Requirements for Large-Scale Deterministic Networks
draft-liu-detnet-large-scale-requirements-01
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (individual) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Peng Liu , Yizhou Li , Toerless Eckert , Quan Xiong , Jeong-dong Ryoo | ||
| Last updated | 2022-02-10 (Latest revision 2021-10-13) | ||
| Stream | (None) | ||
| Formats | plain text html xml htmlized pdfized bibtex | ||
| 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-liu-detnet-large-scale-requirements-01
Deterministic Networking Working Group P. Liu
Internet-Draft China Mobile
Intended status: Informational Y. Li
Expires: 15 August 2022 Huawei
T. Eckert
Futurewei Technologies USA
Q. Xiong
ZTE Corporation
J. Ryoo
ETRI
11 February 2022
Requirements for Large-Scale Deterministic Networks
draft-liu-detnet-large-scale-requirements-01
Abstract
Aiming at the large-scale deterministic network, this document
specifies the technical and operational requirements when the
different deterministic levels of applications co-exist and are
transported over a wide area.
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 15 August 2022.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2022 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.
Liu, et al. Expires 15 August 2022 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Deterministic Networking February 2022
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. The Overall Characteristics of Large-Scale Deterministic
Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Technical Requirements in Large-Scale Deterministic
Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1. Tolerate Time Asynchrony . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1.1. Support Asynchronous Clocks Across Domains . . . . . 6
4.1.2. Tolerate Clock Jitter & Wander within a Clock
Synchronous Domain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1.3. Provide Mechanisms not Requiring Full Time
Synchronization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1.4. Support Asynchronization based Methods . . . . . . . 7
4.2. Support Large Single-hop Propagation Latency . . . . . . 7
4.3. Accommodate the Higher Link Speed . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.4. Be Scalable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.4.1. Be Scalable to Numerous Network Devices . . . . . . . 9
4.4.2. Be Scalable to Massive Traffic Flows . . . . . . . . 9
4.5. Tolerate Failures of Links or Nodes and Topology
Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.6. Support Configuration of Multiple Queueing Mechanisms . . 10
4.7. Support Queueing Mechanisms Switchover Crossing
Multi-domains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
10. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Appendix A. Examples of Large-Scale Deterministic Network
Trials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Liu, et al. Expires 15 August 2022 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Deterministic Networking February 2022
1. Introduction
Packet networks are evolving from bandwidth-guaranteed Quality of
Service (QoS) to latency-guaranteed QoS that guarantees bounded
latency and definite latency. Bounded latency and definite latency
can be further understood as in-time delivery, in which a packet
arrives without exceeding a predetermined time, and on-time delivery,
in which a packet arrives at a predetermined time, respectively. In
addition, network survivability, which typically guarantees traffic
recovery within 50 ms in the event of a network failure, is evolving
to a level that guarantees lossless recovery. In order to realize
the evolution of QoS and network survivability of these networks,
Time-Sensitive Networking (TSN) technology and Deterministic
Networking (DetNet) technology are considered to be essential.
TSN is a set of standards developed by the IEEE 802.1 TSN Task Group
(TG) [IEEE802.1TSN] and specifies mechanisms and protocols necessary
to realize highly available IEEE 802.1 networks with bounded latency
to carry time-sensitive, real-time application traffic.
DetNet, of which architecture is defined in RFC 8655 [RFC8655],
provides a capability to carry specified unicast or multicast data
flows for real-time applications with extremely low data loss rates
and bounded latency within a network domain. Various documents on
data planes and their interworking technologies to extend the service
range of data that TSN intends to deliver to the IP (Internet
Protocol) and MPLS (Multi-Protocol Label Switching) networks have
been standardized.
Since TSN and DetNet were proposed, application use cases have always
been one of the hottest topics. As documented in RFC 8578 [RFC8578],
the scope of networks addressed by the current DetNet is limited to
networks that can be centrally controlled, i.e., an "enterprise" (aka
"corporate") network, excluding "the open Internet," explicitly.
After years of development, TSN has been used in several industries,
and has enough public awareness of the industry for its scope.
DetNet also has done a lot of work and the standards are mature, and
people become concerned about how to meet deterministic service
demand in large-scale networks. The current DetNet is limited to a
single administrative domain network, and there are technical
elements necessary for application to a large-scale network spanning
multiple domains.
