Enforcing end-to-end delay bounds via queue resizing
draft-aft-detnet-bound-delay-queue-00
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Active".
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Author | Antoine Fressancourt | ||
| Last updated | 2023-05-09 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-aft-detnet-bound-delay-queue-00
Deterministic Networking (detnet) Working Group A. Fressancourt, Ed.
Internet-Draft Huawei
Intended status: Standards Track 9 May 2023
Expires: 10 November 2023
Enforcing end-to-end delay bounds via queue resizing
draft-aft-detnet-bound-delay-queue-00
Abstract
This document presents a distributed mechanism to enforce strict
delay bounds for some network flows in large scale networks. It
leverages on the capacity of modern network devices to adapt their
queue's capacities to bound the maximum time spent by packets in
those devices. It is using a reservation protocol to guarantee the
availability of the resources in the devices' queues to serve packets
belonging to specific flows while enforcing an end-to-end delay
constraint.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on 10 November 2023.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2023 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Fressancourt Expires 10 November 2023 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Bound delay queue May 2023
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components
extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Bounding delay at the switches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Setting up an end-to-end path with a delay bound . . . . . . 5
4. Adapting the queues capacities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. End-to-end ressource reservation protocol operations . . . . 10
5.1. Using the RSVP protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.2. Information encoding in RSVP messages . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.3. Operations at the source . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
5.4. Operations at intermediate nodes . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
5.5. Operations at the destination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
1. Introduction
While constraining both the latency and the jitter makes sense for
mission-critical real-time applications, some applications can
accommodate a relaxation of the jitter constraint provided a bound on
the end-to-end latency is respected in order to operate over longer
distances. Such use cases comprise online multiplayer gaming,
augmented reality (AR) or virtual reality (VR), presented in
[TS23501], as well as synchronized stream playback or wide-area
monitoring and control systems, presented in [RFC8578]. In those use
cases, packets may be buffered and reordered at the receiving end
provided the data they carry can be delivered on time to the
application.
This document presents a networked system designed to enforce strict
delay bounds for some network flows in large scale networks. It is
using both a dynamic mechanism to adapt queue capacity in network
devices and a distributed signaling mechanism.
Fressancourt Expires 10 November 2023 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Bound delay queue May 2023
In this system, the network devices have a set of queues which are
served for a amount of time on a regular period, using a round robin
strategy or one of its variants. By controlling the amount of data
packets that can be stored in each queue, the devices can control the
maximum amount of time spent by packets in each queue, and commit on
a maximum time spent to route packets belonging to a given flow. As
each device can adjust the size of its various queues, the network
can adapt to the demand for latency-bound traffic.
Then, in a network connecting such devices, it becomes possible to
build end-to-end paths on which the maximum delay is bounded. A
distributed signaling protocol is used to allow end devices to
reserve capacity slots in the network devices queues in order to send
traffic respecting end-to-end delay bounds to other end devices.
2. Bounding delay at the switches
[RFC9320] gives a detailed description of the timing model for relay
nodes involved in a deterministic network. In this document, using
the same notations and numbering, the transit time from a given node
to its successor on the path is the sum of:
1. An output delay.
2. A link delay;
3. A frame preemption delay (according to [IEEE8023]);
4. A processing delay;
5. A regulator queueing delay;
6. A queueing subsystem delay;
Components 1 to 4 in this per hop delay computation can be bounded by
a non-queuing delay upper bound, while components 5 and 6 constitute
a queuing delay depending on the queuing strategy.
In modern network equipment, several queues are used to park packets
depending on a set of criteria. In some architecture, such as the
Protocol Independent Switch Architecture (see Figure 1), the queues
are located before the egress processing pipeline. The time spent by
a packet in an equipment depends on the time spent in the processing
pipelines, on the time it stays in a queue and on potential packet
reorderings in the queue. Considering a round robin service of those
queues, if no packet reordering operation is done in the queues, the
time spent by packets in a queue depends on the queue's capacity.
