Subject: Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] why was the mpls native service dropped

From: Balázs Varga A <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2016 10:02:24 +0000

Hi Lou,
My shout ... ;--)))
I agree there are no detailed analysis of RTP (yet?), but there is text about it (see section 5.2.5.2).
There are many use-cases (e.g., industrial, etc) where we can not expect any MPLS (or PW) capabilities from transport nodes. Therefore I think we should have an ip-only data plane option in the summary section for those scenarios and RTP is a strong candidate ... 
Cheers
Balazs

Sent from mobile
------------------------------

-------- Forwarded Message -------- >Subject: Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] why was
>the mpls native service droppedDate: Thu, 7 Jul 2016 17:04:32
>-0400From: Lou Berger To: [email-masked]  
>
>okay about to check the change in. I have dropped the following as the
>document lacks any analysis of RTP and I just don't see how it can come
>to the right side of this conclusion. I'd actually prefer to drop RTP
>from the table too as there aren't the details to back it up. Shout if
>you disagree. Figure 16 summarizes the most suitable data plane options
>for DetNet. . . +-------------------+ | PW | RTP | DetNet Service
>+----------|--------+ | MPLS,IP | UDP/IP | DetNet Transport
>+-------------------+ . . Figure 16: Summary of the data plane options
>most suitable for DetNet On 7/7/2016 4:53 PM, Janos Farkas wrote: > No
>objection from my side. > Janos > > -----Original Message----- > From:
>Detnet-dp-dt [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Lou
>Berger > Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2016 10:13 PM > To:
>[email-masked] > Subject: [Detnet-dp-dt] why was the mpls native
>service dropped > > Does anyone object to adding qos back in at the
>transport level? > > > >
>_______________________________________________ > Detnet-dp-dt mailing
>list > [email-masked] >
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet-dp-dt > >
>_______________________________________________ > Detnet-dp-dt mailing
>list > [email-masked] >
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet-dp-dt >
>_______________________________________________ Detnet-dp-dt mailing
>list [email-masked]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet-dp-dt

---

From: Jouni Korhonen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2016 07:44:59 -0700

I don't think there is issue with RTP per se.. at least not to me. It is
just that the conclusion in the final summary did not have similar "weight"
as the others. Let me work on it a bit.

- Jouni

On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 3:02 AM, Balázs Varga A <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> There are many use-cases (e.g., industrial, etc) where we can not expect
> any MPLS (or PW) capabilities from transport nodes. Therefore I think we
> should have an ip-only data plane option in the summary section for those
> scenarios and RTP is a strong candidate ...
> Cheers
> Balazs
>
> Sent from mobile
> _______________________________________________
> Detnet-dp-dt mailing list
> [email-masked]

-- 
Jouni Korhonen, Broadcom Ltd.

---

From: Jouni Korhonen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2016 09:04:04 -0700

I added some more evaluation to RTP in both Sections 5.2.5.2 and 6. Did not
add the figure back though.

- Jouni

On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 7:44 AM, Jouni Korhonen <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 3:02 AM, Balázs Varga A <
> [email-masked]> wrote:
>
>> Hi Lou,
>> My shout ... ;--)))

---

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2016 12:17:08 -0400

Thank you!  I think this is a good foundation for the next phase of
discussion.  Having two options (one for TSN over Detnet/L2VPN, and one
for e2e DetNet) is an interesting option and one that would be good to
cover in the Berlin presentation of this draft.

Lou

On 7/8/2016 12:04 PM, Jouni Korhonen wrote:
> I added some more evaluation to RTP in both Sections 5.2.5.2 and 6.
> Did not add the figure back though.
>
> - Jouni
>
> On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 7:44 AM, Jouni Korhonen
> <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>
>     I don't think there is issue with RTP per se.. at least not to me.
>     It is just that the conclusion in the final summary did not have
>     similar "weight" as the others. Let me work on it a bit.
>
>     - Jouni
>
>     On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 3:02 AM, Balázs Varga A
>     <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>>
>     wrote:
>
>         Hi Lou,
>         My shout ... ;--)))
>         I agree there are no detailed analysis of RTP (yet?), but
>         there is text about it (see section 5.2.5.2).
>         There are many use-cases (e.g., industrial, etc) where we can
>         not expect any MPLS (or PW) capabilities from transport nodes.
>         Therefore I think we should have an ip-only data plane option
>         in the summary section for those scenarios and RTP is a strong
>         candidate ...
>         Cheers
>         Balazs
>
>         Sent from mobile
>         <mailto:[email-masked]>
>         >
>         >Detnet-dp-dt [mailto:[email-masked]
>         <mailto:[email-masked]>] On Behalf Of Lou
>         >[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]> >
>         Subject: [Detnet-dp-dt] why was the mpls native
>         >list > [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]> >
>         >list > [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]> >
>         >list [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>
>         [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>