Subject: [Detnet-dp-dt] fyi modified version uploaded

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 22:34:49 -0500

well sort of.  I didn't have access to the DT branch so I created a fork
and put in a pull request. 
Jouni can you do the pull?

In the interim see
diffs:
https://github.com/louberger/draft-dt-detnet-dp-alt/commit/9ecaa473d8758e3cd1e71a4f7f468acd28047033

doc:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/louberger/draft-dt-detnet-dp-alt/master/draft-dt-detnet-dp-alt-00.txt

Lou

---

From: Jouni Korhonen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 21:06:18 -0800

Thanks.. and okay.

- Jouni

> On 10 Mar 2016, at 19:34, Lou Berger <[email-masked]> wrote:
>

---

From: Jouni Korhonen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 21:13:36 -0800

Lou’s stuff has now been merged to the master branch (in my repo).. also added Lou to one of the contributors in github.

- Jouni

---

From: János Farkas <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2016 15:20:33 +0100

Hi,

In the new Figure 1, I miss edge nodes or UNIs. An End System is 
connected to an UNI provided by an Edge Node, not just into a sub-network.

Maybe an update would be good:
                                                             +------+
                                                             | End  |
                                                            |System|
                                                             +---+--+
                                                                    |
+------+                                               +------+
| End  |                                               | Edge  |
|System|                                               |Node|
+--+---+                                               +---+--+
    |Link                                                   |
    |    +-------+     +-------+   ,-'''-.   +-------+   ,-'''-.
    |    |Edge|Link |Network|--[  Sub  ]--|Network|--[  Sub  ]
    +----|  Node |-----|  Node |  [Network]  |  Node |  [Network]
         +-------+     +-------+   +-...-'   +-------+   +-...-'

I'm sorry if it is my fault, but I think there is confusion about layers.
The reason for proposing two layers for the DetNet data plane is that 
the thinking behind is from UNI to UNI, i.e., in a single domain network 
from edge node to edge node.
If we add End Systems to the picture, then we are talking about three 
layers (at least ;-) ). It is an additional layer between the ENd 
Systems, the service for that is provided by the two UNIs the End 
Systems are connected to. We may call that layer the "DetNet Service 
Layer" or "DetNet Client Layer" or alike.
If we want to capture that in Fig. 2, then we may update it to

