IPv6 Hop-by-Hop Options for DetNet
draft-pthubert-detnet-ipv6-hbh-03
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (individual) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Author | Pascal Thubert | ||
| Last updated | 2021-06-11 | ||
| 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-pthubert-detnet-ipv6-hbh-03
DetNet P. Thubert, Ed.
Internet-Draft Cisco Systems
Intended status: Standards Track 11 June 2021
Expires: 13 December 2021
IPv6 Hop-by-Hop Options for DetNet
draft-pthubert-detnet-ipv6-hbh-03
Abstract
RFC 8938, the Deterministic Networking Data Plane Framework relies on
the 6-tuple to identify an IPv6 flow. But the full DetNet operations
require also the capabilities to signal meta-information such as a
sequence within that flow, and to transport different types of
packets along the same path with the same treatment, e.g.,
Operations, Administration, and Maintenance packets and/or multiple
flows with fate and resource sharing. This document introduces new
IPv6 Hop-by-Hop options that signal that path and redundancy
information to the intermediate DetNet relays.
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 13 December 2021.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2021 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
Thubert Expires 13 December 2021 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft DetNet HbH Options June 2021
extracted from this document must 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
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. The DetNet Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. DetNet Redundancy Information Option . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. DetNet Path Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.2.1. DetNet Strict Path Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.2.2. DetNet Loose Path Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.3. RPL Packet Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.1. New Subregistry for the Redundancy Type . . . . . . . . . 10
5.2. New Hop-by-Hop Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1. Introduction
Section 2 of the Deterministic Networking Problem Statement
[DetNet-PBST] introduces the concept of Deterministic Networking
(DetNet) to the IETF. DetNet extends the reach of lower layer
technologies such as Time-Sensitive Networking (TSN) [IEEE 802.1 TSN]
and Timeslotted Channel Hopping (TSCH) [IEEE Std. 802.15.4] over IPv6
and MPLS [RFC8938].
The "Deterministic Networking Architecture" [DetNet-ARCH] details the
contribution of layer-3 protocols, and defines three planes: the
Application (User) Plane, the Controller Plane, and the Network
Plane. [DetNet-ARCH] places an emphasis on the centralized model
whereby a controller instantiates per-flow state in the routers to
perform adequate forwading operations so as to provide end-to-end
reliability and bounded latency guarantees.
The "6TiSCH Architecture" [6TiSCH-ARCH] leverages RPL, the "Routing
Protocol for Low Power and Lossy Networks" [RPL] and introduces
concept of a Track as a highly redundant RPL Destination Oriented
Directed Acyclic Graph (DODAG) rooted at the Track Ingress node, that
can be installed using so-called projected routes [RPL-PDAO]. In
that case, the TrackId is an index from a namespace associated to one
IPv6 address of the Track Ingress node, and the Track that an IPv6
Thubert Expires 13 December 2021 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft DetNet HbH Options June 2021
packet follows is signaled by the combination of the source address
(of the Track Ingress node), and the TrackID placed in a RPL Option
[RFC6553] located in an IPv6 Hop-by-Hop (HbH) Options Header [IPv6]
in the IPv6 packet.
The "Reliable and Available Wireless (RAW) Architecture/Framework"
[RAW-ARCH], extends the DetNet Network Plane to accomodate one or
multiple hops of homogeneous or heterogeneous wireless technologies,
e.g. a Wi-Fi6 Mesh or parallel radio access links combining Wi-Fi and
5G. The RAW Architecture reuses the concept of Track and introduces
a new dataplane component, the Path Selection Engine (PSE), to
dynamically select a subpath and maintain the required quality of
service within a Track in the face of the rapid evolution of the
medium properties.
With [IPv6], the behavior of a router upon an IPv6 packet with a HbH
Options Header has evolved, making the examination of the header by
routers along the path optional, as opposed to previously mandatory.