Fressancourt Expires 10 November 2023 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Bound delay queue May 2023
+------+
+------------+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | \
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | \
| Match | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Action +
| | | |
| | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |
| Logic | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Logic |
| | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |
| | | |
| (Ingress) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |(Egress) +
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | /
+------------+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | /
+------+
Figure 1: A schematic view of the PISA architecture
If the queues are served as FIFO, then, according to
[LeBoudecTheory], the worst node delay, i.e. the maximum time spent
by a packet in transit in a given node can be expressed as:
T = T0 + B / CIR
Where:
* T0 is the upper bound of the non-queuing delay experienced by a
packet in the node,
* B is the buffer capacity (in bits),
* CIR is the Committed Information Rate, i.e. the service rate of
the queue (in bits per second (bps)).
According to this formula, it is possible to bound the time spent by
a packet in an equipment by assigning it to a queue of the proper
size. Besides, the maximum time spent by packets in the equipment
can be adjusted by changing the buffer size, i.e. the number of
packets in the queue. Thus, if each packet's size is bounded by the
MTU, it is possible to express the buffer sizes as capacity reserved
for specific network flows.
Fressancourt Expires 10 November 2023 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Bound delay queue May 2023
In the described system, end nodes commit to respect a strict
threshold on the bandwidth they consume for data flows for which they
want the end-to-end delay to be bound. Indeed, hosts are allowed to
send bursts of traffic violating the maximum bandwidth they are
allowed to consume, the maximum delay experienced by packets in the
various network nodes will not be bounded, as space in the various
queues might be illegitimately allocated. To respect this
constraint, end hosts are forced to strictly respect the threshold
they are allocated for their delay-bound flow, and reject every
packet violating this cap at the network's ingress.
In this system, the capacity of the various queues in the equipments
is steered, and end host can reserve capacity in those queues by
means of a reservation protocol able to carry queue reservation
parameters in reservation request and reply messages.
3. Setting up an end-to-end path with a delay bound
To describe how a path with strict delay bounds can be set up, let us
consider as an example the network presented in Figure 2. This
network consists in a source node A, a destination node F, and four
(4) intermediate nodes A, B, C and D. Each of these four
intermediate nodes have 2 guaranteed service queues, characterized by
the Maximum node transit Delay they offer (M.D, in ms) and their
capacity (Cp, in Mbps), and a best effort queue. Those queues are
served in a round robin fashion, in such a way that their service
time is guaranteed. In this network, A wants to send traffic to F in
a data flow, with a maximum capacity of 2Mbps and a end-to-end delay
limit of 85 ms.
Fressancourt Expires 10 November 2023 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Bound delay queue May 2023
+----------------+ +----------------+
| Node B | | Node D |
| - Queue Q1 | | - Queue Q1 |
| -M.D 20 ms | | -M.D 40 ms |
| -Cp 5 Mbps | | -Cp 7 Mbps |
| | | |
| - Queue Q2 +------+ - Queue Q2 |
/| -M.D 200 ms | | -M.D 300 ms |\
/ | -Cp 50 Mbps | | -Cp 60 Mbps | \
/ | | | | \
/ | - Queue Q3 | | - Queue Q3 | \
/ | -Best eff. | | -Best eff. | \
/ +----------------+\ /+----------------+ \
+----+---------+ \ / +---------+----+
| Source | \/ | Destination |
| Node A | /\ | Node F |
+----+---------+ / \ +---------+----+
\ +----------------+/ \+----------------+ /
\ | Node C | | Node E | /
\ | - Queue Q1 | | - Queue Q1 | /
\ | -M.D 50 ms | | -M.D 30 ms | /
\ | -Cp 9 Mbps | | -Cp 6 Mbps | /
\| | | |/
| - Queue Q2 +------+ - Queue Q2 |
| -M.D 200 ms | | -M.D 400 ms |
| -Cp 50 Mbps | | -Cp 70 Mbps |
| | | |
| - Queue Q3 | | - Queue Q3 |
| -Best eff. | | -Best eff. |
+----------------+ +----------------+
Figure 2: Example network
To set the path, A will use the resource reservation protocol to send
a reservation request to F carrying the end-to-end delay bound and
the maximum capacity of the data flow it is willing to send. This
message is denoted Req.[ID = Nonce; Flow-ID = f-ID; max-E2E-delay =
85ms; E2E-delay-commit. = 0ms; Bw = 2Mbps; Record-route = [A]]. It
contains six (6) parameters of interest for the reservation
procedure:
* an nonce ID that identifies the request;
* a flow ID which follows the requirements stated in Section 5.1 of
[RFC8939] to identify the flow for which the resource reservation
is done;
Fressancourt Expires 10 November 2023 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Bound delay queue May 2023
* a maximum end-to-end delay to be respected on the path from the
source to the destination;
* an end-to-end delay commitment which represents the sum of the
maximum delays nodes that the message traversed commit to respect;
* a capacity which is the upper bound of the capacity required to
serve the data flow on the path;
* a recorded route that is used to determine which nodes the message
has traversed.
