DetNet Data Plane: IEEE 802.1 Time Sensitive Networking over MPLS
draft-ietf-detnet-tsn-vpn-over-mpls-00
DetNet B. Varga, Ed.
Internet-Draft J. Farkas
Intended status: Standards Track Ericsson
Expires: November 6, 2019 A. Malis
S. Bryant
Huawei Technologies
J. Korhonen
May 5, 2019
DetNet Data Plane: IEEE 802.1 Time Sensitive Networking over MPLS
draft-ietf-detnet-tsn-vpn-over-mpls-00
Abstract
This document specifies the Deterministic Networking data plane when
TSN networks interconnected over an MPLS Packet Switched Networks.
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 November 6, 2019.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
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 Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
Varga, et al. Expires November 6, 2019 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft TSN over DetNet MPLS May 2019
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.1. Terms Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.2. Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. IEEE 802.1 TSN Over DetNet MPLS Data Plane Scenario . . . . . 4
5. DetNet MPLS Data Plane Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.1. End-System Specific Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. MPLS-Based DetNet Data Plane Solution . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.1. DetNet Over MPLS Encapsulation Components . . . . . . . . 8
6.2. TSN over MPLS Data Plane Encapsulation . . . . . . . . . 9
6.2.1. Edge Node Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.2.2. Layer 2 Addressing and QoS Considerations . . . . . . 10
7. Controller Plane (Management and Control)
Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Appendix A. Example of TSN over DetNet Data Plane Operation . . 17
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
1. Introduction
[Editor's note: Introduction to be made specific to TSN over DetNet
scenario. Do we intend to cover both TSN over DetNet IP and TSN over
DetNet MPLS? Or this document is limited to MPLS scenarios?].
2. Terminology
[Editor's note: text to be review what is really needed here.].
2.1. Terms Used in This Document
This document uses the terminology established in the DetNet
architecture [I-D.ietf-detnet-architecture], and the reader is
assumed to be familiar with that document and its terminology.
The following terminology is introduced in this document:
Varga, et al. Expires November 6, 2019 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft TSN over DetNet MPLS May 2019
F-Label A Detnet "forwarding" label that identifies the LSP
used to forward a DetNet flow across an MPLS PSN, e.g.,
a hop-by-hop label used between label switching routers
(LSR).
S-Label A DetNet "service" label that is used between DetNet
nodes that implement also the DetNet service sub-layer
functions. An S-Label is also used to identify a
DetNet flow at DetNet service sub-layer.
d-CW A DetNet Control Word (d-CW) is used for sequencing and
identifying duplicate packets of a DetNet flow at the
DetNet service sub-layer.
2.2. Abbreviations
[Editor's note: text to be cleaned up].
The following abbreviations are used in this document:
AC Attachment Circuit.
CE Customer Edge equipment.
CoS Class of Service.
CW Control Word.
DetNet Deterministic Networking.
DF DetNet Flow.
DN-IWF DetNet Inter-Working Function.
L2 Layer 2.
L2VPN Layer 2 Virtual Private Network.
L3 Layer 3.
LSR Label Switching Router.
MPLS Multiprotocol Label Switching.
MPLS-TE Multiprotocol Label Switching - Traffic Engineering.
MPLS-TP Multiprotocol Label Switching - Transport Profile.
Varga, et al. Expires November 6, 2019 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft TSN over DetNet MPLS May 2019
MS-PW Multi-Segment PseudoWire (MS-PW).
NSP Native Service Processing.
OAM Operations, Administration, and Maintenance.
PE Provider Edge.
PEF Packet Elimination Function.
PRF Packet Replication Function.
PREOF Packet Replication, Elimination and Ordering Functions.
POF Packet Ordering Function.
PSN Packet Switched Network.
PW PseudoWire.
QoS Quality of Service.
S-PE Switching Provider Edge.
T-PE Terminating Provider Edge.
TSN Time-Sensitive Network.
3. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
4. IEEE 802.1 TSN Over DetNet MPLS Data Plane Scenario
[Author's note: review required on his part.]