This document describes requirements for large-scale deterministic
networks where different deterministic levels of applications co-
exist and large-scale deterministic networking across multiple
administrative domains is possible.
Liu, et al. Expires 15 August 2022 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Deterministic Networking February 2022
2. Conventions Used in This Document
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.
While [RFC2119] and [RFC8174] describe interpretations of these key
words in terms of protocol specifications and implementations, they
are used in this document to describe technical and operational
requirements to realize large-scale deterministic networks.
3. The Overall Characteristics of Large-Scale Deterministic Networks
When deterministic network services are introduced, network providers
always face the problem of how to match application needs to the
technology, so more works are needed for network service providers to
successfully sell DetNet type services to customers. The providers
are in need of the following:
Service level objective definitions, considering absolute or relative
latency and jitter bounds, flows types and physical network scale
Suitable queuing mechanisms, considering more options for queuing
mechanisms for different service level, and
Deployment strategies, considering how to integrate into existing
networks, service, and control plane.
[RFC8578]provides various use cases and their requirements in the
areas of industry, electricity, buildings, etc. Some of them clearly
specify the requirements for latency and jitter, while some others do
not for the jitter. Different types of users have different demands,
just as a network provider provides different network services for
personal business or enterprise business.
One kind has critical SLA requirement, such as remote control or
cloud Programmable Logic Controller (PLC) of manufacturing and
differential protection of electricity. If these services exceed the
boundaries of latency and jitter, it will bring property losses and
security risks, so they cannot tolerate with any non-deterministic
situation and can pay more on the network service.
Another kind has relatively lower levels of SLA requirement, such as
cloud gaming, cloud VR and online meeting for "consumer" networks.
The users of these applications hope to have a better network
experience, but they can tolerate it to a certain extent. If the
Liu, et al. Expires 15 August 2022 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Deterministic Networking February 2022
network quality is not good sometime, they might be willing to spend
more money for high-quality network services. In some aspects,
because such services have no industry barriers and can tolerate
exceeding the upper boundary of latency within a small probability,
they have relatively lower requirements for the network and may be
easier to deploy.
Different application demands are actually related to cost. For
strict deterministic services, strict technologies need to be used,
and all network devices may need to be upgraded. For non-strict
deterministic services, it may only be necessary to upgrade some
network devices (maybe edge nodes) or share corresponding network
resources. From the perspective of deployment, it is helpful if
there is a clear classification of application demands, including
latency, jitter, reliability, etc. In this way, the corresponding
technology to implement could be chosen, taking into account both
performance and cost, but how to make choice is not within the scope
of this document.
Critical latency requirements:
| <->| Industrial, tight jitter, hard latency limit
|<------->| Industrial, hard latency limit
|
|<-------------.....> Relatively lower latency requirements
|
|<-------------........................> Best effort
|
+---------------------------------------------------------->
latency
Figure 1: Figure 1: Different levels of application requirements
4. Technical Requirements in Large-Scale Deterministic Networks
Due to the different kinds of application requirements in large-scale
networks, the corresponding technical requirements should be
considered.
4.1. Tolerate Time Asynchrony
Liu, et al. Expires 15 August 2022 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Deterministic Networking February 2022
4.1.1. Support Asynchronous Clocks Across Domains
A large-scale network may span over multiple networks with one or
more administrators. One of DetNet's objectives is to stitch TSN
islands together. All devices inside a TSN domain are time-
synchronized, and most of TSN technologies rely on precise time
synchronization[IEEE802.1Qbv][IEEE802.1Qch][IEEE802.1Qav]However,
different TSN islands may have different clocks which are not
synchronized as shown in Figure 2, where the time difference of two
TSN domains is D. DetNet needs to connect these two TSN domains
together and provide end-to-end deterministic latency service. The
mechanism adopted by a large-scale deterministic network MUST support
the interaction across time domains, so that time domains are
synchronized. This can be done, for example, by putting extra buffer
space at the ingress of a new domain, increasing the dead time as a
guard band, or using some timing compensation mechanism. This
document does not intend to list all the potential ways.