The message is sent to B and C.
When B receives the message, it checks that it can participate in the
path by checking whether it can accept packets with the requested
capacity in one of its queues while respecting the end-to-end delay.
It can place packets associated to this flow in its queue Q1. Then,
before forwarding the packet, it sets a temporary reservation in its
queue Q1, adds Q1's maximum delay (20ms) to the end-to-end delay
commitment in the reservation request message, and adds itself in the
Record-route stack in the message: Req.[ID = Nonce; Flow-ID = f-ID;
max-E2E-delay = 85ms; E2E-delay-commit. = 20ms; Bw = 2Mbps; Record-
route = [A, B]]. Then it relays the packet to D and E.
At the same time, C procedes in a similar way, assigns a temporary
reservation to its queue Q1 and sends messages Req.[ID = Nonce; Flow-
ID = f-ID; max-E2E-delay = 85ms; E2E-delay-commit. = 50ms; Bw =
2Mbps; Record-route = [A, C]] to D and E.
When D receives both messages Req.[ID = Nonce; Flow-ID = f-ID; max-
E2E-delay = 85ms; E2E-delay-commit. = 20ms; Bw = 2Mbps; Record-route
= [A, B]] and Req.[ID = Nonce; Flow-ID = f-ID; max-E2E-delay = 85ms;
E2E-delay-commit. = 50ms; Bw = 2Mbps; Record-route = [A, C]], it
knows from the nonce ID that they are associated to the same request.
Looking at the first message, it determines that it can serve this
flow by reserving some capacity in its queue Q1. It thus creates a
message Req.[ID = Nonce; Flow-ID = f-ID; max-E2E-delay = 85ms; E2E-
delay-commit. = 60ms; Bw = 2Mbps; Record-route = [A, B, D]] by adding
Q1's maximum delay to the end-to-end delay commitment and recording
itself in the Record-Route, and forwards it to F. Yet, looking at
the second message, it realizes that it can not answer the request
given that the maximum delay of its fastest queue is higher than the
end-to-end delay value requested in the message. Then, it silently
refrain from relaying the message.
Fressancourt Expires 10 November 2023 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Bound delay queue May 2023
At the same time, E processes both messages Req.[ID = Nonce; Flow-ID
= f-ID; max-E2E-delay = 85ms; E2E-delay-commit. = 20ms; Bw = 2Mbps;
Record-route = [A, B]] and Req.[ID = Nonce; Flow-ID = f-ID; max-E2E-
delay = 85ms; E2E-delay-commit. = 50ms; Bw = 2Mbps; Record-route =
[A, C]], makes a temporary reservation in its queue Q1 and relays
messages Req.[ID = Nonce; Flow-ID = f-ID; max-E2E-delay = 85ms; E2E-
delay-commit. = 50ms; Bw = 2Mbps; Record-route = [A, B, E]] and
Req.[ID = Nonce; Flow-ID = f-ID; max-E2E-delay = 85ms; E2E-delay-
commit. = 80ms; Bw = 2Mbps; Record-route = [A, C, E]] to F.
F, the destination, receives 3 messages dealing with the same end-to-
end resource reservation request from A:
* Req.[ID = Nonce; Flow-ID = f-ID; max-E2E-delay = 85ms; E2E-delay-
commit. = 60ms; Bw = 2Mbps; Record-route = [A, B, D]];
* Req.[ID = Nonce; Flow-ID = f-ID; max-E2E-delay = 85ms; E2E-delay-
commit. = 50ms; Bw = 2Mbps; Record-route = [A, B, E]];
* Req.[ID = Nonce; Flow-ID = f-ID; max-E2E-delay = 85ms; E2E-delay-
commit. = 80ms; Bw = 2Mbps; Record-route = [A, C, E]].