Additionally, the Option Type for any option in a HbH Options Header
encodes in the leftmost bits whether a router that inspects the
header should drop the packet or ignore the option when encountering
an unknown option. Combined, these capabilities enable a larger use
of the header beyond the boundaries of a limited domain, as
examplified by the change of behavior of the RPL data plane, that was
changed to allow a packet with a RPL option to escape the RPL domain
in the larger Internet [RFC9008].
"IPv6 Hop-by-Hop Options Processing Procedures" [HbH-UPDT] further
specifies the procedures for how IPv6 Hop-by-Hop options are
processed to make their processing even more practical and increase
their use in the Internet. In that context, it makes sense to
consider Hop-by-Hop Options to transport the information that is
relevant to DetNet.
The "Deterministic Networking Data Plane Framework" [RFC8938] relies
on the 6-tuple to identify an IPv6 flow. But the full DetNet
operations require also the capabilities to signal meta-information
such as a sequence within that flow, and to transport different types
of packets along the same path with the same treatment. For
instance, it is required that Operations, Administration, and
Maintenance (OAM) [RFC6291] packets and/or multiple flows share the
same fate and resource sharing over the same Track or the same
Traffic Engineered (TE) [RFC3272] DetNet path.
This document introduces new IPv6 Hop-by-Hop options that signal
DetNet path and redundancy information to the intermediate relays in
an abstract form that is independent of the transport layer.
Transported in IPv6 HbH Options, the DetNet information is available
Thubert Expires 13 December 2021 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft DetNet HbH Options June 2021
early in the header chain of the packet and can be added by a service
instance as part of the encapsulation by the Ingress of the DetNet
path. It can then be accessed by the intermediate DetNet routers
without the need of a deep packet inspection (e.g., beyond UDP).
2. Terminology
Timestamp semantics and timestamp formats used in this document are
defined in "Guidelines for Defining Packet Timestamps" [RFC8877].
The Deterministic Networking terms used in this document are defined
in the "Deterministic Networking Architecture" [DetNet-ARCH].
The terms Track and TrackID are defined in the "6TiSCH Architecture"
[6TiSCH-ARCH].
3. The DetNet Options
This document defines new IPv6 options for DetNet to signal path and
a sequence to the DetNet layers. Those options are to be placed in
an IPv6 HbH Options Header. The format of the options follow the
generic definition in section 4.2 of [IPv6].
If a DetNet Path option (see Section 3.2), including the RPL Option,
is present in the same HbH Option Header as a DetNet Redundancy
Information option (see Section 3.1), then the redundancy information
applies to the signaled path across all flows that traverse that
path; else the redundancy information applies to the flow indicated
by the 6-tuple [RFC8938].
3.1. DetNet Redundancy Information Option
The DetNet Redundancy Information Option helps discriminate copies of
a same packet vs. different packets, and is useful for service-
sublayer Packet Replication Elimination and Ordering Functions
(PREOF). The typical expression redundancy information is a sequence
counter, but it is not the only way to identify a packet. It is also
possible that a packet is divided in elements such as network-coded
fragments. In that case, the pieces are discriminated with an opaque
8-bit fragment tag.
Thubert Expires 13 December 2021 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft DetNet HbH Options June 2021
A packet sequence can be expressed uniquely as a wrapping counter,
represented as an unsigned integer in the option. In that case, the
size of the representation MUST be large enough to cover at least 3
times the upper bound on out-of-order packet delivery in terms of
number of packets. The sequence counter may be copied from a field
in another protocol, and it is possible that the value 0 is reserved
when wrapping, to the option offers both possibilities, wrapping to
either 0 or to 1.
This specification also allows to use a time stamp for the packet
redundancy information, in conformance with the recommendations in
[RFC8877]. This can be accomplished by utilizing the Precision Time
Protocol (PTP) format defined in IEEE Std. 1588 [IEEE Std. 1588] or
Network Time Protocol (NTP) [RFC5905] formats. In that case, the
timestamp resolution at the origin node that builds the option MUST
be fine enough to ensure that two consecutive packets are never
stamped with the same value. There is no requirement for this
particular stamping function that the sense of time at the origin
node is synchronized with the rest of the DetNet network.