+--------------+ +--------------+
| | DetNet Connection | |
| TSN Domain I +-----------------------------+ TSN Domain II|
| | | |
+--------------+ +--------------+
| | | | |
Clock of TSN +--------+--------+--------+--------+
Domain I =
=
= | | | | |
Clock of TSN = +--------+--------+--------+--------+
Domain II = =
=<==D==>=
= =
Figure 2: Figure 2: Clock asynchrony between two TSN islands
4.1.2. Tolerate Clock Jitter & Wander within a Clock Synchronous Domain
Within a single time synchronization domain, different clock accuracy
is expected, for example the crystal oscillator in Ethernet is
specified at 100 ppm[Fast-Ethernet-MII-clock], Synchronous Ethernet
(SyncE) can achieve 50 ppb[G.8262], and more precise time
synchronization[G.8273] is expected in 5G mobile backhaul. The
clocks experience different jitter and wander. It may cause
different level of asymmetry of the path. The large-scale networks
SHOULD be able to recover or absorb such time variance within a
domain and across multiple domains.
Liu, et al. Expires 15 August 2022 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Deterministic Networking February 2022
4.1.3. Provide Mechanisms not Requiring Full Time Synchronization
Some networks like mobile backhaul use frequency synchronization,
such as SyncE, instead of the strict time synchronization. It is
usually hard to achieve the full time synchronization in large-scale
networks when considering the size of the network topology. It is
desired that the same deterministic performance in term of the
bounded latency and jitter SHOULD be achieved when full time
synchronization is not available, that is to say, when only partial
synchronization (SyncE is one of the examples) is in use.
4.1.4. Support Asynchronization based Methods
There are a large number of traffic flows in a large-scale network
and some of them are acyclic. Asynchronization based methods can
meet the requirements of those traffic flows. Moreover, The
mechanisms not requiring the time and/or frequency synchronization
eliminate the hardware cost and difficulty at the network
nodes.[IEEE802.1Qcr] conceptually uses per-flow based asynchronous
shaper to achieve bounded latency. The formula proof shows its
effectiveness. It can naturally tolerate the time variance, but it
exhibits the concerns of per-flow state buffer management as shown
in[I-D.eckert-detnet-bounded-latency-problems]When it is in use, the
requirement in Section 4.3 SHOULD be carefully met.
4.2. Support Large Single-hop Propagation Latency
In a large-scale network, a single hop distance is enough to generate
large latency. The speed of optical transmission in fiber is 200 km/
ms. Thus, the propagation delay of a single hop can be in the order
of a few milliseconds. It is much greater than that of a LAN, and
introduces impacts on queuing mechanisms, such as cyclic or time
aware scheduling method.
For a cyclic based method, suppose a large-scale network wants to
keep using the simple cycle mapping relationship, however the link
distance between two nodes is longer. Moreover, a downstream node
may have many upstream nodes each with different link propagation
delays (e.g., 9 us, 10 us, 11 us, 15 us and 20 us). In order to
absorb the longest link propagation delay, the length of cycle must
be set to at least 20 us. However, since packet's arrival time
varies within the receiving cycle, larger cycle length means larger
delay variance.
Liu, et al. Expires 15 August 2022 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Deterministic Networking February 2022
Upstream Node X |sending cycle | |
+--"------------+------------+
= "\ = =
= " \ = =
= " \ = =
= " \ = =
= " V = =
Downstream Node Y |receiving cycle| |
+--"----"-------+----\-------+
= " " = \ =
= " " = V resent out
= " " = =
Time Line -=--"----"-------=------------=----->
(in us) 0 | | 10 20
v v
Transmission Latency
Figure 3: Figure 3: The influence of transmission latency on a
cyclic method
4.3. Accommodate the Higher Link Speed
A large-scale network normally uses higher speed links, especially
for its backbone. Current deterministic mechanisms used in a local
network is usually deployed in link speed of 10 Mbps or 1 Gbps, or
possibly 10 Gbps. The data rate of 10G, 100G, 400G and even higher
is commonly used in wide area networks. With the increasing of the
data rate, the network scheduling cycle can be reduced if the same
amount of the data is required to be sent each cycle for each
application. Or more data can be sent if the network cycle time
remains the same. For the former, it requires the more precise time
control (e.g. cycle in the order of a few microseconds or sub-
microseconds) for the input stream gate and the timed output buffer.
For the latter, more buffer space is required which imposes more
complex buffer or queue management and larger memory consumption.
Another aspect to consider is the aggregation of the flows. In the
large-scale network, the number of flows can be hundreds or tens of
thousands. They can be aggregated into a small number of
deterministic path or tunnels. It is practical to have a few flow-
based or aggregated-flow based status in the local network. But in
higher speed and larger scale networks, it is hardly feasible.