From this set, F chooses a path. The specific policy used to make a
selection among several possible paths is out of the scope of this
document. In this example, F selects the path on which the end-to-
end delay commitment value is the lowest, and answers the resource
reservation request with a response containing six (6) parameters:
* the nonce ID that identifies the request;
* the identifier of the flow for which the resource reservation is
done;
* the maximum end-to-end delay to be respected on the path from the
source to the destination;
* a delay contract value, which is the end-to-end delay commitment
received by the destination on the path;
* a capacity;
* a route that is used to determine which nodes the message has
traversed.
F sets the route to [A, B, E, F] in its response, and sets the delay
contract to 50ms, and sends to E the message Res.[ID = Nonce; Flow-ID
= f-ID; max-E2E-delay = 85ms; E2E-delay-commit. = 50ms; Bw = 2Mbps;
Route = [A, B, E, F]]. This response is relayed to A through E and B
Fressancourt Expires 10 November 2023 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Bound delay queue May 2023
following the information in the Route parameter (see for instance
the behaviour presented in Section 5.4 and Section 5.5). When they
receive the message, both E and B confirm the temporary reservation
they set for the request in their Q1 queues. When A receives the
response, it knows that an end-to-end path going through B and E to
reach F has been set, and that it respects the end-to-end delay
constraint.
4. Adapting the queues capacities
In the lifetime of a network, the demand for delay-bound traffic can
change: the distribution of the delay bound requests can shift,
requiring the nodes to adapt the size of their various buffers.
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Smaller buffer -> less capacity, smaller max. delay
<------------->
+ - - - - - - - +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | | | | | | |
+ - - - - - - - +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Larger buffer -> more capacity, larger max. delay
<----------->
+ - - - - - - +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
+ - - - - - - +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: Influence of buffer size on capacity and maximum delay
A node participating in this system maintains a list of the currently
active reservations in its queues, associated with their
characteristics (i.e. the flow identifier, the requested capacities
and the delay bound commitment to respect at the node).
The queues' capacities are not fixed, and can evolve with time. In
the reservation protocol's operations, two types of events can lead a
node to adapt the capacity of one of its queues:
* If a node receives a reservation request it can not serve because
the requested delay is too low, and the occupation of one of its
queues is below an occupation threshold (20% of the current queue
capacity for instance), then the node can reduce the buffer size
to be able to enforce a lower delay for flows assigned to the
queue and thus accept the request (see middle of Figure 3).
Fressancourt Expires 10 November 2023 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Bound delay queue May 2023
* If a node receives a reservation request it can not serve because
the requested capacity is too high, then the node can observe the
occupation and the minimum delay of active flow reservations in
its queues. If one of its queues' minimal delay is under the
minimum active flow delay commitment, the node can look whether
augmenting the queue's delay to meet this minimum commitment can
help it accept the request (see bottom of Figure 3). In a
proactive way, the node can set an occupation threshold (80 % for
instance) above which it inspects the minimum delay commitment for
active flows in a queue to see whether it can enlarge the queue's
size to accept more flows.
Those buffer size adaptation operations can be performed
independently by each node. Indeed, as presented in Section 3, when
a source reserves resources to respect an end-to-end latency bound,
each intermediate node takes a local commitment about a per node
maximum delay it aims at respecting. If, at a given time, the
Maximum node transit Delay of a queue is smaller that the minimum
delay commitment for active reservations in this queue, then the node
can adapt this queue's size without interfering with any of the
commitments it has taken. Thus, as long as the queue size adaptation
respects ongoing commitments, this procedure do not require
additional signalling.
5. End-to-end ressource reservation protocol operations
5.1. Using the RSVP protocol
The RSVP protocol is used to allow an end device to reserve a path in
a network consisting in devices able to steer their queues depth.
Both the RSVP Path message and the RSVP Resv message are exchanged to
set a queue capacity reservation on a path and acknowledge it.
To reserve capacity to serve a flow respecting a delay bound, the
Path message carries a set of objects to carry the request
information presented in the example described in Section 3. The
acknowledgement of the resource reservation is made by using a Resv
message. It carries the request information presented in the example
described in Section 3.
