lists.openwall.net   lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Tue, 28 Jan 2020 11:35:34 +0100
From:   Jürgen Lambrecht <j.lambrecht@...evic.com>
To:     Vinicius Costa Gomes <vinicius.gomes@...el.com>,
        "Allan W. Nielsen" <allan.nielsen@...rochip.com>
Cc:     Horatiu Vultur <horatiu.vultur@...rochip.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org, jiri@...nulli.us,
        ivecera@...hat.com, davem@...emloft.net, roopa@...ulusnetworks.com,
        nikolay@...ulusnetworks.com, anirudh.venkataramanan@...el.com,
        olteanv@...il.com, andrew@...n.ch, jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com,
        UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com
Subject: Re: [RFC net-next v3 00/10] net: bridge: mrp: Add support for Media
 Redundancy Protocol (MRP)

On 1/25/20 10:18 PM, Vinicius Costa Gomes wrote:
> CAUTION: This Email originated from outside Televic. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
>
>
> Hi,
>
> "Allan W. Nielsen" <allan.nielsen@...rochip.com> writes:
>
>> Hi Vinicius,
>>
>> On 24.01.2020 13:05, Vinicius Costa Gomes wrote:
>>> I have one idea and one question.
>> Let me answer the question before dicussing the idea.
>>
>>> The question that I have is: what's the relation of IEC 62439-2 to IEEE
>>> 802.1CB?
>> HSR and 802.1CB (often called FRER - Frame Replication and Elimination
>> for Reliability) shares a lot of functionallity. It is a while since I
>> read the 802.1CB standard, and I have only skimmed the HSR standard, but
>> as far as I understand 802.1CB is a super set of HSR. Also, I have not
>> studdied the HSR implementation.
>> Both HSR and 802.1CB replicate the frame and eliminate the additional
>> copies. If just 1 of the replicated fraems arrives, then higher layer
>> applications will not see any traffic lose.
>>
>> MRP is different, it is a ring protocol, much more like ERPS defined in
>> G.8032 by ITU. Also, MRP only make sense in switches, it does not make
>> sense in a host (like HSR does).
>>
>> [snip MPR explanation]
>>
>> Sorry for the long explanation, but it is important to understand this
>> when discussion the design.
> Not at all, thanks a lot. Now it's clear to me that MRP and 802.1CB are
> really different beasts, with different use cases/limitations:
>
>  - MRP: now that we have a ring, let's break the loop, and use the
>    redudancy provided by the ring to detect the problem and "repair" the
>    network if something bad happens;
indeed. MRP is IEC 62439-2
>
>  - 802.1CB: now that we have a ring, let's send packets through
>    two different paths, and find a way to discard duplicated ones, so
>    even if something bad happens the packet will reach its destination;

Not exactly, 802.1CB is independent of the network layout, according to the abstract on https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8091139.

The IEC 62439-3 standard mentions 2 network layouts: 2 parallel paths and a ring:

- IEC 62439-3.4 Parallel Redundancy Protocol (PRP): this runs on 2 separated parallel paths in the network

- IEC 62439-3.5 HSR (High availability seamless redundancy): this runs on a ring: each host sends all data in 2 directions, and when it receives its own data back, it discards it (to avoid a loop).

(and it is better to implement IEEE, because the standard costs only 151$, and the IEC ones cost 2x410$)

Kind regards,

Jürgen

Powered by blists - more mailing lists