IEEEE TSN [IEEE 802.1 TSN] defined a redundancy tag (R-Tag) for the
IEEE Std. 802.1CB Frame Replication and Elimination for Reliability
(FRER). The R-Tag is a structured field and its content is subject
to evolve; but the expectation for this specification is that the
overall size remains 48 bits and that the 48-bit value is different
for a large number of contiguous frames. When transporting TSN
frames in a DetNet packet, it is possible to leverage the R-Tag as
Redundancy information, though it cannot be assumed that the R-Tag is
sequentially incremented; so it can be used for packet duplicate
elimination but it is not suitable not for packet re-ordering.
This specification also allows for an hybrid model with a coarse
grained packet sequence within a coarse grained time stamp. In that
case, both a time stamp option and a wrapping counter options are
found, and the counter is used to compare packets with the same time
stamp and ignored otherwise In that case, the size of the
representation of the counter MUST be large enough to cover at least
3 times the number of packets that may be sent with the same value of
time stamp.
Thubert Expires 13 December 2021 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft DetNet HbH Options June 2021
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Option Type | Opt Data Len | R.I. Type | Fragment Tag |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
. .
. Redundancy Information (variable Size) .
. .
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: Redundancy Information Option Format
Redundancy Information Option fields:
Option Type: 8-bit identifier of the type of option. Value TBD by
IANA; if the processing IPv6 node does not recognize the Option
Type it MUST skip over this option and continue processing the
header (act =00); the Option Data of that option cannot change en
route to the packet's final destination (chg=0). The
Opt Data Len: 8-bit length of the option data.
Fragment Tag: 8-bit field, set to 0 when the packet is sent in
entirety; packets with the same Redundancy Information and
different fragments tags MUST be considered as different by the
elimination function and are not subject to ordering based on the
Tag.
Redundancy Information Type: 8-bit identifier of the type of
Redundancy information. Value to be confirmed by IANA.
Thubert Expires 13 December 2021 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft DetNet HbH Options June 2021
+=======+============+===============+===========================+
| Seq. | Category | Common Name | Redundancy |
| Type | | | Information Format |
| Value | | | |
+=======+============+===============+===========================+
| 1 | Wrapping | Basic | 32-bit unsigned |
| | Counter | Sequence | integer |
| | | Counter | |
+-------+============+---------------+---------------------------+
| 2 | Wrapping | Zero-avoiding | 32-bit unsigned |
| | Counter | Sequence | integer, wraps to 1 |
| | | Counter | |
+-------+============+---------------+---------------------------+
| 3 | Wrapping | RPL Sequence | 8-bit RPL sequence, |
| | Counter | Counter | see section 7. of |
| | | | [RPL] |
+-------+============+---------------+---------------------------+
| 11 | Time Stamp | Fractional | NTP 64-bit Timestamp |
| | | NTP | Format, see section |
| | | | 4.2.1. of [RFC8877] |
+-------+============+---------------+---------------------------+
| 12 | Time Stamp | Short NTP | NTP 32-bit Timestamp |
| | | | Format, see section |
| | | | 4.2.2. of [RFC8877] |
+-------+============+---------------+---------------------------+
| 13 | Time Stamp | PTP | PTP 80-bit Timestamp |
| | | | Format, see [IEEE |
| | | | Std. 1588] |
+-------+============+---------------+---------------------------+
| 14 | Time Stamp | Short PTP | PTP 64-bit Truncated |
| | | | Timestamp Format, |
| | | | see section 4.3. of |
| | | | [RFC8877] |
+-------+============+---------------+---------------------------+
| 24 | Structured | TSN | 48-bit opaque |
| | Unique Tag | Redundancy | |
| | | Tag | |
+-------+============+---------------+---------------------------+
Table 1: Redundancy Information Type values (suggested)
Redundancy Information: Variable size, as indicated in Table 1.