Varga, et al. Expires November 6, 2019 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft TSN over DetNet MPLS May 2019
TSN Edge Transit Edge TSN
End System Node Node Node End System
(T-PE) (LSR) (T-PE)
+----------+ +.........+ +.........+ +----------+
| Appl. |<-:Svc Proxy:--End to End Svc.--:Svc Proxy:->| Appl. |
+----------+ +---------+ +---------+ +----------+
| TSN | |TSN| |Svc|<-- DetNet flow -->|Svc| |TSN| | TSN |
+----------+ +---+ +---+ +----------+ +---+ +---+ +----------+
|Forwarding| |Fwd| |Fwd| |Forwarding| |Fwd| |Fwd| |Forwarding|
+------.---+ +--.+ +-.-+ +---.----.-+ +--.+ +-.-+ +----.-----+
: Link : / ,-----. \ : Link : / ,-----. \
+.........+ +-[ Sub ]-+ +........+ +-[ Sub ]-+
[Network] [Network]
`-----' `-----'
|<- TSN ->| |<------ DetNet MPLS ------>| |<-- TSN --->|
Figure 1: A TSN over DetNet MPLS Enabled Network
Figure 1 shows IEEE 802.1 TSN end stations operating over a TSN aware
DetNet service running over an MPLS network. DetNet Edge Nodes sit
at the boundary of a DetNet domain. They are responsible for mapping
non-DetNet aware L2 traffic to DetNet services. They also support
the imposition and disposition of the required DetNet encapsulation.
These are functionally similar to pseudowire (PW) Terminating
Provider Edge (T-PE) nodes which use MPLS-TE LSPs. In this example
they understand and support IEEE 802.1 TSN and are able to map TSN
flows into DetNet flows. The specific of this operation are
discussed later in this document.
Native TSN flow and DetNet MPLS flow differ not only by the
additional MPLS specific encapsulation, but DetNet MPLS flows have on
each DetNet node an associated DetNet specific data structure, what
defines flow related characteristics and required forwarding
functions. In this example, edge Nodes provide a service proxy
function that "associates" the DetNet flows and native flows at the
edge of the DetNet domain. This ensures that the DN Flow is properly
served at the Edge node (and inside the domain).
Figure 2 illustrates how DetNet can provide services for IEEE
802.1TSN end systems, CE1 and CE2, over a DetNet enabled MPLS
network. Edge nodes, E1 and E2, insert and remove required DetNet
data plane encapsulation. The 'X' in the edge nodes and relay node,
R1, represent a potential DetNet compound flow packet replication and
elimination point. This conceptually parallels L2VPN services, and
could leverage existing related solutions as discussed below.
Varga, et al. Expires November 6, 2019 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft TSN over DetNet MPLS May 2019
TSN |<------- End to End DetNet Service ------>| TSN
Service | Transit Transit | Service
TSN (AC) | |<-Tnl->| |<-Tnl->| | (AC) TSN
End | V V 1 V V 2 V V | End
System | +--------+ +--------+ +--------+ | System
+---+ | | E1 |=======| R1 |=======| E2 | | +---+
| |--|----|._X_....|..DF1..|.._ _...|..DF3..|...._X_.|---|---| |
|CE1| | | \ | | X | | / | | |CE2|
| | | \_.|..DF2..|._/ \_..|..DF4..|._/ | | |
+---+ | |=======| |=======| | +---+
^ +--------+ +--------+ +--------+ ^
| Edge Node Relay Node Edge Node |
| (T-PE) (S-PE) (T-PE) |
| |
|<- TSN -> <------- TSN Over DetNet MPLS -------> <- TSN ->|
| |
|<--- Emulated Time Sensitive Networking (TSN) Service --->|
X = Service protection
DFx = DetNet member flow x over a TE LSP
Figure 2: IEEE 802.1TSN Over DetNet
5. DetNet MPLS Data Plane Considerations
[Editor's note: Needs clean up, what is relevant for TSN over DetNet
scenarios.].
