:AM0PR03MB3522.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com; PTR:; CAT:NONE; SFS:(4636009)(39840400004)(396003)(366004)(346002)(376002)(136003)(2906002)(966005)(53546011)(7696005)(8936002)(6506007)(186003)(5660300002)(83380400001)(8676002)(33656002)(478600001)(52536014)(66446008)(86362001)(166002)(55016002)(71200400001)(66556008)(110136005)(316002)(66476007)(64756008)(76116006)(9686003)(66946007)(66574015)(26005); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101;
x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Kb+j/3yR67+en6wbwm9qYTEjoSUr7LpUjXWpDby6Y+LfF6uZRgtApDusXQ?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?j3pY6cbSxGQGo6uZgM9D5sD+Ozex8Cprrr/u3FDUlZECrrPEv+dmqQPNnk?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?snMWn9l1NmCOKuy4z5NPAtW6SwduQBgCUQDfvGcuyQHNgUegeHi6nhL7ro?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?dhlJx2+mftQkGtbBIWX0bdXI2ip4lrJ7cjHE5KRK8jDuN26XpjUZCZrh2+?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?MqW43px/Szkkd+Ne+qKrvqqJHw/FipF1c3dct5uTHv1L6C8BKWkJnamLGe?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?UCniF+86F51jhXnrhQJLxZD36KGx5N58JBOcFKQKj95A2F9rAy2yw2AznS?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?iDp+nNpHH+fedhxRxEHvbn1qiJgHIArZ8D16j5v0Wy7YZEYUMcvjxcVd3Q?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?QC65rdlQ1dt43EYym2XomhKdC2DTroz7mNV9MlrB1fi2/j8M6v2oF3i9if?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?ocauNtz+ILmezaxvgAkOCLObU3DdEJhXBcWnav+9Lm4qONdA0c8jypPIul?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?5hMd+X+ADesGuH8i0GpuG/vxvAHMWugkut3kHfTK7oYLCa1Fp5nsv0Ktmg?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?4pfGEOhGR6yx6kH3zUSUO9nEvL8a2vkE7Oo5+60sztDa7e0OGPYPMVl69p?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?A0mkCpIZFxE0EyqxjMahzWNI7GMfYmlWgmgj9Djm2J3Sk/oQ6z0ELVRw5T?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?FsvUBRVzNVdVfeQdeE/KlGInlB2tw+/PHg2krMjKleUO8ugdXwpsflkqcd?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?QSY1ep75bJAV2Jmx15ZPy866wLGubkk5NguaGQ9A371e3NcNnPIgiseI8H?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?FIwCTzW3Q5FE6U4iO5kP+1gUT7ZpvN3ayjO+ODRMDTkL6r+8lnvAQ5KaOL?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?Y+/yu+XrfOhBjaUYNvRmJ728gB2qd/+6R9eREixMwu3bYfuCAQJL+uMNO6?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?V9dktWQUPdU2ZaoSdqgUDI34o+P3qWAwFZxEyGMVtwNFbDKSdcao71/JsJ?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?jtR9QbfF1km/UESA9BnScI6euqAa6qPFvobBeX1nUAB/kqPd9wjuB9I8fO?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?bKvXW5p7DfmkmKmYxFOul7rOSmU64KLog6x3TLxeVCvl6WK+Bc3dZe8WoD?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?cWeEdpD9tFOharg3H9LY9DQlwoQudENJTS8CRCTJ7eYmjSPRQfhrVd8t5N?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?QF6qeWTEK1su0aO1FZiPe8dyDmYTD8IP6Uf6jhPqu1xhm56FPKkkfvX/j6?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?5nVr5EaZwFxRUFqIYXKgjF/JySF5z0d4d/x4pa4MSs4bNI6lzvRPhfGAuJ?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?qs/nDzH5i/K5mpVaUJAGoFZ3+J6fVdv5wxKZ1D1Xq5k2Wr1yDO2NOAVkmv?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?nK4a9t+6Ns?=
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_AM0PR03MB35227928249020BC6D0B6806E59E9AM0PR03MB3522eurp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: rad.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Internal
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: AM0PR03MB3522.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: b2d97957-66a3-4c6c-246e-08d8d9cc8e2b
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 25 Feb 2021 20:33:05.3313 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: f9047108-cc2c-4e48-97a3-43fad1b3bf9d
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: Kp21S2FLQF6Dt7/wowPbR5TvkTRsc7Iuo4Hi1jnOBXDX1ttqzhr1Dh8uwlqiSDTVq9Fe97s4QEoTiQAp+2JR8Q==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: AM9PR03MB7377
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/A1J9-YUk8UeBbQBN1IAGz60jFUg>
Subject: Re: [Pce] new draft on segment routing approach to TSN
X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Path Computation Element <pce.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pce>, <mailto:pce-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/pce/>
List-Post: <mailto:pce@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pce-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce>, <mailto:pce-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2021 20:33:20 -0000