5.2. Information encoding in RSVP messages
The RSVP messages used in the protocol's operations need to convey
the information listed in Section 5.1. Previous RFCs, namely
[RFC2210], [RFC2212] and [RFC2215], present data objects that can be
used to carry this information.
Fressancourt Expires 10 November 2023 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Bound delay queue May 2023
According to [RFC2210], it is needed to use RSVP to agree on a
guaranteed service to enforce a latency bound between the source and
destination. This will influence the data provided in the various
objects carried by both the Path and Resv messages.
The reservation ID and the identifier associated with the flow for
which the reservation is done are carried in the SESSION data object.
[RFC2205] mentions that in the RSVP SESSION object, the flow is
identified by the destination address and optionally by the
destination port, the protocol ID and a 1-byte flags field. This
limits the number of Detnet flows that can be identified compared to
the requirements of [RFC8939] Section 5.1. Route and record route
elements lists are carried by EXPLICIT_ROUTE and ROUTE_RECORD objects
(see [RFC3209]).
The rest of the information carried by the Path and Resv messages
deal with the characterization of the data flow. According to
[RFC2210], the end to end QoS characteristics of the flow should be
carried either by a SENDER_TSPEC object in the Path message or by a
FLOWSPEC object in the Resv message. The information given by either
the source or destination in those objects is not changed by on path
nodes. For the reservation procedure described in this document, it
means that the maximum end-to-end delay and the Capacity values need
to be conveyed by those objects. On the contrary, the end-to-end
delay commitment value needs to be modified by on path nodes. To
carry this piece of information, both RSVP Path and Resv message can
use an ADSPEC object.
According to [RFC2210], the SENDER_TSPEC and the FLOWSPEC objects
need to include both a general token bucket TSpec parameter and a
guaranteed service RSpec parameter. Those parameters consist in
words characterizing the desired properties of the end-to-end flow.
The token bucket TSPEC contains five (5) words: (1) a token bucket
rate r, (2) a token bucket size b, (3) a peak data rate p, (4) a
minimum policed unit m and (5) a maximum packet size M. The
guaranteed service RSpec contains two (2) words: (1) a rate R and (2)
a slack term S. Those parameters' words are used to characterized
the desired end-to-end delay bound (Dreq). According to [RFC2212],
it is given by the formula:
Dreq = S + b/r
when p=r=R in the parameters carried by the SENDER_TSPEC and the
FLOWSPEC objects.
Fressancourt Expires 10 November 2023 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Bound delay queue May 2023
From this formula, a sender node can formalize its end to end delay
contract by computing b/r and substracting this value from the
desired end-to-end delay to obtain the value of the slack term S to
be added as a word in the guaranteed service RSpec.
0 4 8 9 15 31
+-------+-----------------------+-------------------------------+
1 | A (0) | Unused | B (10) |
+-------+-------+-+-------------+-------------------------------+
2 | C (2) |0| Reserved | D (9) |
+---------------+-+-------------+-------------------------------+
3 | E (127) | F (0) | G (5) |
+---------------+---------------+-------------------------------+
4 | Token Bucket Rate [r] (32-bit IEEE floating point number) |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
5 | Token Bucket Size [b] (32-bit IEEE floating point number) |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
6 | Peak Data Rate [p] (32-bit IEEE floating point number) |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
7 | Minimum Policed Unit [m] (32-bit integer) |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
8 | Maximum Packet Size [M] (32-bit integer) |
+---------------+---------------+-------------------------------+
9 | H (130) | I (0) | J (2) |
+---------------+---------------+-------------------------------+
10 | Rate [R] (32-bit IEEE floating point number) |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
11 | Slack Term [S] (32-bit integer) |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
- A : Message format version number (0)
- B : Overall length (9 words excluding header)
- C : Service header, service number 2 (Guaranteed)
- D : Per-service data length, (9 words excluding per-service header)
- E : Parameter ID, parameter 127 (Token Bucket TSpec)
- F : Parameter 127 flags (none set)
- G : Parameter 127 length, 5 words excluding parameter header
- H : Parameter ID, parameter 130 (Guaranteed Service RSpec)
- I : Parameter 130 flags (none set)
- J : Parameter 130 length, 2 words excluding parameter header
Figure 4: Token bucket TSpec and guaranteed service RSpec
parameters carried by the SENDER_TSPEC and the FLOWSPEC objects
The ADSPEC object carried by the Path and the Resv messages needs to
include a set of default general parameters as well as a fragment
carrying guaranteed service parameters. There are five (5) default
parameters to include: (1) The global break bit, (2) the IS hop
Fressancourt Expires 10 November 2023 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Bound delay queue May 2023
count, (3) the path bandwidth, (4) the minimum path latency and (5)
the composed path MTU. The guaranteed service fragment needs to
include four (4) parameters: (1) the end-to-end composed value of the
rate-dependent error term Ctot, (2) the end-to-end composed value of
the rate-independent error term Dtot, (3) the value of the rate-
dependent error term since the last composition point Csum and (4)
the value of the rate-independent error term since the last
composition point Dsum. In the reservation procedure, the minimum
path latency is set to the undetermined value specified in [RFC2215],
i.e. (2**32)-1, to signal that the propagation delay is not
considered. The on path node provide their contribution to the end-
to-end delay commitment by adding the delay bound they commit to
respect to both the Dtot and the Dsum parameters, while keeping the
Ctot and the Csum parameters with a zero value. Other parameters
appearing in the ADSPEC object are set and modified according to the
procedure described in [RFC2210].
