Dear Shahram, et al.,
I think that adding MPLS WG to the discussion is helpful. Thus I'll take the
liberty to copy to the list.
And I don't agree that combination of TC transport over MPLS domain with clock
distribution within it inherently creates layer violation. As I've mentioned,
PTP can be distributed over PSN that interconnects 1588-capable nodes if IP
encapsulation used or as MS-PW if Ethernet encapsulation used.
Regards,
Greg
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
Shahram Davari
Sent: Saturday, November 26, 2011 6:52 PM
To: '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'
Cc: '[email protected]'
Subject: Re: [TICTOC] FW: I-D Action: draft-ietf-tictoc-1588overmpls-02.txt
Hi Stewart,
Your proposal also does layer violation. TC by nature does layer violation.
Advantage of our approach is that it uses existing PW encapsulation, and
doesn't require new protocol.
Your solution can be further explored in a new draft as a more generic
solution, noting that requires new protocol and new parsing.
Thx
Shahram.
----- Original Message -----
From: Stewart Bryant [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Saturday, November 26, 2011 04:13 PM
To: Yaakov Stein <[email protected]>
Cc: Shahram Davari; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [TICTOC] FW: I-D Action: draft-ietf-tictoc-1588overmpls-02.txt
Yaakov
I was not thinking of a particularly radical packet type.
A label stack, a 64 bit delay field, and then any timing payload you like
(specific details out of scope for the draft).
The P routers then just add and subtract the current time from the delay field
to update it with the dwell time.
The Edge will know what the timing payload type is and can make the TC
correction based on the delay field.
The important point is that this works for any packet type that needs to know
delay, be that a timing payload such as 1588v2, 1588v3, NTPv4, NTPv5 etc etc.
It also as Yaakov notes works for any other payload type such as a payload that
needs to perform synchronous delivery at multiple disjoint endpoints, or a 1+1
protection system that is required to provide synchronied streams etc etc.
- Stewart
On 26/11/2011 20:24, Yaakov Stein wrote:
> Shahram and Stewart
>
> If we need intermediate MPLS nodes to perform special processing on
> 1588oMPLS packets there are several methods to lower the processing
> requirements.
> Of course, DPI could be performed to go below the MPLS and IP headers
> as Shahram said, but as Stewart pointed out this would be prohibitively
> expensive.
>
> Two methods have been proposed.
> The method of the present draft is to use the standard encapsulations
> (after ensuring that 1588 is supported) and to inform the intermediate
> nodes that the particular label value being used is special.
> For this special label value the node has been informed of what to do,
> e.g., has the offset of a TC.
> Any use of TC is necessarily a layer violation (after all, the
> timestamp is a layer-0 entity and we are placing it in a layer 2 or
> higher field), but correcting a field inside 1588 in UDP in IP in MPLS
> is not really that much worse than correcting on in 1588 in UDP in IP in
> Ethernet.
>
> The alternative method that I proposed is to invent a completely new
> timestamping mechanism.
> This has the advantage of being applicable to all MPLS packets (and
> thus can solve other problems), but requires inventing yet another
> timing distribution protocol.
> I know that Stewart succeeded in inventing a new packet loss and delay
> measurement protocol for TP, but I didn't gauge support in TICTOC for
> something new here.
>
> Y(J)S
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stewart Bryant [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2011 19:30
> To: Shahram Davari
> Cc: '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'
> Subject: Re: [TICTOC] FW: I-D Action:
> draft-ietf-tictoc-1588overmpls-02.txt
>
> Shahram
>
> I will ponder the answer to this question, but will note that you have
> not addressed my second question which relates to whether there is
> MPLS WG buy-in for this proposal.
>
> - Stewart
>
>
>
> On 24/11/2011 16:34, Shahram Davari wrote:
>> Hi Stewart,
>>
>> The parsing required by the draft is not complex and almost all MPLS routers
>> have support it already. The idea was to reuse existing data plane
>> mechanisms and not invent a new one. This I believe is in the spirit of IETF
>> to reuse existing mechanisms.
>>
>> I don't believe adding a shim makes the design simpler. You still need to
>> detect that such shim exists and for that you need parsing that doesn't even
>> exist today.
>>
>>
>> This draft has been implemented by vendors, so we have a working code and I
>> believe we also have rough consensus.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Shahram
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Stewart Bryant [mailto:[email protected]]
>> Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2011 07:58 AM
>> To: [email protected]<[email protected]>
>> Cc: [email protected]<[email protected]>;
>> [email protected]<[email protected]>
>> Subject: Re: [TICTOC] FW: I-D Action:
>> draft-ietf-tictoc-1588overmpls-02.txt
>>
>> Can we wind back to my original points here which have not addressed.
>>
>> Why are is the WG proposing a design that needs such complex parsing,
>> against the ethos of MPLS, when a simpler design would be more
>> universally applicable?
>>
>> Does the WG have any input to suggest that the design will survive a
>> review by MPLS/PWE3 WG and then by IESG?
>>
>> - Stewart
>>
>>
>> On 22/11/2011 09:12, Stewart Bryant wrote:
>>> Speaking as an individual here, I really have a hard time
>>> understanding why it is necessary to have quite the egregious layer
>>> violation that this draft uses.
>>>
>>> The idea of having an LSP type that is dedicated to tracking the
>>> time of passage through the network is a good idea. However MPLS is
>>> completely geared to the concept that only the LSP endpoints know
>>> how to resolve the payload type.
>>>
>>> The function that you require could be achieved by including a shim
>>> that contains the time compensation information and adjust the
>>> payload on egress from the LSP. That would be rather more consistent
>>> with the MPLS architecture.
>>>
>>> I have not seen a request for review by the MPLS or PWE3 WGs and I
>>> would suggest that you request that sooner rather than later since
>>> it is inevitable that the draft will be sent there later in it's
>>> life, and if they do not subscribe to your mode of operation the
>>> draft is unlikely to progress.
>>>
>>> I would also suggest that you discuss the extent of layer violation
>>> with your AD to make sure he is confident that this draft will pass
>>> IESG review.
>>>
>>> - Stewart
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> TICTOC mailing list
>>> [email protected]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tictoc
>>>
>
--
For corporate legal information go to:
http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html
_______________________________________________
TICTOC mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tictoc
_______________________________________________
TICTOC mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tictoc