Pascal,

Wow, there is a lot to respond to.

Thanks for the pointers. I was not aware of this work.
However, I believe this proposal is both different and can be complementary to the ones you mention.

I was going to add a section on how to reproduce Qbv behavior using a stack of deadlines (the argument is a bit tricky, but straightforward).
I don't necessarily think that is a good idea, but it should be there to counter claims that SRTSN only reduces the expectation
but can't provide an absolute upper bound on latency (when based on EDF).

I like to use the term latency, but sometimes use delay to avoid overusing it.

I thought that "green wave" would be understood by those who drive cars in cities where traffic light coordination is common.

I attempted to describe a data structure for EDF to be used instead of a queue,
but never implied that "queueing" (meaning packets waiting to be transmitted) doesn't occur.
If that were the case there would not be a need for any data structure at all.
(Another thing I didn't get into was the trade-offs among the different options,
 from worst case complexity and difficulty to implement in hardware PoVs.)

I took a quick look at US 9602420 and will study it further.
However the purpose of this draft is not to mandate any specific scheduling mechanism,
rather to show how such mechanisms can be integrated and hopefully more readily distributed.
Incidentally I am working on a joint path+deadline optimization algorithm which only requires partial information.

Proofs of absolute upper bounds on latency are nice, but generally come at the price of either

  1.  significantly reduced bandwidth efficiency (like TDM, or equivalently time gating as in Qbv or FlexE),
  2.  unscalable computation
  3.  relatively loose deadlines to being with (like Andrews Zhang)
  4.  assumptions that aren't necessarily obeyed in real life (like a lot of the network calculus proofs).
I would be happy to discuss your variant to see in which class it falls.

Y(J)S


From: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert@cisco.com>
Sent: 25/02/2021 19:40
To: Tianran Zhou <zhoutianran@huawei.com>om>; Yaakov Stein <yaakov_s@rad.com>om>; detnet@ietf.org; spring@ietf.org; pce@ietf.org
Subject: RE: new draft on segment routing approach to TSN


CAUTION: External sender. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe.
Hi Yaakov and all:

Whereever Yaakov decides to place it I'll be there supporting the work. The draft itself is incredibly well-written and information-rich.
Note that there's also work in RAW that mentions SR operation DetNet related operations (draft-pthubert-raw-architecture<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftools.ietf.org%2Fhtml%2Fdraft-pthubert-raw-architecture-05&data=04%7C01%7Cyaakov_s%40rad.com%7C5a6ae47118cf453d263d08d8d9b4776b%7Cf9047108cc2c4e4897a343fad1b3bf9d%7C1%7C0%7C637498716423474214%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=ml5Lr%2FvJHvhBtJnP6KqQ2gE20rkYMihRA9NYOEhye4E%3D&reserved=0>)mp;reserved=0>). RAW has vested interest in intelligent forwarding decision, that would be the trademark vs. DetNet. With this draft, the forwarding is not based on Qbv schedule but the forwarder has some latitude as long as it matches the hop deadline. So RAW may be a good place.
And then there's draft-chen-detnet-sr-based-bounded-latency<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftools.ietf.org%2Fhtml%2Fdraft-chen-detnet-sr-based-bounded-latency-01&data=04%7C01%7Cyaakov_s%40rad.com%7C5a6ae47118cf453d263d08d8d9b4776b%7Cf9047108cc2c4e4897a343fad1b3bf9d%7C1%7C0%7C637498716423484210%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=7DTzliy8OHRPIqZ719W7Ul2lPqgpcxcOU4oYb8VmSSM%3D&reserved=0>amp;reserved=0>. Ideally all these related items would progress in the same room.