This section provides informative considerations related to providing
DetNet service to flows which are identified based on their header
information. At a high level, the following are provided on a per
flow basis:
Eliminating contention loss and jitter reduction:
Use of allocated resources (queuing, policing, shaping) to ensure
that the congestion-related loss and latency/jitter requirements
of a DetNet flow are met.
Explicit routes:
Use of a specific path for a flow. This limits misordering and
bounds latency.
Service protection:
Varga, et al. Expires November 6, 2019 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft TSN over DetNet MPLS May 2019
Which in the case of this document primarily relates to
replication and elimination. Changing the explicit path after a
failure is detected in order to restore delivery of the required
DetNet service characteristics is also possible. Path changes,
even in the case of failure recovery, can lead to the out of order
delivery of data.
Load sharing:
Generally, distributing packets of the same DetNet flow over
multiple paths is not recommended. Such load sharing, e.g., via
ECMP or UCMP, impacts ordering and possibly jitter.
Troubleshooting:
For example, to support identification of misbehaving flows.
Recognize flow(s) for analytics:
For example, increase counters.
Correlate events with flows:
For example, unexpected loss.
The DetNet data plane also allows for the aggregation of DetNet
flows, e.g., via MPLS hierarchical LSPs, to improved scaling. When
DetNet flows are aggregated, transit nodes provide service to the
aggregate and not on a per-DetNet flow basis. In this case, nodes
performing aggregation will ensure that per-flow service requirements
are achieved.
5.1. End-System Specific Considerations
Data-flows requiring DetNet service are generated and terminated on
end-systems. Encapsulation depends on application and its
preferences. In a DetNet MPLS domain the DN functions use the d-CWs,
S-Labels and F-Labels to provide DetNet services. However, an
application may exchange further flow related parameters (e.g., time-
stamp), which are not provided by DN functions.
Specifics related to non-MPLS DetNet end station behavior are out
side the scope of this document. For example, details on support for
DetNet IP data flows can be found in [I-D.ietf-detnet-dp-sol-ip].
This document is also useful for end stations that map IP flows to
DetNet flows.
Varga, et al. Expires November 6, 2019 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft TSN over DetNet MPLS May 2019
As a general rule, DetNet MPLS domains are capable of forwarding any
DetNet MPLS flows and the DetNet domain does not mandate the end-
system or edge system encapsulation format. Unless there is a proxy
of some form present, end-systems peer with similar end-systems using
the same application encapsulation format. For example, as shown in
Figure 3, IP applications peer with IP applications and Ethernet
L2VPN applications peer with Ethernet L2VPN applications.
+-----+
| X | +-----+
+-----+ | X |
| Eth | ________ +-----+
+-----+ _____ / \ | Eth |
\ / \__/ \___ +-----+
\ / \ /
0======== tunnel-1 ========0_
| \
\ |
0========= tunnel-2 =========0
/ \ __/ \
+-----+ \__ DetNet MPLS domain / \
| X | \ __ / +-----+
+-----+ \_______/ \_____/ | X |
| IP | +-----+
+-----+ | IP |
+-----+
Figure 3: End-Systems and The DetNet MPLS Domain
6. MPLS-Based DetNet Data Plane Solution
[Editor's note: Needs clean up. Text should focus on Edge node
related topics.].
6.1. DetNet Over MPLS Encapsulation Components
To carry DetNet over MPLS the following is required:
1. A method of identifying the MPLS payload type.
2. A method of identifying the DetNet flow group to the processing
element.
3. A method of distinguishing DetNet OAM packets from DetNet data
packets.
4. A method of carrying the DetNet sequence number.
Varga, et al. Expires November 6, 2019 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft TSN over DetNet MPLS May 2019
5. A suitable LSP to deliver the packet to the egress PE.
6. A method of carrying queuing and forwarding indication.
In this design an MPLS service label (the S-Label), similar to a
pseudowire (PW) label [RFC3985], is used to identify both the DetNet
flow identity and the payload MPLS payload type satisfying (1) and
(2) in the list above. OAM traffic discrimination happens through
the use of the Associated Channel method described in [RFC4385]. The
DetNet sequence number is carried in the DetNet Control word which
carries the Data/OAM discriminator. To simplify implementation and
to maximize interoperability two sequence number sizes are supported:
a 16 bit sequence number and a 28 bit sequence number. The 16 bit
sequence number is needed to support some types of legacy clients.