If[IEEE802.1Qcr]is in use, it requires more buffers comparing to the
other full/partial time synchronized mechanisms. Therefore, it
requires optimizations to support higher link speeds.
Liu, et al. Expires 15 August 2022 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Deterministic Networking February 2022
4.4. Be Scalable
Comparing to a LAN, a large-scale network may have more network
devices and traffic flows, and there is a greater possibility of
adding or removing network devices and traffic flows. The
deterministic latency forwarding mechanisms MUST scale to networks of
significant size with numerous network devices and a massive traffic
flows.
4.4.1. Be Scalable to Numerous Network Devices
The increase or decrease of network devices in large-scale networks
is more frequent than that in LANs. The change of the number of
devices may affect the implementation and adjustment of deterministic
network mechanism, such as the topology discovery, queuing mechanism
and packet replication and elimination. A simple use case to
understand is ultra-low-latency (public) 5G transport networks, which
would require DetNet extend to every 5G base station. For some
network operators, their networks may need to connect to ~100 K base
stations (serving multiple mobile networks operators), and this
number will only increase with 5G.
4.4.2. Be Scalable to Massive Traffic Flows
It is almost impossible to identify individual IP flows at the DetNet
data plane because of the large overhead and resource reservation for
a massive number of flows. DetNet allows the leverage of the flow
aggregation. With the large scaling of the network, proper provision
at the control plane to accommodate such higher aggregation is
required. Individual flows may join and exit the aggregated flow
rapidly which causes the dynamic in identification of the aggregated
DetNet flow. The wildcards and value ranges used in the
identification may have to change in order to ensure the aggregated
flows have compatible deterministic characteristics.
The micro-burst will happen more often due to the massive traffic
flows, so some methods to decrease it are
needed.[I-D.du-detnet-layer3-low-latency]introduces a reference
method requiring a scalable buffer to adjust the speed of sending the
packets, so as to keep a uniform transmission rate, and it also
support the flow aggregation.
Liu, et al. Expires 15 August 2022 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Deterministic Networking February 2022
4.5. Tolerate Failures of Links or Nodes and Topology Changes
Network link failures are more common in large-scale networks. Path
switching or re-convergence of routing will cause high latency of
packet loss and retransmission, which is usually in seconds before
the network becomes stable again. It is necessary to support certain
mechanisms to adapt to failures of links or nodes and topology
changes.
The change of path or topology poses a higher challenge to packet
replication and elimination. The full disjoint paths when
implementing the Packet Replication, Elimination, and Ordering
Functions (PREOF) gives a better chance of survival when one of the
nodes or links in the path fails. At the same time, it brings the
challenges of finding paths with similar distance and/or number of
hops so that there is enough buffer space to absorb the latency
difference caused by different paths when the scale is large.
4.6. Support Configuration of Multiple Queueing Mechanisms
It is required to provide diversified deterministic service for
various applications in a large-scale network and to support the
corresponding diversified queueing mechanisms (possibly at multiple
DetNet QoS levels). Different queueing mechanisms can provide
different levels of latency, jitter and other guarantees, and there
may be situations where a network device provides multiple queueing
mechanisms at the same time. For example, a network aggregation
device may use the mechanisms specified in [IEEE802.1Qbv] and
[IEEE802.1Qcr], and other mechanisms to forward traffic to different
paths at the same time. By providing a variety of queueing
mechanisms to meet diversified deterministic service Requirements,
compared with LAN environment, this demand is particularly prominent
in large-scale networks. There are usually eight traffic classes in
TSN enabled networks. The different queueing mechanisms can be
employed to the queues of one or more of those traffic class. In
practice, there may be more than eight queues or sub-queues to
support more complicated queueing mechanisms.
Accordingly, the configuration for multiple queueing mechanisms is
complicated in large-scale deterministic networks and MUST support
the unified or simplified scheduling and management of multiple queue
mechanisms. For example, in the distributed scenario where there is
no controller, flooding the related information of the queue
mechanism, including the types and related algorithms, queue
forwarding capability, etc. In the centralized scenario, the
queueing mechanisms and other information could be reported to the
controller to build a deterministic network resource topology pool
for path calculation.