     .
     .
     .
+-----------+
|  DetNet  |
|  Service  |
+-+-------+-+
   |  Det  | PW, RTP, UDP, GRE, L2TP, BIER
   ~~~~~~~~~
   |  Net  | IPv6, IPv4, MPLS LSPs
   +-------+
       .
       .

The Det and Net layers are really for the data plane from UNI to UNI. 
The only reason for having two, is that neither IPV6, MPLS or PW, RTP, 
can provide all features on its own.

Correspondingly, I disagree with the update:
"End systems originate and terminate the Det layer and are peers at the 
Det layer."

I think we should change it back to Edge Node instead of End System here.
I believe, e.g., PW is not from End System to End System, but from Edge 
Node to Edge Node.

End Systems are peers at the DetNet Service layer on top of the Det layer.

Regards,
Janos

On 3/11/2016 6:13 AM, Jouni Korhonen wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> Detnet-dp-dt mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet-dp-dt

---

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2016 10:42:31 -0500

János,

> connected to an UNI provided by an Edge Node, not just into a sub-network.

I think we have a terminology disconnect here.  I used the terms from
the architecture document.  How do  you differentiate an end system from
an edge node?

If we steal terms from rfc5921, which has:

            |<----------------- Client Layer ------------------->|
            |                                                    |
            |          |<-------- Pseudowire -------->|          |
            |          |      encapsulated, packet    |          |
            |          |      transport service       |          |
            |          |                              |          |
            |          |          Transport           |          |
            |          |    |<------ LSP ------->|    |          |
            |          V    V                    V    V          |
            V    AC    +----+      +-----+       +----+     AC   V
      +-----+    |     | PE1|=======\   /========| PE2|     |    +-----+
      |     |----------|.......PW1.| \ / |............|----------|     |
      | CE1 |    |     |    |      |  X  |       |    |     |    | CE2 |
      |     |----------|.......PW2.| / \ |............|----------|     |
      +-----+  ^ |     |    |=======/   \========|    |     | ^  +-----+
            ^  |       +----+   ^  +-----+       +----+       |  ^
            |  |      Provider  |     ^         Provider      |  |
            |  |       Edge 1   |     |           Edge 2      |  |
     Customer  |                |  P Router                   | Customer
      Edge 1   |             TE LSP                           |  Edge 2
               |                                              |
               |                                              |
         Native service                                 Native service

            Figure 7: MPLS-TP Architecture (Single Segment PW)

I suspect you are saying that and end system is a CE and an Edge Node is
a PE and a Network Node is a P.  Is this right?

> Maybe an update would be good:

Something went wrong in the spacing here.

> from edge node to edge node.
again from 5921 (slightly modified fig 3), your saying:

    :          User-Network Interface        :           MPLS-TP
    :<-------------------------------------->:           Network <----->
    :                                        :
   -:-------------             --------------:------------------
    :             |           |              :   |  |  -+----------->TSI
    :             |           |  Transport   :   |  | |  --------->
    :             |  Client   |   Service    :   |  | |         |
    :             |  Traffic  |  Data Plane  :   |  | |         |
    : ----------  |  Flows    |  --------------  |  | |Transport|
    :|data      |-|-----------|-|Client/Service|-|  |-   Path   |
    :|Source    |=|===========|=|    Traffic   | |  |    --------->
    : ----------  |           | |  Processing  |=|  |===+===========>TSI
    :      |      |           |  --------------  |  |    --------->
    :      |______|___________|______|       :   |  |           |
    :             | Data Link |              :   |  |           |
    :             |           |              :    --            |
    :             |           |              :        Transport |
    :             |           |              :         Service  |
    :             |           |              :        Data Plane|
   ---------------             ---------------------------------
   Customer Edge Node              MPLS-TP Provider Edge Node

    TSI = Transport Service Instance

and

        --------------From UNI------->            :
       -------------------------------------------:------------------
      |                     | Client Traffic Unit :                  |
      | Link-Layer-Specific | Link Decapsulation  : Service Instance |
      |    Processing       |         &           :    Transport     |
      |                     |  Service Instance   :  Encapsulation   |
      |                     |   Identification    :                  |
       -------------------------------------------:------------------
                                                  :
                                                  :
       -------------------------------------------:------------------
      |                     |                     : Service Instance |
      |                     |                     :    Transport     |
      | Link-Layer-Specific | Client Traffic Unit :  Decapsulation   |
      |    Processing       | Link Encapsulation  :        &         |
      |                     |                     : Service Instance |
      |                     |                     :  Identification  |
       -------------------------------------------:------------------

> If we want to capture that in Fig. 2, then we may update it to
How about client layer rather than detnet service?

again from 5921,

  +-------------------+    /===================\   /===================\
  |  Client Layer     |    H     OAM PDU       H   H     OAM PDU       H