Also a few notes on the draft itself:
- maybe use latency instead of delay; it would be nice to maybe define delay as something else, e.g., the delay representing the time the packet spends queued in one hop vs. the latency that is end to end?
- not sure the term green wave is well understood by the public here; the draft gives the impression that the TSN path is faster than the best effort and involves no queueing. For the most part that is untrue; the latency is bounded but for most flows it is longer than best effort. Best effort can be really fast with passthrough in an empty network. The problem is the long tail and possibly congestion loss. For TSN, there can be very special flows that will traverse the city with all the lights green, but usually there'll be queuing. The difference is that the queueing latency is constant and the overall latency is withing bounds.
- Time triggered is not the only TSN operation. I wonder what the draft would become with asynchronous shaper in mind. We designed (and as I must announce, patented as US9602420<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpatents.google.com%2Fpatent%2FUS9602420&data=04%7C01%7Cyaakov_s%40rad.com%7C5a6ae47118cf453d263d08d8d9b4776b%7Cf9047108cc2c4e4897a343fad1b3bf9d%7C1%7C0%7C637498716423494204%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=aSHLwTc0xl9SbP%2BTLsd4R6EY542%2FOSII1bfC3Jrpueg%3D&reserved=0>) a system very similar to the one proposed in the draft, but that is designed to adapt QoS depending on whether the packet is early or late vs. its schedule, and not tagging the schedule in the since the latency is considered end to end not hop by hop. The use case is slightly different since we apply this without a global controller and a provable guarantees all flows will meet the deadline - so not really detnet-, but more like a best effort that all flows meet their deadline in a stochastic environment. If Yaakov is interested, we can contribute on that aspect.

Good luck with the draft,

Pascal


From: detnet <detnet-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:detnet-bounces@ietf.org>> On Behalf Of Tianran Zhou
Sent: jeudi 25 février 2021 9:14
To: Yaakov Stein <yaakov_s@rad.com<mailto:yaakov_s@rad.com>>; detnet@ietf.org<mailto:detnet@ietf.org>; spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org>; pce@ietf.org<mailto:pce@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Detnet] new draft on segment routing approach to TSN

Hi Yaakov,

This is an interesting topic.
After a quick review, there are several questions as follows:
1. It's clear to me to have a deadline for each packet. So that router can schedule the packet based on the urgency. But what's the motivation to split the end to end deadline to several local ones?
2. How to divide an end to end deadline into several local deadlines? Is there any example algorithm that could be used by the controller?
3. As far as I know, most devices do not support edf. I am not sure whether your proposal based on edf could really be useful.

Cheers,
Tianran


From: Pce [mailto:pce-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Yaakov Stein
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2021 9:14 PM
To: detnet@ietf.org<mailto:detnet@ietf.org>; spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org>; pce@ietf.org<mailto:pce@ietf.org>
Subject: [Pce] new draft on segment routing approach to TSN

All,

I would like to call your attention to a new ID https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-stein-srtsn-00.txt<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Farchive%2Fid%2Fdraft-stein-srtsn-00.txt&data=04%7C01%7Cyaakov_s%40rad.com%7C5a6ae47118cf453d263d08d8d9b4776b%7Cf9047108cc2c4e4897a343fad1b3bf9d%7C1%7C0%7C637498716423494204%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=8JOBA97tVXOHG3Ao6HOcXU%2FkaqYcMyIjVXQfVRA4twU%3D&reserved=0>
which describes using a stack-based approach (similar to segment routing) to time sensitive networking.
It furthermore proposes combining segment routing with this approach to TSN
resulting in a unified approach to forwarding and scheduling.

The draft is information at this point, since it discusses the concepts and does not yet pin down the precise formats.

Apologies for simultaneously sending to 3 lists,
but I am not sure which WG is the most appropriate for discussions of this topic.

  *   DetNet is most relevant since the whole point is to control end-to-end latency of a time-sensitive flow.
  *   Spring is also directly relevant due to the use of a stack in the header and the combined approach just mentioned.
  *   PCE is relevant to the case of a central server jointly computing an optimal path and local deadline stack.
I'll let the chairs decide where discussions should be held.

Y(J)S