Flow Aggregation for Enhanced DetNet
draft-xiong-detnet-flow-aggregation-01
This document is an Internet-Draft (I-D).
Anyone may submit an I-D to the IETF.
This I-D is not endorsed by the IETF and has no formal standing in the
IETF standards process.
| Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (individual) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Quan Xiong , Tianji Jiang , Jinoo Joung | ||
| Last updated | 2024-07-02 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-xiong-detnet-flow-aggregation-01
DetNet Q. Xiong
Internet-Draft ZTE Corporation
Intended status: Standards Track T. Jiang
Expires: 3 January 2025 China Mobile
J. Joung
Sangmyung University
2 July 2024
Flow Aggregation for Enhanced DetNet
draft-xiong-detnet-flow-aggregation-01
Abstract
This document describes the objectives and requirements of flow
aggregation in scaling networks and proposes a scheme by aggregating
DetNet flows based on DetNet flow-specific classification in enhanced
DetNet, and suggests the flow identification of aggregated-class be
used to indicate the required treatment and forwarding behaviors.
Toward the end, the draft discusses how the novel flow aggregation
scheme could be applied to realize the flow aggregation in a 5GS
logical DetNet node participating in enhanced DetNet.
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 3 January 2025.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2024 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.
Xiong, et al. Expires 3 January 2025 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Flow Aggregation for Enhanced DetNet July 2024
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components
extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Objectives & Requirements: Flow Aggregation in Enhanced
DetNet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. DetNet Services to Aggregated Flows across Domains . . . 4
2.2. Aggregated vs. Fine-grained QoS Provisioning . . . . . . 4
2.3. Scale Down States Maintenance at Transit Nodes . . . . . 5
2.4. Implications of Flow Aggregations to Transit Nodes . . . 6
2.4.1. Flow Classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.4.2. Flow Identification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3. Realization of Flow Aggregation for 5GS DetNet Service . . . 7
3.1. Realization of 5GS DetNet Service across Domains . . . . 8
3.2. 5GS QoS Provisioning: Aggregated vs. Fine-grained . . . . 9
3.3. State Maintenance at a 5GS Transit Node . . . . . . . . . 9
3.4. Flow Classification & Identification at 5GS Node . . . . 9
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1. Introduction
The [RFC8655] clearly states that Deterministic Networking (DetNet)
operates at the IP layer and delivers service which provides
extremely low data loss rates and bounded latency within a network
domain. The DetNet Quality of Service (QoS) includes the bounded
latency indicating the minimum and maximum end-to-end latency from
source to destination and bounded jitter (packet delay variation).
As per [RFC8655], the DetNet data plane must support the aggregation
of DetNet flows in order to support larger numbers of DetNet flows
and improve scalability by reducing the per-hop states. Without
aggregation, the considerable state information and the large number
of signaling exchanges among individual flows to provision
deterministic services in scaling networks are unbearable, and the
per-relay system may limit the scale of DetNet networks.
Xiong, et al. Expires 3 January 2025 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Flow Aggregation for Enhanced DetNet July 2024
The [RFC8938] introduces that the flow aggregation is the ability to
aggregate individual flows along with their associated resource
control into a large aggregate. It is recommended that the DetNet
flow aggregation be enabled for compatible flows with the same or
very similar QoS and CoS characteristics via the use of wildcards,
masks, prefixes, and ranges. This RFC also suggests the reduction of
per-hop states help avoid the per DetNet-flow specific state
maintenance in a transit node. It further provides arguments on how
DetNet services might be realized in term of delay bound, delay
jitter and bandwidth provisioning.
Further, the [RFC8964], has proposed and expanded two methods of flow
aggregation, one being the aggregation via LSP hierarchy and the
other to aggregate DetNet flows as a new combined DetNet flow.
In the maturing IETF draft for scaling networks, i.e.,
[I-D.ietf-detnet-scaling-requirements], an enhanced DetNet should
support different levels of co-existed applications with different
SLAs requirements. From the use cases in [RFC8578] and
[I-D.zhao-detnet-enhanced-use-cases], DetNet applications differ in
their network topologies and specific desired behaviors. Different
DetNet flows transmit and forward with different QoS behaviors. It
should provide fine-grained service provisioning to achieve
differentiated DetNet QoS. The DetNet flows with the same level of
service requirements can be aggregated to receive collective
treatments and forwarding behaviours. The DetNet flows can be
classified and aggregated based on flow-specific characteristics.