Fressancourt Expires 10 November 2023 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Bound delay queue May 2023
0 4 8 9 15 31
+-------+-----------------------+-------------------------------+
1 | A (0) | Unused | B (19) |
+-------+-------+-+-------------+-------------------------------+
2 | C (1) |x| D (reserved)| E (8) |
+---------------+-+-------------+-------------------------------+
3 | F (4) | G | H (1) |
+---------------+---------------+-------------------------------+
4 | IS hop count (16-bit unsigned) |
+---------------+---------------+-------------------------------+
5 | I (6) | J | K (1) |
+---------------+---------------+-------------------------------+
6 | Path b/w estimate (32-bit IEEE floating point number) |
+---------------+---------------+-------------------------------+
7 | L (l8) | M | N (1) |
+---------------+---------------+-------------------------------+
8 | Minimum path latency (set to 2**32-1) |
+---------------+---------------+-------------------------------+
9 | O (10) | P | Q (1) |
+---------------+---------------+-------------------------------+
10 | Composed MTU (16-bit unsigned) |
+---------------+-+-------------+-------------------------------+
11 | R (2) |x| S (reserved)| T (8) |
+---------------+-+-------------+-------------------------------+
12 | U (133) | V | W (1) |
+---------------+---------------+-------------------------------+
13 | End-to-end composed value for C [Ctot] (set to 0) |
+---------------+---------------+-------------------------------+
14 | X (134) | Y | Z (1) |
+---------------+---------------+-------------------------------+
15 | End-to-end composed value for D [Dtot] (32-bit integer) |
+---------------+---------------+-------------------------------+
16 | AA (135) | BB | CC (1) |
+---------------+---------------+-------------------------------+
17 | Since-last-reshaping point composed C [Csum] (set to 0) |
+---------------+---------------+-------------------------------+
18 | DD (136) | EE | FF (1) |
+---------------+---------------+-------------------------------+
19 | Since-last-reshaping point composed D [Dsum] (32-bit integer) |
+---------------+---------------+-------------------------------+
20 | GG (5) |x HH (0) | II (0) |
+---------------+---------------+-------------------------------+
Figure 5: ADSPEC object format
Fressancourt Expires 10 November 2023 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Bound delay queue May 2023
Word 1: Message Header:
- A : Message header and version number
- B : Message length (19 words excluding header)
Words 2-7: Default general characterization parameters
- C : Per-Service header, service number 1
(Default General Parameters)
- D : Global Break bit (NON_IS_HOP general parameter 2) (marked x)
- E : Length of General Parameters data block (8 words)
- F : Parameter ID, parameter 4 (NUMBER_OF_IS_HOPS general parameter)
- G : Parameter 4 flag byte
- H : Parameter 4 length (1 word excluding header)
- I : Parameter ID, parameter 6
(AVAILABLE_PATH_BANDWIDTH general parameter)
- J : Parameter 6 flag byte
- K : Parameter 6 length (1 word excluding header)
- L : Parameter ID, parameter 8
(MINIMUM_PATH_LATENCY general parameter)
- M : Parameter 8 flag byte
- N : Parameter 8 length (1 word excluding header)
- O : Parameter ID, parameter 10 (PATH_MTU general parameter)
- P : Parameter 10 flag byte
- Q : Parameter 10 length (1 word excluding header)
Words 11-19: Guaranteed service parameters
- R : Per-Service header, service number 2 (Guaranteed)
- S : Break bit
- T : Length of per-service data (8 words excluding header)
- U : Parameter ID, parameter 133 (Composed Ctot)
- V : Composed Ctot flag byte
- W : Composed Ctot length (1 word excluding header)
- X : Parameter ID, parameter 134 (Composed Dtot)
- Y : Composed Dtot flag byte
- Z : Composed Dtot length (1 word excluding header)
- AA: Parameter ID, parameter 135 (Composed Csum).