  /===================\    H-------------------H   H-------------------H
  H     PW Encap      H    H      GACh         H   H      GACh         H
  H-------------------H    H-------------------H   H-------------------H
  H   PW Demux (S=1)  H    H PW Demux (S=1)    H   H    GAL (S=1)      H
  H-------------------H    H-------------------H   H-------------------H
  H Trans LSP Demux(s)H    H Trans LSP Demux(s)H   H Trans LSP Demux(s)H
  \===================/    \===================/   \===================/
  |    Server Layer   |    |   Server Layer    |   |   Server Layer    |
  +-------------------+    +-------------------+   +-------------------+

      User Traffic                PW OAM                  LSP OAM

> "End systems originate and terminate the Det layer and are peers at the 
this is the terminology disconnect mentioned above.  The document
currently is unclear on terms and it's good we are fixing this now.

> End Systems are peers at the DetNet Service layer on top of the Det layer.
This goes to a service model that is inherently NOT end to end, i.e.,
doesn't include DetNet aware hosts.  I'm not opposed to this, but this
is a decision that needs to be agreed to.

Lou

---

From: Janos Farkas <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2016 17:45:00 +0000

Hi Lou,

I also think it is a terminology misconnect.

I was thinking of End System as the architecture document defines:
"end system
           Commonly called a "host" in IETF documents, and an "end
           station" is IEEE 802 documents.  End systems of interest to
           this document are either sources or destinations."

I used edge node and core node as the broadest term I know. Yes, a PE is an edge node, a P is a core node.

Client layer sounds good to me instead of DetNet Service.

I'm not sticking to any naming, neither Det layer and Net layer. Those were just initial names.

If anything is wrong in the ideas I'm throwing in, then correct please.
I'm open and just want to do it right.

Thanks,
Janos

Ps: Sorry, I cannot be too elaborate, I'm really on the move.

-----Original Message-----
From: Lou Berger [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 4:43 PM
To: Janos Farkas; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] fyi modified version uploaded

János,

> connected to an UNI provided by an Edge Node, not just into a sub-network.

I think we have a terminology disconnect here.  I used the terms from the architecture document.  How do  you differentiate an end system from an edge node?

I suspect you are saying that and end system is a CE and an Edge Node is a PE and a Network Node is a P.  Is this right?

> the thinking behind is from UNI to UNI, i.e., in a single domain 
> network from edge node to edge node.

and

again from 5921,

> "End systems originate and terminate the Det layer and are peers at 
> the Det layer."
this is the terminology disconnect mentioned above.  The document currently is unclear on terms and it's good we are fixing this now.

> I believe, e.g., PW is not from End System to End System, but from 
> Edge Node to Edge Node.
>
>
This goes to a service model that is inherently NOT end to end, i.e., doesn't include DetNet aware hosts.  I'm not opposed to this, but this is a decision that needs to be agreed to.

Lou
>>> well sort of.  I didn't have access to the DT branch so I created a 
>>> fork and put in a pull request.

---

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2016 13:29:29 -0500

Janos,

>            this document are either sources or destinations."

Understood.   The difference is where is the edge of the DetNet domain.  
One view is, using mpls terminology, a pe providing service to a ce -- 
which I now see what you intended. Another view is that the domain extends 
to the end system (ce).

> I'm open and just want to do it right.

I'm willing to bet that, at least at this time, we're more getting on the 
same page on terms and verbage then disagreeing on substantive topics.

> Ps: Sorry, I cannot be too elaborate, I'm really on the move.

My fault for not contributing more actively earlier.

Lou

> I think we have a terminology disconnect here.  I used the terms from the 
> architecture document.  How do  you differentiate an end system from an 
> edge node?
>
> I suspect you are saying that and end system is a CE and an Edge Node is a 
> PE and a Network Node is a P.  Is this right?
>
> this is the terminology disconnect mentioned above.  The document currently 
> is unclear on terms and it's good we are fixing this now.
>
> doesn't include DetNet aware hosts.  I'm not opposed to this, but this is a 
> decision that needs to be agreed to.
>
> Lou
>> Regards,
>> Janos
>>
>>> Lou’s stuff has now been merged to the master branch (in my repo).. also 
>>> added Lou to one of the contributors in github.
>>>
>>> - Jouni
>>>

---

From: János Farkas <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2016 17:05:06 +0100

On 3/11/2016 7:29 PM, Lou Berger wrote:
> Understood.   The difference is where is the edge of the DetNet 
> domain.  One view is, using mpls terminology, a pe providing service 
> to a ce -- which I now see what you intended.
That's right.

> Another view is that the domain extends to the end system (ce).
For me, and End System (=host) is not part of the network, that's why I 
did not include it in the domain.

You are right, clarifications are needed, independent of what approach 
we take.

Thanks,
Janos

> I'm willing to bet that, at least at this time, we're more getting on 
> the same page on terms and verbage then disagreeing on substantive 
> topics.
>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Janos
>>
>> the architecture document.  How do  you differentiate an end system 
>> from an edge node?
>>
>> I suspect you are saying that and end system is a CE and an Edge Node 
>> is a PE and a Network Node is a P.  Is this right?
>>
>> doesn't include DetNet aware hosts.  I'm not opposed to this, but 
>> this is a decision that needs to be agreed to.
>>
>> Lou
>>> Regards,
>>> Janos
>>>
>>>> Lou’s stuff has now been merged to the master branch (in my repo).. 
>>>> also added Lou to one of the contributors in github.
>>>>
>>>> - Jouni
>>>>