Thubert Expires 13 December 2021 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft DetNet HbH Options June 2021
3.2. DetNet Path Options
The DetNet Path Options carry path information that is independent
from the flows transported. When present, it is the information that
MUST be used to select the DetNet state at the DetNet forwarding
sublayer.
The path indicated therein is used by the service sublayer, as it is
the scope where the redundancy information is unique across a number
of packets large enough to ensure that a forwarding node never has to
handle different packets with the same redundancy information, though
the same value may be found for packets with a different path
information.
The typical DetNet path is is contained under a single administrative
control or within a closed group of administrative control; these
include campus-wide networks and private WANs [DetNet-ARCH]. The
typical expectation is that all nodes along a DetNet path are aware
of the path and actively maintain a forwarding state for it. The
DetNet Strict Path Option (see Section 3.2.1) is designed for that
environment; if a packet escapes the local domain, a router that does
not support the option will intercept it and return an error to the
source.
In other environments such as RAW, it might be that the service-layer
protection concentrates on just segments of the end-to-end path. In
that case, the service-sublayer protection may require the signaling
of both redundancy and path information, though the path information
is potentially not used by some intermediate routers. The path
information may also relate to segments are installed along the path
using a DetNet forwarding state as opposed to, say, SRv6. In either
case the DetNet Loose Path Option Section 3.2.2 can be used to signal
the path without incurring an ICMP Error from an intermediate node.
DetNet can also leverage the RPL Option that signals a Track in the
RPL Packet Information (RPI) [RFC6553]. There are 2 versions of the
RPL option, defined respectively in [RPL] with the act bits [IPv6]
set to dropped the packet when the option is unknown, that defined
in[RFC9008] which let the option be ignored.
3.2.1. DetNet Strict Path Option
In complement to the RPL option, this specification defines a
protocol-independent Strict Path Identifier, which is also taken from
a namespace indicated by the IPv6 source address of the packet.
The DetNet Strict Path Option is to be used in a limited domain and
all routers along the path are expected to support the option.
Thubert Expires 13 December 2021 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft DetNet HbH Options June 2021
An intermediate router that supports the DetNet Strict Path Option
but is missing the necessary state to forward along the indicated
path must drop the packet and return an ICMP error.code 0 pointing at
the offset of the Strict Path ID in the DetNet Strict Path Option.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Option Type | Opt Data Len | Strict Path ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: DetNet Strict Path Option Format
Redundancy Option fields:
Option Type: 8-bit identifier of the type of option. Value TBD by
IANA; if the processing IPv6 node does not recognize the Option
Type it must discard the packet and send an ICMP Parameter
Problem, Code 2, message to the packet's Source Address (act =10);
the Option Data of that option cannot change en route to the
packet's final destination (chg=0).
Opt Data Len: 8-bit length of the option data, set to 2.
Strict Path ID: 16-bit identifier of the DetNet Path, taken from a
local namespace associated with the IPv6 source address of the
packet.
3.2.2. DetNet Loose Path Option
The DetNet Loose Path Option transports a Loose Path identifier which
is taken from a namespace indicated by the Origin Autonomous System
(AS). When the DetNet path is contained within a single AS, the
Origin Autonomous System field can be left to 0 indicating local AS.
The DetNet Loose Path Option is to be used to signal a path that may
be loose and may exceed the boundaries of a local domain; a portion
of the hops may traverse routers in the wider internet that will not
leverage the option and are expected to ignore it.
An intermediate router that supports the DetNet Loose Path Option but
is missing the necessary state to forward along the indicated path
must ignore the DetNet Loose Path Option.
Thubert Expires 13 December 2021 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft DetNet HbH Options June 2021
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Option Type | Opt Data Len | Origin Autonomous System |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Loose Path ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: DetNet Loose Path Option Format
Redundancy Option fields:
Option Type: 8-bit identifier of the type of option. Value TBD by
IANA; if the processing IPv6 node does not recognize the Option
Type it MUST skip over this option and continue processing the
header (act =00); the Option Data of that option cannot change en
route to the packet's final destination (chg=0).