Liu, et al. Expires 15 August 2022 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Deterministic Networking February 2022
4.7. Support Queueing Mechanisms Switchover Crossing Multi-domains
In large-scale deterministic networks, it may across multiple network
domains and adopt a variety of different queueing mechanisms within
each domain. It is required to support the inter-domain
deterministic mechanism at the inter-domain boundary nodes such as
the priority redefinition and rescheduling of queues to achieve the
end-to-end latency, bounded jitter and packet loss ratio.
Moreover, changing from one queueing mechanism to another may
generate additional end-to-end latency and/or jitter which should be
taken into consideration. For example, when a flow is forwarded
across multiple network domains based on different queueing
mechanisms, such as a time synchronous Qbv mechanism[IEEE802.1Qbv]
and an asynchronous Qcr mechanism [IEEE802.1Qcr], a collaboration
mechanism crossing multi-domains MUST be considered, such as
increasing the buffer of inter-domain devices to provide enough
adjustment space for the flow to cross different queueing mechanisms,
so as to provide end-to-end deterministic services across multiple
network domains.
5. Conclusion
This document specifies the technical requirements when ensuring the
deterministic features in the large-scale networks. Some of the
proposed queueing mechanisms are analyzed and the authors of the
document think those proposals give reasonably sound insights to
enhancement the current queueing mechanisms to meet the deterministic
requirements of the large-scale networks.
6. Security Considerations
There are no IANA actions required by this document.
7. IANA Considerations
This section will be described later.
8. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Yaakov Stein for helpful suggestions.
The authors also would like to thank Liang Geng, Peter Willis,
Shunsuke Homma and Li Qiang for their previous works.
9. Contributors
The following people have substantially contributed to this document:
Liu, et al. Expires 15 August 2022 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Deterministic Networking February 2022
Zongpeng Du
China Mobile
EMail: duzongpeng@chinamobile.com
10. Normative References
[Fast-Ethernet-MII-clock]
"Fast Ethernet MII clock".
[G.8262] International Telecommunication Union, "Timing
characteristics of a synchronous equipment slave clock",
ITU-T Recommendation G.8262, November 2018.
[G.8273] International Telecommunication Union, "Framework of phase
and time clocks", ITU-T Recommendation G.8273, March 2018.
[I-D.dang-queuing-with-multiple-cyclic-buffers]
Liu, B. and J. Dang, "A Queuing Mechanism with Multiple
Cyclic Buffers", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
dang-queuing-with-multiple-cyclic-buffers-00, 22 February
2021, <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-dang-queuing-
with-multiple-cyclic-buffers-00.txt>.
[I-D.du-detnet-layer3-low-latency]
Du, Z. and P. Liu, "Micro-burst Decreasing in Layer3
Network for Low-Latency Traffic", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-du-detnet-layer3-low-latency-04, 25
October 2021, <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-du-
detnet-layer3-low-latency-04.txt>.
[I-D.eckert-detnet-bounded-latency-problems]
Eckert, T. and S. Bryant, "Problems with existing DetNet
bounded latency queuing mechanisms", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-eckert-detnet-bounded-latency-
problems-00, 12 July 2021,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-eckert-detnet-
bounded-latency-problems-00.txt>.
[I-D.geng-detnet-requirements-bounded-latency]
Geng, L., Willis, P., Homma, S., and L. Qiang,
"Requirements of Layer 3 Deterministic Latency Service",
Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-geng-detnet-
requirements-bounded-latency-03, 7 July 2019,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-geng-detnet-
requirements-bounded-latency-03.txt>.
Liu, et al. Expires 15 August 2022 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Deterministic Networking February 2022
[I-D.qiang-detnet-large-scale-detnet]
Qiang, L., Geng, X., Liu, B., Eckert, T., Geng, L., and G.
Li, "Large-Scale Deterministic IP Network", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-qiang-detnet-large-scale-
detnet-05, 2 September 2019,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-qiang-detnet-large-
scale-detnet-05.txt>.
[IEEE802.1Qav]
IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area
networks -- Virtual Bridged Local Area Networks -
Amendment 12: Forwarding and Queuing Enhancements for
Time-Sensitive Streams", IEEE 802.1Qav-2009,
DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2010.8684664, 5 January 2010,
<https://doi.org/10.1109/IEEESTD.2010.8684664>.