- BB: Composed Csum flag byte
- CC: Composed Csum length (1 word excluding header)
- DD: Parameter ID, parameter 136 (Composed Dsum).
- EE: Composed Dsum flag byte
- FF: Composed Dsum length (1 word excluding header)
Word 20: Controlled-Load parameters
- GG: Per-Service header, service number 5 (Controlled-Load)
- HH: Break bit
- II: Length of controlled-load data (0 words excluding header)
Figure 6: Caption for ADSPEC object format
Fressancourt Expires 10 November 2023 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Bound delay queue May 2023
5.3. Operations at the source
The source is the end host willing to send traffic to a destination
in a data flow with a delay guarantee. To do so, it sends a RSVP
Path message to the destination. This RSVP Path message encodes the
information listed in the reservation request described in Section 3
according to the encoding method described in Section 5.1. The Path
message triggers a RSVP Resv message that answers to the according
delay-bound path request. At the reception of a Resv message
replying to a pending request, the source waits for a bit in order to
give time to other potential answers to arrive. If a single answer
is received, then the source starts using the path received in the
EXPLICIT_ROUTE object of the Resv message. If multiple answers have
been received, then the source chooses a path, and sends a RSVP
PathTear message to the paths that have not been selected.
5.4. Operations at intermediate nodes
At the reception of a Path message carrying an end-to-end delay
request, it first checks that the message is not duplicated by
looking at its ID. Then, it looks at both the Delay and Capacity
values, and determines whether it can accept the request or not.
If it can accept the request, then the intermediate node relays the
RSVP Path message to the destination. Before relaying the message,
it substracts the maximum delay he commits to respect from the end-
to-end delay, and adds its identifier in the ROUTE_RECORD object. If
it knows several paths to the destination, it can duplicate the
message and relay it on the appropriate egress paths.
At the reception of a Resv message carrying a reply to an end-to-end
delay request, it first checks that the message is not duplicated.
Then, it verifies that it has a pending temporary capacity
reservation associated with the reply for one of its queues. If it
is the case, then it acknowledges the reservation, and allocates the
dedicated capacity to the data flow. It check the next hop for the
Resv message in the EXPLICIT_ROUTE object carried by the message, and
relays it to the next node. If several Resv messages for the same
data flow arrive at the intermediate node, the intermediate node
relays all of them, as they might refer to different paths in the
network from which the source end host needs to choose from.
Temporary reservations following the reception of a Path message that
are not confirmed by a Resv message are cancelled by the reception of
a PathErr message for this flow or by the expiration of a timer set
to one RSVP timeout period. Confirmed reservations may be teared
down by a PathTear message or by the expiration of a cleanout timer
set to the value of the RSVP cleanout period.
Fressancourt Expires 10 November 2023 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Bound delay queue May 2023
5.5. Operations at the destination
The destination node is in charge of building the RSVP Resv message
from the RSVP path message it received from the source.
In case several Path messages have been sent or duplicated along the
path to the destination, the destination can behave in two ways:
either it chooses which path is the most appropriate from a set of
Path message containing the same originating end-to-end delay
request, or it replies to each request message and lets the source
choose which path it will use.