Opt Data Len: 8-bit length of the option data, set to 6.
Origin Autonomous System: 16-bit identifier of the Autonomous
Systems (AS) that originates the path.
Loose Path ID: 32-bit identifier of the DetNet Path, taken from a
local namespace associated with the origin AS of the DetNet path.
The value of 0 signals a DetNet path that is constrained within
the local AS or the local administrative DetNet domain.
3.3. RPL Packet Information
6TiSCH [6TiSCH-ARCH] and RAW [RAW-ARCH] signal a Track using a RPL
Option [RFC6553] with a RPLInstanceID used as TrackID. This
specification reuses the RPL option as a method to signal a DetNet
path. In that case, the Projected-Route 'P' flag [RPL-PDAO] MUST be
set to 1, and the O, R, F flags, as well as the Sender Rank field,
MUST be set to 0 by the originator, forwarded as-is, and ignored on
reception.
4. Security Considerations
5. IANA Considerations
5.1. New Subregistry for the Redundancy Type
This specification creates a new Subregistry for the "Redundancy Type
of the Redundancy Option" under the "Internet Protocol Version 6
(IPv6) Parameters" registry [IPV6-PARMS].
Thubert Expires 13 December 2021 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft DetNet HbH Options June 2021
* Possible values are 8-bit unsigned integers (0..255).
* Registration procedure is "IETF Review" [RFC8126].
* Initial allocation is as Suggested in Table 2:
+-----------------+--------------------------------+-----------+
| Suggested Value | Meaning | Reference |
+-----------------+--------------------------------+-----------+
| 1 | Basic Sequence Counter | THIS RFC |
+-----------------+--------------------------------+-----------+
| 2 | Zero-avoiding Sequence Counter | THIS RFC |
+-----------------+--------------------------------+-----------+
| 3 | RPL Sequence Counter | THIS RFC |
+-----------------+--------------------------------+-----------+
| 11 | Fractional NTP time stamp | THIS RFC |
+-----------------+--------------------------------+-----------+
| 12 | Short NTP time stamp | THIS RFC |
+-----------------+--------------------------------+-----------+
| 13 | PTP time stamp | THIS RFC |
+-----------------+--------------------------------+-----------+
| 14 | Short PTP time stamp | THIS RFC |
+-----------------+--------------------------------+-----------+
| 24 | TSN Redundancy Tag | THIS RFC |
+-----------------+--------------------------------+-----------+
Table 2: Redundancy Information Type values
5.2. New Hop-by-Hop Options
This specification updates the "Destination Options and Hop-by-Hop
Options" under the "Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Parameters"
registry [IPV6-PARMS] with the (suggested) values below:
+------+-----+-----+-------+--------------------+-----------+
| Hexa | act | chg | rest | Description | Reference |
+------+-----+-----+-------+--------------------+-----------+
| 0x12 | 00 | 0 | 10010 | DetNet Redundancy | THIS RFC |
| | | | | Information Option | |
+------+-----+-----+-------+--------------------+-----------+
| 0x93 | 10 | 0 | 10011 | DetNet Strict Path | THIS RFC |
| | | | | Option | |
+------+-----+-----+-------+--------------------+-----------+
| 0x14 | 00 | 0 | 10100 | DetNet Loose Path | THIS RFC |
| | | | | Option | |
+------+-----+-----+-------+--------------------+-----------+
Table 3: DetNet Hop-by-Hop Options
Thubert Expires 13 December 2021 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft DetNet HbH Options June 2021
6. Acknowledgments
TBD
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[RPL] Winter, T., Ed., Thubert, P., Ed., Brandt, A., Hui, J.,
Kelsey, R., Levis, P., Pister, K., Struik, R., Vasseur,
JP., and R. Alexander, "RPL: IPv6 Routing Protocol for
Low-Power and Lossy Networks", RFC 6550,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6550, March 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6550>.