Moreover, the existing aggregation of individual flows may be still
challenging for network operations. The aggregated flows still
requires a large amount of control signaling to establish and
maintain the states of DetNet flows when there will be large-scale
deterministic flows over the dynamic network topology in enhanced
DetNet. It is required to improve the scalability and forward
packets at the class-aggregate level, instead of the per-flow or
flow-aggregate level, for which the flow identification of
aggregated-class might be adopted to indicate the per-hop behavior
without the maintenance of excessive states in scaling networks.
This document, in the Section 2, describes the objectives &
requirements of flow aggregation and proposes a novel aggregation
scheme for DetNet flows based on DetNet flow-specific classification
in enhanced DetNet. The proposal argues that the flow identification
of an aggregated-class can be used to indicate the required treatment
and forwarding behaviors in scaling networks. The Section 3
discusses the realization of DetNet flow aggreation for 5GS.
Xiong, et al. Expires 3 January 2025 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Flow Aggregation for Enhanced DetNet July 2024
1.1. Requirements Language
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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
1.2. Terminology
The terminology is defined as [RFC8655].
DC: DetNet Traffic Class
2. Objectives & Requirements: Flow Aggregation in Enhanced DetNet
2.1. DetNet Services to Aggregated Flows across Domains
Flow aggregation is recommended in the multi-domain scenario to
achieve the end-to-end QoS guarantees for aggregated flow(s) that
span across multiple domains. As per
[I-D.ietf-detnet-scaling-requirements], different network
implementations may be intended for different application domains,
where there is no additional requirements for the coordination. As
defined in [ITU-T Y.2122], the network operating parameters of a flow
aggregate should be exchanged among different network domains. As
shown in Figure 1, the DetNet domain B receiving an aggregated flow
should identify the flow and get the service requirements such as the
QoS parameters of the flow aggregate.
Individual Flows +-----------------+ +-----------------+
-------> | | | |
...... | DetNet Domain A | Aggregated Flow | DetNet Domain B |
-------> | | --------------> | |
+-----------------+ +-----------------+
Figure 1: Aggregating DetNet Flows across Multiple Domains
2.2. Aggregated vs. Fine-grained QoS Provisioning
The IETF draft [I-D.ietf-detnet-scaling-requirements] specifies that
different levels of applications differ in the SLAs requirements such
as tight jitter, strict latency, loose latency and so on. While
these types of aggregated requirements might bear the coarse-grained
nature, individual flows demand differentiated DetNet treatments and
more granular QoS forwarding behaviors. A DetNet node or domain
adopting multiple forwarding technologies needs to transmit
Xiong, et al. Expires 3 January 2025 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Flow Aggregation for Enhanced DetNet July 2024
individual flows by aggregating them into a select treatment solution
that corresponds to one of some pre-defined per-hop QoS behaviors, as
shown in Figure 2. For example, as per [I-D.jlg-detnet-5gs], a 5GS
as a logical DetNet node requires to achieve the service requirements
and service levels of the aggregated flows, along with the
provisioning of fine-grained per-hop behavior (PHB) to each
individual flow.
DetNet-aware Node/Network
+--------------------------+
Aggregated-flow 1 ----->| Per-hop QoS Behavior 1 |
+--------------------------+
Aggregated-flow 2 ----->| Per-hop QoS Behavior 2 |
+--------------------------+
... | ... |
+--------------------------+
Aggregated-flow n ----->| Per-hop QoS Behavior N |
+--------------------------+
Figure 2: Aggregating DetNet flows to corresponding QoS PHBs
2.3. Scale Down States Maintenance at Transit Nodes
As per [I-D.joung-detnet-taxonomy-dataplane], the treatment solutions
in data plane can be categorized based on performance and functional
characteristics. For example, the category of a solution can be
classified based on the traffic granularity, e.g., flow aggregate vs.
class level. The class level is provided to simplify the control and
accommodate traffic fluctuations by combining flows requiring the
same or similar levels of service requirements. The flow aggregation
based on the class level could further improve the scalability. As
per [I-D.ietf-detnet-scaling-requirements], there may be a large
number of traffic flows in a scaling network, which makes it nearly
impossible to achieve the flow-specific state identification. As
shown in the Figure 3, the flow identification of aggregated-class
can be used to indicate the required treatment and forwarding
behaviors without the need to maintain excessive states at transit
nodes.