If the destination is responsible for the choice of the path, then
when it receives a Path message carrying an end-to-end delay request,
it waits for a bit in order to give time to potential Path messages
associated to the same request to arrive. If several Path messages
have been received, the destination chooses one of the Path message
(for instance the message carrying the highest Delay value, or the
one carrying the shortest path in terms of hops), and forges a RSVP
Resv message to answer this request. This Resv message carries the
requested maximum end-to-end delay, the final end-to-end delay
commitment received in the Path message, and a Route list containing
the Record-route list received in the Path message to which the
destination's ID is added at the end. It also sends a set of PathErr
messages for the Path messages that have not been selected to
withdraw the reservation at the involved nodes.
If the destination lets the source choose, then, for each Path
message carrying an end-to-end delay request object, the destination
creates a Resv message in which the requested maximum end-to-end
delay and the final end-to-end delay commitment are set to the values
received in the Path message, and in which the Route list is set to
the Record-route list received in the request message, with the
destination's identifier added at the end of the list.
Following [RFC3209], if the Path message received by the destination
contains a ROUTE_RECORD object, then the destination adds an
EXPLICIT_ROUTE object to the Resv message giving the list of nodes
that have been crossed by the Path message. This EXPLICIT_ROUTE
object tells intermediate nodes how they need to forward teh Resv
message.
6. Security Considerations
A detailled analysis of the security aspects of the current draft
will be presented in a future version of the draft. Yet, the current
document is not adding additional threats to the ones identified for
RSVP and presented in Section 2.8 of [RFC2205].
Fressancourt Expires 10 November 2023 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Bound delay queue May 2023
7. IANA Considerations
This document has no IANA actions.
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[LeBoudecTheory]
Le Boudec, J. and P. Thiran, "A Theory of Deterministic
Queuing Systems for the Internet", 2001.
[RFC2205] Braden, R., Ed., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and S.
Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1
Functional Specification", RFC 2205, DOI 10.17487/RFC2205,
September 1997, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2205>.
[RFC2210] Wroclawski, J., "The Use of RSVP with IETF Integrated
Services", RFC 2210, DOI 10.17487/RFC2210, September 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2210>.
[RFC2212] Shenker, S., Partridge, C., and R. Guerin, "Specification
of Guaranteed Quality of Service", RFC 2212,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2212, September 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2212>.
[RFC2215] Shenker, S. and J. Wroclawski, "General Characterization
Parameters for Integrated Service Network Elements",
RFC 2215, DOI 10.17487/RFC2215, September 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2215>.
[RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
Tunnels", RFC 3209, DOI 10.17487/RFC3209, December 2001,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3209>.
[RFC8939] Varga, B., Ed., Farkas, J., Berger, L., Fedyk, D., and S.
Bryant, "Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Data Plane:
IP", RFC 8939, DOI 10.17487/RFC8939, November 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8939>.
[RFC9320] Finn, N., Le Boudec, J.-Y., Mohammadpour, E., Zhang, J.,
and B. Varga, "Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Bounded
Latency", RFC 9320, DOI 10.17487/RFC9320, November 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9320>.
8.2. Informative References
Fressancourt Expires 10 November 2023 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Bound delay queue May 2023
[IEEE8023] "IEEE Standard for Ethernet", IEEE standard,
DOI 10.1109/ieeestd.2022.9844436, July 2022,
<https://doi.org/10.1109/ieeestd.2022.9844436>.
[RFC8578] Grossman, E., Ed., "Deterministic Networking Use Cases",
RFC 8578, DOI 10.17487/RFC8578, May 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8578>.
[TS23501] 3rd Generation Partnership Project and D. Chandramouli,
"System architecture for the 5G System (5GS)",
<https://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/
archive/23_series/23.501/23501-i00.zip>.
Acknowledgments
TODO acknowledge.
Contributors
Paolo Medagliani
Huawei Technologies France S.A.S.U.
Email: paolo.medagliani@huawei.com
Sebastien Martin
Huawei Technologies France S.A.S.U.
Email: sebastien.martin@huawei.com
Anne Bouillard
Huawei Technologies France S.A.S.U.
Email: anne.bouillard@huawei.com
Author's Address
Antoine Fressancourt (editor)
Huawei Technologies France S.A.S.U.
18, Quai du Point du Jour
92100 Boulogne-Billancourt
France
Email: antoine.fressancourt@huawei.com
Fressancourt Expires 10 November 2023 [Page 19]