The 28 bit sequence number is used in situations where it is
necessary ensure that in high speed networks the sequence number
space does not wrap whilst packets are in flight.
The LSP used to forward the DetNet packet may be of any type (MPLS-
LDP, MPLS-TE, MPLS-TP [RFC5921], or MPLS-SR
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls]). The LSP (F-Label) label
and/or the S-Label may be used to indicate the queue processing as
well as the forwarding parameters. Note that the possible use of
Penultimate Hop Popping (PHP) means that the only label in a received
label stack may be the S-Label.
6.2. TSN over MPLS Data Plane Encapsulation
6.2.1. Edge Node Processing
An edge node is resposable for matching ingress packets to the
service they require and encapsulating them accordingly.An edge node
may participate in the packet replication and duplication
elimination.
The DetNet-aware forwarder selects the egress DetNet member flow
segment based on the flow identification. The mapping of ingress
DetNet member flow segment to egress DetNet member flow segment may
be statically or dynamically configured. Additionally the DetNet-
aware forwarder does duplicate frame elimination based on the flow
identification and the sequence number combination. The packet
replication is also done within the DetNet-aware forwarder. During
elimination and the replication process the sequence number of the
DetNet member flow MUST be preserved and copied to the egress DetNet
member flow.
The internal design of a relay node is out of scope of this document.
However the reader's attention is drawn to the need to make any PREOF
Varga, et al. Expires November 6, 2019 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft TSN over DetNet MPLS May 2019
state available to the packet processor(s) dealing with packets to
which the PREOF functions must be applied, and to maintain that state
is such as way that it is available to the packet processor operation
on the next packet in the DetNet flow (which may be a duplicate, a
late packet, or the next packet in sequence.
[Editor's note: I think the rest of this section belongs in a new
"802.1 TSN (island Interconnect) over DetNet MPLS" section.]
This may be done in the DetNet layer, or where the native service
processing (NSP) [RFC3985] is IEEE 802.1CB [IEEE8021CB] capable, the
packet replication and duplicate elimination MAY entirely be done in
the NSP, bypassing the DetNet flow encapsulation and logic entirely.
This enables operating over unmodified implementations and
deployments. The NSP approach works only between edge nodes and
cannot make use of relay nodes.
The NSP approach is useful end to end tunnel and for for "island
interconnect" scenarios. However, when there is a need to do PREOF
in a middle of the network, such plain edge to edge operation is not
sufficient.
The extended forwarder MAY copy the sequencing information from the
native DetNet packet into the DetNet sequence number field and vice
versa. If there is no existing sequencing information available in
the native packet or the forwarder chose not to copy it from the
native packet, then the extended forwarder MUST maintain a sequence
number counter for each DetNet flow (indexed by the DetNet flow
identification).
6.2.2. Layer 2 Addressing and QoS Considerations
[Editor's NOTE: review and simplify this section if possible.]
The Time-Sensitive Networking (TSN) Task Group of the IEEE 802.1
Working Group have defined (and are defining) a number of amendments
to IEEE 802.1Q [IEEE8021Q] that provide zero congestion loss and
bounded latency in bridged networks. IEEE 802.1CB [IEEE8021CB]
defines packet replication and elimination functions that should
prove both compatible with and useful to, DetNet networks.
As is the case for DetNet, a Layer 2 network node such as a bridge
may need to identify the specific DetNet flow to which a packet
belongs in order to provide the TSN/DetNet QoS for that packet. It
also will likely need a CoS marking, such as the priority field of an
IEEE Std 802.1Q VLAN tag, to give the packet proper service.