Xiong, et al. Expires 3 January 2025 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Flow Aggregation for Enhanced DetNet July 2024
Individual Aggregated
Flows +-------------+ Flow(s) +-------------+ +-------------+
-------> | | | | | |
... |DetNet Node A|---------->|DetNet Node B|----->...|DetNet Node N|
-------> | | | | | |
+-------------+ +-------------+ +-------------+
'Bucketed' into
Large number of Fewer number of classes
Individual Flows -----------------> consisting of aggregated flows
Figure 3: Aggregating DetNet Flows to Improve Scalability
2.4. Implications of Flow Aggregations to Transit Nodes
When DetNet flows are aggregated based on service-class level,
transit nodes provide deterministic services to a flow aggregate and
go thru the per-class scheduling without the burden to maintain
excessive per-flow states. Still, a transit node performing
aggregation should ensure all per-flow service requirements within an
aggregated class are achieved. For example, the latency or jitter
bounds of an aggregated class shall not exceed the corresponding
metrics of any individual flow that has been bucketed into the class.
The aggregation based on the class level has data plane and
controller plane aspects.
For the data plane, when DetNet flows are aggregated to a class,
transit nodes provide service to the aggregate and not on a per-
DetNet-flow basis. And the transit nodes supporting this type of
aggregation should identify the class of the aggregated flows and
ensure that individual flows receive the corresponding traffic
treatment and forwarding behaviour.
For the controller plane, the service should be provisioned on an
aggregated-class level. The resources should be controlled and
scheduled on a per-class basis and the routes should be established
to meet the service requirements with the allocated resources. The
edge nodes must be able to handle admission control for DetNet flows
to an aggregated class based on the available resources.
Xiong, et al. Expires 3 January 2025 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Flow Aggregation for Enhanced DetNet July 2024
2.4.1. Flow Classification
The DetNet QoS can be achieved by aggregating flows based on DetNet
flow-specific traffic classification and providing the traffic-
forwarding treatment. The flow classification should consider the
flow-specific characteristics such as traffic specification and
service requirements. For example, the DetNet flows MAY be
classified based on the service SLAs requirements of applications in
scaling networks as per [I-D.xiong-detnet-differentiated-detnet-qos].
And the services can also be classified into tight/loose latency,
large/small burst, periodic/non-periodic and large/small scale
services as per [I-D.joung-detnet-taxonomy-dataplane]. Several
classes can be predefined to indicate the different levels of
applications with SLAs requirements and each class demands
differentiated QoS behaviors and treatment as well as different
DetNet capabilities in scaling networks.
2.4.2. Flow Identification
The flow identification is required to be dynamic and simplified to
ensure the aggregated flows have compatible DetNet flow-specific QoS
characteristics. For the data plane, individual flows may be
aggregated for treatment based on shared service specification on
aggregated-class level which is identified by an aggregation class
(A-Class). A transit node should provide the class level traffic
treatment based on A-Class. The aggregation class information may be
used alone or together with other metadata to indicate the required
queuing and forwarding behaviors. The encoding of the A-Class may
reuse the DSCP/TC or existing field such as the TC field in A-Label
as per [RFC8964]. And it also can be encapsulated with the
deterministic latency information as per
[I-D.xiong-detnet-data-fields-edp].
3. Realization of Flow Aggregation for 5GS DetNet Service
The 3GPP in its document [TS.23.501] has defined and standardized how
a 5G system (5GS) may behave as a logical DetNet node, as well as how
a 5GS DetNet node may integrate into the IP-domain DetNet as
described in [RFC8655]. 3GPP has realized the functionalities of the
DetNet forwarding sub-layer.
