Gap Analysis of Deterministic Latency Networks
draft-jiang-dln-gap-analysis-00

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Last updated 2016-10-31
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text pdf html bibtex
Stream Stream state (No stream defined)
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
Network Working Group                                         Y. Jiang
Internet-Draft                                                  X. Liu
Intended status: Informational                                  Huawei

Expires: April 2017                                   October 31, 2016

                 Gap Analysis of Deterministic Latency Networks
                      draft-jiang-dln-gap-analysis-00

Abstract

   Deterministic latency network (DLN) is needed to provide guaranteed
   deterministic latency for use cases such as Cloud VR/Gaming and etc,
   especially for latency-critical traffic. This document analyzes the
   gaps in the existing IETF work on fulfilling the control plane and
   measurement needs of DLN.

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.

   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."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html

   This Internet-Draft will expire on April 31, 2013.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2016 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
   (http://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

Jiang and et al        Expires April 31, 2017                 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft              DLN Gap Analysis              October 2016

   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.   Introduction .............................................. 2
      1.1. Conventions used in this document ...................... 2
      1.2. Terminology ............................................ 2
   2.   Related Standardization Work in the IETF .................. 3
      2.1. Work in the IPPM WG .................................... 3
      2.2. Work in the MPLS WG .................................... 4
      2.3. Work in the Control Protocols .......................... 5
   3.   Discussions ............................................... 5
   4.   Security Considerations ................................... 6
   5.   IANA Considerations ....................................... 6
   6.   References ................................................ 6
      6.1. Informative References ................................. 6
   7.   Acknowledgments ........................................... 7

1. Introduction

   Deterministic latency network (DLN) is needed to provide guaranteed
   deterministic latency for use cases such as Cloud VR/Gaming and etc,
   especially for latency-critical traffic. This document analyzes the
   gaps in the existing IETF work on fulfilling the control plane and
   measurement needs of DLN.

1.1. Conventions used in this document

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].

1.2. Terminology

   NTP Network Time Protocol

   PHB per-hop behavior

                                                             [Page 2]
Internet-Draft              DLN Gap Analysis              October 2016

2. Related Standardization Work in the IETF

2.1. Work in the IPPM WG

   The IPPM Work Group has developed quite a lot of RFCs which specify
   standard metrics including quality, performance and reliability that
   can be used for the IP services. These protocols are usually
   implemented as software modules, and they rely on IP and TCP protocol
   stacks, as well as elements of the Network Time Protocol (NTP).
Show full document text