Varga, et al. Expires November 6, 2019 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft TSN over DetNet MPLS May 2019
Although the flow identification methods described in IEEE 802.1CB
[IEEE8021CB] are flexible, and in fact, include IP 5-tuple
identification methods, the baseline TSN standards assume that every
Ethernet frame belonging to a TSN stream (i.e. DetNet flow) carries
a multicast destination MAC address that is unique to that flow
within the bridged network over which it is carried. Furthermore,
IEEE 802.1CB [IEEE8021CB] describes three methods by which a packet
sequence number can be encoded in an Ethernet frame.
Ensuring that the proper Ethernet VLAN tag priority and destination
MAC address are used on a DetNet/TSN packet may require further
clarification of the customary L2/L3 transformations carried out by
routers and edge label switches. Edge nodes may also have to move
sequence number fields among Layer 2, PW, and IP encapsulations.
7. Controller Plane (Management and Control) Considerations
[Editor's note: requires considerations related to TSN over DetNet.].
8. Security Considerations
The security considerations of DetNet in general are discussed in
[I-D.ietf-detnet-architecture] and [I-D.sdt-detnet-security]. Other
security considerations will be added in a future version of this
draft.
9. IANA Considerations
This document makes no IANA requests.
10. Acknowledgements
Thanks for Norman Finn and Lou Berger for their comments and
contributions.
11. References
11.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC2211] Wroclawski, J., "Specification of the Controlled-Load
Network Element Service", RFC 2211, DOI 10.17487/RFC2211,
September 1997, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2211>.
Varga, et al. Expires November 6, 2019 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft TSN over DetNet MPLS May 2019
[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/info/rfc2212>.
[RFC3031] Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., and R. Callon, "Multiprotocol
Label Switching Architecture", RFC 3031,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3031, January 2001,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3031>.
[RFC3032] Rosen, E., Tappan, D., Fedorkow, G., Rekhter, Y.,
Farinacci, D., Li, T., and A. Conta, "MPLS Label Stack
Encoding", RFC 3032, DOI 10.17487/RFC3032, January 2001,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3032>.
[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/info/rfc3209>.
[RFC3270] Le Faucheur, F., Wu, L., Davie, B., Davari, S., Vaananen,
P., Krishnan, R., Cheval, P., and J. Heinanen, "Multi-
Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Support of Differentiated
Services", RFC 3270, DOI 10.17487/RFC3270, May 2002,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3270>.
[RFC3443] Agarwal, P. and B. Akyol, "Time To Live (TTL) Processing
in Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Networks",
RFC 3443, DOI 10.17487/RFC3443, January 2003,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3443>.
[RFC3473] Berger, L., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-
Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3473, January 2003,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3473>.
[RFC4206] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Label Switched Paths (LSP)
Hierarchy with Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE)", RFC 4206,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4206, October 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4206>.
[RFC4385] Bryant, S., Swallow, G., Martini, L., and D. McPherson,
"Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) Control Word for
Use over an MPLS PSN", RFC 4385, DOI 10.17487/RFC4385,
February 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4385>.
Varga, et al. Expires November 6, 2019 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft TSN over DetNet MPLS May 2019
[RFC5085] Nadeau, T., Ed. and C. Pignataro, Ed., "Pseudowire Virtual
Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV): A Control
Channel for Pseudowires", RFC 5085, DOI 10.17487/RFC5085,
December 2007, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5085>.
[RFC5129] Davie, B., Briscoe, B., and J. Tay, "Explicit Congestion
Marking in MPLS", RFC 5129, DOI 10.17487/RFC5129, January
2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5129>.
[RFC5462] Andersson, L. and R. Asati, "Multiprotocol Label Switching
(MPLS) Label Stack Entry: "EXP" Field Renamed to "Traffic
Class" Field", RFC 5462, DOI 10.17487/RFC5462, February
2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5462>.
[RFC7510] Xu, X., Sheth, N., Yong, L., Callon, R., and D. Black,
"Encapsulating MPLS in UDP", RFC 7510,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7510, April 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7510>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
11.2. Informative References
[G.8275.1]
International Telecommunication Union, "Precision time
protocol telecom profile for phase/time synchronization
with full timing support from the network", ITU-T
G.8275.1/Y.1369.1 G.8275.1, June 2016,
<https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-G.8275.1/en>.