Xiong, et al. Expires 3 January 2025 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Flow Aggregation for Enhanced DetNet July 2024
As a logical DetNet transit node, a 5GS behaves as a transparent box
to external DetNet entities. It can connect to either DetNet end
systems or full-fledged IP DetNet domain(s) or both. The 3GPP
[TS.23.501] has demonstrated a ‘composite’ architecture in that a 5GS
could act as one or more DetNet nodes upon the integration into the
IP DetNet domain. The granularity of determining a 5GS DetNet node
is per UPF for each network instance, with the corresponding UPF-id
identified as the 5GS DetNet node-id.
The 3GPP [TS.23.503] has implicitly specified two types of DetNet
related traffic parameters. One type is the higher-level per-
(logical)-node QoS requirements like the node max-latency, max-loss,
etc., while the other is more granular settings with which DetNet
flow attributes and specifications are mapped to the Flow Description
information. The DetNet flow specifications could be based on IP-
tuple information, e.g., including IP address, protocol type, ToS,
TCP/DUP ports, etc. The document [I-D.jlg-detnet-5gs] has provided
more details.
3.1. Realization of 5GS DetNet Service across Domains
3GPP has so far standardized the forward sub-layer functionality for
5GS. It indicates a 5GS (logical) DetNet node could connect to other
end systems and/or IP DetNet domains, together to form a holistic
end-to-end DetNet. Thanks to the 'composite' architecture of a 5GS
node, along with the interaction between an CPF:DetNet controller in
IETF domain and the NF TSCTSF in 3GPP domain [TS.23.501], a 5GS node
might realize much more advanced DetNet services than a traditional
IP DetNet transit node.
In scenarios where the (IETF-domain) CPF:Detnet Controller could well
divide the DetNet QoS service requirements that are in reality
associated with an integrated DetNet domain into multiple QoS sub-
requirements that together form the original end-to-end QoS
equivalence, a 5GS might be considered as a standalone DetNet
(sub-)domain with its own DetNet QoS (sub-)requirements that would be
provisioned from the CPF:DetNet controller. The 5GS DetNet QoS
(sub-)requirements serve a portion of the original requirements of
the integrated DetNet domain. These together form a scaling network
to realize the 5GS DetNet service across domains.
Xiong, et al. Expires 3 January 2025 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Flow Aggregation for Enhanced DetNet July 2024
3.2. 5GS QoS Provisioning: Aggregated vs. Fine-grained
We have explained previously that the 3GPP [TS.23.503] has implicitly
specified two categories of DetNet related traffic parameters. One
type bears the aggregated nature for (5GS DetNet) node-level
requirements, while the other addresses the more granular DetNet
flow-level attributes and specifications. Evidently, with this kind
of two-hierarchy architecture, a 5GS DetNet node could achieve not
only the node-level aggregated QoS requirements, but also the more
fine-grained flow-level QoS provisioning. This reflects the true
value of applying our flow aggregation model in scaling networks to
realizing advanced DetNet services for 5GS.
Here, we want to point out that the feasibility of applying our flow
aggregation scheme indeed depends on the hierarchical nature of a 5GS
DetNet node. Had the same aggregation scheme been applied to DetNet
nodes that do not have the similar intrinsic hierarchy, the
effectiveness could be certainly impaired.
3.3. State Maintenance at a 5GS Transit Node
The 5GS QoS architecture is roughly comprised of three levels, i.e.,
the UE, the PDU-session, and the QoS-flow levels. Technically, a 5GS
DetNet node is of 'composite' nature with a large number of
configuration, provisioning, operation and runtime states to
maintain. At first glance, this might undermine the state-reduction
objective via the flow aggregation for a 5GS DetNet transit node.
Fortunatley, the 5GS DetNet work owns intrinsically a couple of
aspects to handle the challenges: First, also as we have mentioned
before, a 5GS node behaves as a transparent entity participating in
the DetNet domain. Thus, even having a significant number of states,
this can naturally have the 5GS DetNet related states remain hidden
from the external entities (and domains). Second, the 3GPP NF TSCTSF
exchanges only traffic parameters with the IETF CPF:Detnet
Controller, but not the states that are maintained inside a 5GS
DetNet node. The external DetNet domain does not care the inside
status of a 5GS, nor can it.