[IEEE802.1Qbv]
IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area
networks -- Bridges and Bridged Networks - Amendment 25:
Enhancements for Scheduled Traffic", IEEE 802.1Qbv-2015,
DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2016.8613095, 18 March 2016,
<https://doi.org/10.1109/IEEESTD.2016.8613095>.
[IEEE802.1Qch]
IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area
networks -- Bridges and Bridged Networks - Amendment 29:
Cyclic Queuing and Forwarding", IEEE 802.1Qch-2017,
DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2017.7961303, 28 June 2017,
<https://doi.org/10.1109/IEEESTD.2017.7961303>.
[IEEE802.1Qcr]
IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area
Networks -- Bridges and Bridged Networks - Amendment 34:
Asynchronous Traffic Shaping", IEEE 802.1Qcr-2020,
DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2020.9253013, 6 November 2020,
<https://doi.org/10.1109/IEEESTD.2020.9253013>.
[IEEE802.1TSN]
IEEE Standards Association, "IEEE 802.1 Time-Sensitive
Networking Task Group",
<https://www.ieee802.org/1/pages/tsn.html>.
[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>.
Liu, et al. Expires 15 August 2022 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Deterministic Networking February 2022
[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>.
[RFC8578] Grossman, E., Ed., "Deterministic Networking Use Cases",
RFC 8578, DOI 10.17487/RFC8578, May 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8578>.
[RFC8655] Finn, N., Thubert, P., Varga, B., and J. Farkas,
"Deterministic Networking Architecture", RFC 8655,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8655, October 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8655>.
Appendix A. Examples of Large-Scale Deterministic Network Trials
Some trials have been carried out to verify the concept of large-
scale deterministic networks.
In order to verify the deterministic technology of large-scale
networks, a trial of Deterministic IP on China Environment for
Network Innovations (CENI), which is a network built for new network
technology trial, was deployed. A network with a distance of 3,000
km over 13 hops was tested, and the jitter was controlled within
100us.
In order to verify the remote control on Deterministic IP, which
required that the latency should be controlled within 4 ms and jitter
should be controlled within 20 us. A trial cooperated with Baosteel
spanned 600 km was deployed. Baosteel is a Chinese steel company and
put forward this demand. Both of the first and second trials are
based on a frequency synchronization solution. The mechanism details
could be found in . [I-D.dang-queuing-with-multiple-cyclic-buffers][I
-D.qiang-detnet-large-scale-detnet].
In order to realize multi flows synchronization on an inter-
provincial network in an exhibition, Emergen proposed the requirement
that two flows of video and virtual reality (VR) were sent from
province A, and arrived at province B together, so people can see the
synchronization of video collected by camera and the VR model. This
requirement was proposed to facilitate the virtual industry product
deployment. Due to time and other problems, it was realized by the
edge network device for a relatively lower levels of service level
agreement (SLA).
Teaming up with a smart factory operator, network operators,
equipment companies, and universities, ETRI demonstrated an ultra-low
latency, high-reliability 5G wired and wireless network-based remote
industrial Internet of Things (IIoT) service by connecting a control
Liu, et al. Expires 15 August 2022 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Deterministic Networking February 2022
center and a smart factory through three different operators'
networks at a distance of 280 km. In this trail, it was demonstrated
that real-time remote smart manufacturing service is possible by
making round-trip delay below 3 ms within a smart factory and below
10 ms between remote 5G industrial devices. In the future, the team
plans to examine feasibility of large-scale deterministic networking
by connecting smart factories in Gyeongsan, South Korea and Oulu,
Finland.
These trials show that both operators and enterprise users begin to
put forward requirements for the certainty of large-scale networks,
but the implementation technologies are not exactly the same.
Authors' Addresses
Peng Liu
China Mobile
Beijing
100053
China
Email: liupengyjy@chinamobile.com
Yizhou Li
Huawei
Nanjing
210012
China
Email: liyizhou@huawei.com
Toerless Eckert
Futurewei Technologies USA
Santa Clara, 95014
United States of America
Email: tte@cs.fau.de
Quan Xiong
ZTE Corporation
Wuhan
430223
China
Email: xiong.quan@zte.com.cn
Liu, et al. Expires 15 August 2022 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Deterministic Networking February 2022
Jeong-dong Ryoo
ETRI
Daejeon
34129
South Korea
Email: ryoo@etri.re.kr
Liu, et al. Expires 15 August 2022 [Page 16]