[G.8275.2]
International Telecommunication Union, "Precision time
protocol telecom profile for phase/time synchronization
with partial timing support from the network", ITU-T
G.8275.2/Y.1369.2 G.8275.2, June 2016,
<https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-G.8275.2/en>.
[I-D.ietf-detnet-architecture]
Finn, N., Thubert, P., Varga, B., and J. Farkas,
"Deterministic Networking Architecture", draft-ietf-
detnet-architecture-12 (work in progress), March 2019.
[I-D.ietf-detnet-dp-sol-ip]
Korhonen, J., Varga, B., "DetNet IP Data Plane
Encapsulation", 2018.
Varga, et al. Expires November 6, 2019 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft TSN over DetNet MPLS May 2019
[I-D.ietf-detnet-flow-information-model]
Farkas, J., Varga, B., Cummings, R., and Y. Jiang, "DetNet
Flow Information Model", draft-ietf-detnet-flow-
information-model-03 (work in progress), March 2019.
[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller]
Zhao, Q., Li, Z., Negi, M., and C. Zhou, "PCEP Procedures
and Protocol Extensions for Using PCE as a Central
Controller (PCECC) of LSPs", draft-ietf-pce-pcep-
extension-for-pce-controller-01 (work in progress),
February 2019.
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls]
Bashandy, A., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Decraene, B.,
Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment Routing with MPLS
data plane", draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls-22
(work in progress), May 2019.
[I-D.sdt-detnet-security]
Mizrahi, T., Grossman, E., Hacker, A., Das, S.,
"Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Security
Considerations, draft-sdt-detnet-security, work in
progress", 2017.
[IEEE1588]
IEEE, "IEEE 1588 Standard for a Precision Clock
Synchronization Protocol for Networked Measurement and
Control Systems Version 2", 2008.
[IEEE8021CB]
Finn, N., "Draft Standard for Local and metropolitan area
networks - Seamless Redundancy", IEEE P802.1CB
/D2.1 P802.1CB, December 2015,
<http://www.ieee802.org/1/files/private/cb-drafts/
d2/802-1CB-d2-1.pdf>.
[IEEE8021Q]
IEEE 802.1, "Standard for Local and metropolitan area
networks--Bridges and Bridged Networks (IEEE Std 802.1Q-
2014)", 2014, <http://standards.ieee.org/about/get/>.
[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/info/rfc2205>.
Varga, et al. Expires November 6, 2019 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft TSN over DetNet MPLS May 2019
[RFC2474] Nichols, K., Blake, S., Baker, F., and D. Black,
"Definition of the Differentiated Services Field (DS
Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers", RFC 2474,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2474, December 1998,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2474>.
[RFC3272] Awduche, D., Chiu, A., Elwalid, A., Widjaja, I., and X.
Xiao, "Overview and Principles of Internet Traffic
Engineering", RFC 3272, DOI 10.17487/RFC3272, May 2002,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3272>.
[RFC3985] Bryant, S., Ed. and P. Pate, Ed., "Pseudo Wire Emulation
Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) Architecture", RFC 3985,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3985, March 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3985>.
[RFC4448] Martini, L., Ed., Rosen, E., El-Aawar, N., and G. Heron,
"Encapsulation Methods for Transport of Ethernet over MPLS
Networks", RFC 4448, DOI 10.17487/RFC4448, April 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4448>.
[RFC4872] Lang, J., Ed., Rekhter, Y., Ed., and D. Papadimitriou,
Ed., "RSVP-TE Extensions in Support of End-to-End
Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)
Recovery", RFC 4872, DOI 10.17487/RFC4872, May 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4872>.
[RFC4873] Berger, L., Bryskin, I., Papadimitriou, D., and A. Farrel,
"GMPLS Segment Recovery", RFC 4873, DOI 10.17487/RFC4873,
May 2007, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4873>.
[RFC4875] Aggarwal, R., Ed., Papadimitriou, D., Ed., and S.