3.4. Flow Classification & Identification at 5GS Node
As we have explained so far, the IETF domain CPF:DetNet controller
provides traffic parameters & specifications to 3GPP NF TSCTSF.
Thus, the SLA requirements of applications in scaling networks could
be readily pre-specified in the IETF DetNet CPF, which would then
apply the flow classification mapping (to aggregated service classes)
and send them over to a 5GS DetNet node to enforce. This model can
also relieve the classification burden of a 5GS node in reality.
Xiong, et al. Expires 3 January 2025 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Flow Aggregation for Enhanced DetNet July 2024
The 5GS has excellent control logics to address flow identification.
For example, PDRs (Packet Detection Rules), SDF (Service Data Flow)
filters (e.g., IP-filter, MAC-filter, etc.), etc., are all good tools
to differentiate flows [TS.23.501]. Further, the 5GS has
standardized powerful procedures for the establishment & update of
PDU sessions/QoS flows, which accordingly achieves the flow dynamics
(e.g., flow joining & leaving a flow-aggregate as manifested
potentially by a PDU session) [TS.23.502]. Moreover, some QoS
parameters, e.g., Aggregated Bit Rate (ABR), may stand at different
levels, including UE-ABR, Session-ABR, flow-ABR, etc., that would
make the service differentiation & sharing on the aggregated-class
(A-Class) level feasible.
4. Security Considerations
Security considerations for DetNet are covered in the DetNet
Architecture [RFC8655] and DetNet data plane [RFC8938], [RFC8939],
[RFC8964] and DetNet security considerations [RFC9055]. The security
considerations specified in [I-D.ietf-detnet-scaling-requirements]
are also applicable to the procedures defined in this document.
5. IANA Considerations
This document makes no requests for IANA action.
6. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge Bin Tan and Aihua Liu for the
thorough review and very helpful comments.
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-detnet-scaling-requirements]
Liu, P., Li, Y., Eckert, T. T., Xiong, Q., Ryoo, J.,
zhushiyin, and X. Geng, "Requirements for Scaling
Deterministic Networks", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
draft-ietf-detnet-scaling-requirements-06, 22 May 2024,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-detnet-
scaling-requirements-06>.
[I-D.jlg-detnet-5gs]
Jiang, T., Liu, P., and X. Geng, "DetNet YANG Model
Extension for 5GS as a Logical DetNet Node", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-jlg-detnet-5gs-01, 20
October 2023, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
draft-jlg-detnet-5gs-01>.
Xiong, et al. Expires 3 January 2025 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Flow Aggregation for Enhanced DetNet July 2024
[I-D.joung-detnet-taxonomy-dataplane]
Joung, J., Geng, X., Peng, S., and T. T. Eckert,
"Dataplane Enhancement Taxonomy", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-joung-detnet-taxonomy-dataplane-01,
25 February 2024, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
draft-joung-detnet-taxonomy-dataplane-01>.
[I-D.xiong-detnet-data-fields-edp]
Xiong, Q., Liu, A., Gandhi, R., and D. Yang, "Data Fields
for DetNet Enhanced Data Plane", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-xiong-detnet-data-fields-edp-02, 1
July 2024, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-
xiong-detnet-data-fields-edp-02>.
[I-D.xiong-detnet-differentiated-detnet-qos]
Xiong, Q., Zhao, J., Du, Z., Zeng, Q., and C. Liu,
"Differentiated DetNet QoS for Deterministic Services",
Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-xiong-detnet-
differentiated-detnet-qos-01, 27 June 2024,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-xiong-detnet-
differentiated-detnet-qos-01>.
[I-D.zhao-detnet-enhanced-use-cases]
Zhao, J., Xiong, Q., and Z. Du, "Enhanced Use cases for
Scaling Deterministic Networks", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-zhao-detnet-enhanced-use-cases-00,
23 October 2023, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
draft-zhao-detnet-enhanced-use-cases-00>.