[RFC6553] Hui, J. and JP. Vasseur, "The Routing Protocol for Low-
Power and Lossy Networks (RPL) Option for Carrying RPL
Information in Data-Plane Datagrams", RFC 6553,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6553, March 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6553>.
[IPv6] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8200>.
[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
[RFC8877] Mizrahi, T., Fabini, J., and A. Morton, "Guidelines for
Defining Packet Timestamps", RFC 8877,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8877, September 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8877>.
[HbH-UPDT] Hinden, R. M. and G. Fairhurst, "IPv6 Hop-by-Hop Options
Processing Procedures", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
draft-hinden-6man-hbh-processing-00, 3 December 2020,
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hinden-6man-hbh-
processing-00>.
[DetNet-ARCH]
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>.
Thubert Expires 13 December 2021 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft DetNet HbH Options June 2021
[RFC9008] Robles, M.I., Richardson, M., and P. Thubert, "Using RPI
Option Type, Routing Header for Source Routes, and IPv6-
in-IPv6 Encapsulation in the RPL Data Plane", RFC 9008,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9008, April 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9008>.
[6TiSCH-ARCH]
Thubert, P., Ed., "An Architecture for IPv6 over the Time-
Slotted Channel Hopping Mode of IEEE 802.15.4 (6TiSCH)",
RFC 9030, DOI 10.17487/RFC9030, May 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9030>.
[RAW-ARCH] Thubert, P., Papadopoulos, G. Z., and R. Buddenberg,
"Reliable and Available Wireless Architecture/Framework",
Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-pthubert-raw-
architecture-05, 15 November 2020,
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-pthubert-raw-
architecture-05>.
7.2. Informative References
[RPL-PDAO] Thubert, P., Jadhav, R. A., and M. Gillmore, "Root
initiated routing state in RPL", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-roll-dao-projection-16, 15
January 2021, <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-
roll-dao-projection-16>.
[RFC6291] Andersson, L., van Helvoort, H., Bonica, R., Romascanu,
D., and S. Mansfield, "Guidelines for the Use of the "OAM"
Acronym in the IETF", BCP 161, RFC 6291,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6291, June 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6291>.
[RFC5905] Mills, D., Martin, J., Ed., Burbank, J., and W. Kasch,
"Network Time Protocol Version 4: Protocol and Algorithms
Specification", RFC 5905, DOI 10.17487/RFC5905, June 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5905>.
[DetNet-PBST]
Finn, N. and P. Thubert, "Deterministic Networking Problem
Statement", RFC 8557, DOI 10.17487/RFC8557, May 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8557>.
[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>.
Thubert Expires 13 December 2021 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft DetNet HbH Options June 2021
[RFC8938] Varga, B., Ed., Farkas, J., Berger, L., Malis, A., and S.
Bryant, "Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Data Plane
Framework", RFC 8938, DOI 10.17487/RFC8938, November 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8938>.
[IEEE Std. 802.15.4]
IEEE standard for Information Technology, "IEEE Std.
802.15.4, Part. 15.4: Wireless Medium Access Control (MAC)
and Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications for Low-Rate
Wireless Personal Area Networks".
[IEEE 802.1 TSN]
IEEE 802.1, "Time-Sensitive Networking (TSN) Task Group",
<http://www.ieee802.org/1/pages/tsn.html>.
[IEEE Std. 1588]
IEEE, "IEEE Standard for a Precision Clock Synchronization
Protocol for Networked Measurement and Control Systems",
IEEE Standard 1588,
<https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/4579760/>.
[IPV6-PARMS]
IANA, "Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Parameters",
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-parameters/
ipv6-parameters.xhtml>.
Author's Address
Pascal Thubert (editor)
Cisco Systems, Inc
France
Phone: +33 497 23 26 34
Email: pthubert@cisco.com
Thubert Expires 13 December 2021 [Page 14]