Yasukawa, Ed., "Extensions to Resource Reservation
Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) for Point-to-
Multipoint TE Label Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 4875,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4875, May 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4875>.
[RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation
Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, March 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5440>.
[RFC5586] Bocci, M., Ed., Vigoureux, M., Ed., and S. Bryant, Ed.,
"MPLS Generic Associated Channel", RFC 5586,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5586, June 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5586>.
Varga, et al. Expires November 6, 2019 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft TSN over DetNet MPLS May 2019
[RFC5654] Niven-Jenkins, B., Ed., Brungard, D., Ed., Betts, M., Ed.,
Sprecher, N., and S. Ueno, "Requirements of an MPLS
Transport Profile", RFC 5654, DOI 10.17487/RFC5654,
September 2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5654>.
[RFC5921] Bocci, M., Ed., Bryant, S., Ed., Frost, D., Ed., Levrau,
L., and L. Berger, "A Framework for MPLS in Transport
Networks", RFC 5921, DOI 10.17487/RFC5921, July 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5921>.
[RFC6003] Papadimitriou, D., "Ethernet Traffic Parameters",
RFC 6003, DOI 10.17487/RFC6003, October 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6003>.
[RFC6006] Zhao, Q., Ed., King, D., Ed., Verhaeghe, F., Takeda, T.,
Ali, Z., and J. Meuric, "Extensions to the Path
Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) for
Point-to-Multipoint Traffic Engineering Label Switched
Paths", RFC 6006, DOI 10.17487/RFC6006, September 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6006>.
[RFC6073] Martini, L., Metz, C., Nadeau, T., Bocci, M., and M.
Aissaoui, "Segmented Pseudowire", RFC 6073,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6073, January 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6073>.
[RFC6387] Takacs, A., Berger, L., Caviglia, D., Fedyk, D., and J.
Meuric, "GMPLS Asymmetric Bandwidth Bidirectional Label
Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 6387, DOI 10.17487/RFC6387,
September 2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6387>.
[RFC6790] Kompella, K., Drake, J., Amante, S., Henderickx, W., and
L. Yong, "The Use of Entropy Labels in MPLS Forwarding",
RFC 6790, DOI 10.17487/RFC6790, November 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6790>.
[RFC7551] Zhang, F., Ed., Jing, R., and R. Gandhi, Ed., "RSVP-TE
Extensions for Associated Bidirectional Label Switched
Paths (LSPs)", RFC 7551, DOI 10.17487/RFC7551, May 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7551>.
[RFC7950] Bjorklund, M., Ed., "The YANG 1.1 Data Modeling Language",
RFC 7950, DOI 10.17487/RFC7950, August 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7950>.
[RFC8040] Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and K. Watsen, "RESTCONF
Protocol", RFC 8040, DOI 10.17487/RFC8040, January 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8040>.
Varga, et al. Expires November 6, 2019 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft TSN over DetNet MPLS May 2019
[RFC8169] Mirsky, G., Ruffini, S., Gray, E., Drake, J., Bryant, S.,
and A. Vainshtein, "Residence Time Measurement in MPLS
Networks", RFC 8169, DOI 10.17487/RFC8169, May 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8169>.
Appendix A. Example of TSN over DetNet Data Plane Operation
[Editor's note: Add a simplified example of DetNet data plane and how
labels etc work in the case of TSN over DetNet MPLS and utilizing
e.g., PREOF.]
Authors' Addresses
Balazs Varga (editor)
Ericsson
Magyar Tudosok krt. 11.
Budapest 1117
Hungary
Email: balazs.a.varga@ericsson.com
Janos Farkas
Ericsson
Magyar Tudosok krt. 11.
Budapest 1117
Hungary
Email: janos.farkas@ericsson.com
Andrew G. Malis
Huawei Technologies
Email: agmalis@gmail.com
Stewart Bryant
Huawei Technologies
Email: stewart.bryant@gmail.com
Jouni Korhonen
Email: jouni.nospam@gmail.com
Varga, et al. Expires November 6, 2019 [Page 17]