[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>.
[RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J.-P., and J. Ash, "A Path
Computation Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4655, August 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4655>.
[RFC4915] Psenak, P., Mirtorabi, S., Roy, A., Nguyen, L., and P.
Pillay-Esnault, "Multi-Topology (MT) Routing in OSPF",
RFC 4915, DOI 10.17487/RFC4915, June 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4915>.
Xiong, et al. Expires 3 January 2025 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Flow Aggregation for Enhanced DetNet July 2024
[RFC5120] Przygienda, T., Shen, N., and N. Sheth, "M-ISIS: Multi
Topology (MT) Routing in Intermediate System to
Intermediate Systems (IS-ISs)", RFC 5120,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5120, February 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5120>.
[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>.
[RFC6549] Lindem, A., Roy, A., and S. Mirtorabi, "OSPFv2 Multi-
Instance Extensions", RFC 6549, DOI 10.17487/RFC6549,
March 2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6549>.
[RFC7752] Gredler, H., Ed., Medved, J., Previdi, S., Farrel, A., and
S. Ray, "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and
Traffic Engineering (TE) Information Using BGP", RFC 7752,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7752, March 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7752>.
[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>.
[RFC8231] Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Medved, J., and R. Varga, "Path
Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
Extensions for Stateful PCE", RFC 8231,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8231, September 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8231>.
[RFC8233] Dhody, D., Wu, Q., Manral, V., Ali, Z., and K. Kumaki,
"Extensions to the Path Computation Element Communication
Protocol (PCEP) to Compute Service-Aware Label Switched
Paths (LSPs)", RFC 8233, DOI 10.17487/RFC8233, September
2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8233>.
[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>.
Xiong, et al. Expires 3 January 2025 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Flow Aggregation for Enhanced DetNet July 2024
[RFC8664] Sivabalan, S., Filsfils, C., Tantsura, J., Henderickx, W.,
and J. Hardwick, "Path Computation Element Communication
Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Segment Routing", RFC 8664,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8664, December 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8664>.
[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>.
[RFC8939] Varga, B., Ed., Farkas, J., Berger, L., Fedyk, D., and S.
Bryant, "Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Data Plane:
IP", RFC 8939, DOI 10.17487/RFC8939, November 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8939>.
[RFC8964] Varga, B., Ed., Farkas, J., Berger, L., Malis, A., Bryant,
S., and J. Korhonen, "Deterministic Networking (DetNet)
Data Plane: MPLS", RFC 8964, DOI 10.17487/RFC8964, January
2021, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8964>.
[RFC9055] Grossman, E., Ed., Mizrahi, T., and A. Hacker,
"Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Security
Considerations", RFC 9055, DOI 10.17487/RFC9055, June
2021, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9055>.
[RFC9320] Finn, N., Le Boudec, J.-Y., Mohammadpour, E., Zhang, J.,
and B. Varga, "Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Bounded
Latency", RFC 9320, DOI 10.17487/RFC9320, November 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9320>.
[RFC9357] Xiong, Q., "Label Switched Path (LSP) Object Flag
Extension for Stateful PCE", RFC 9357,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9357, February 2023,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9357>.
[TS.23.501]
"3GPP TS 23.501 (V19.0.0): System Architecture for the 5G
System (5GS)", 3GPP TS 23.501, June 2024.
[TS.23.502]
"3GPP TS 23.502 (V19.0.0): Procedures for the 5G System
(5GS)", 3GPP TS 23.502, June 2024.
[TS.23.503]
"3GPP TS 23.503 (V19.0.0): Policy and charging control
framework for the 5G System (5GS); Stage 2", 3GPP TS
23.503, June 2024.
Xiong, et al. Expires 3 January 2025 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Flow Aggregation for Enhanced DetNet July 2024
Authors' Addresses
Quan Xiong
ZTE Corporation
China
Email: xiong.quan@zte.com.cn
Tianji Jiang
China Mobile
Email: tianjijiang@chinamobile.com
Jinoo Joung
Sangmyung University
Email: jjoung@smu.ac.kr
Xiong, et al. Expires 3 January 2025 [Page 14]