PCEP Extension for Bounded Latency
draft-xiong-pce-detnet-bounded-latency-05
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 , Peng Liu , Rakesh Gandhi | ||
| Last updated | 2024-10-21 | ||
| 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-pce-detnet-bounded-latency-05
PCE Q. Xiong, Ed.
Internet-Draft ZTE Corporation
Intended status: Standards Track P. Liu
Expires: 24 April 2025 China Mobile
R. Gandhi
Cisco Systems, Inc.
21 October 2024
PCEP Extension for Bounded Latency
draft-xiong-pce-detnet-bounded-latency-05
Abstract
In certain networks, such as Deterministic Networking (DetNet), it is
required to consider the bounded latency for path selection. This
document describes the extensions for Path Computation Element
Communication Protocol (PCEP) to carry the bounded latency
constraints and distribute deterministic paths for end-to-end path
computation in deterministic services.
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 24 April 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.
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components
Xiong, et al. Expires 24 April 2025 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for Bounded Latency October 2024
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
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. PCEP Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. METRIC Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1.1. End-to-End Bounded Delay Metric . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1.2. End-to-End Bounded Jitter Metric . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. LSP Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.3. Deterministic Path ERO Subobject . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.3.1. Deadline Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3.2. Cycle Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.3.3. Timeslot Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.3.4. Ratio Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.3.5. Damper Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4. Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.1. New Metric Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.2. New LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG Flag Registry . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.3. New ERO Subobject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8.2. Infomative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1. Introduction
[RFC5440] describes the Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP)
which is used between a Path Computation Element (PCE) and a Path
Computation Client (PCC) (or other PCE) to enable computation of
Multi-protocol Label Switching (MPLS) for Traffic Engineering Label
Switched Path (TE LSP). PCEP Extensions for the Stateful PCE Model
[RFC8231] describes a set of extensions to PCEP to enable active
control of MPLS-TE and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) tunnels. As depicted
in [RFC4655], a PCE MUST be able to compute the path of a TE LSP by
operating on the TED and considering bandwidth and other constraints
applicable to the TE LSP service request. The constraint parameters
are provided such as metric, bandwidth, delay, affinity, etc.
However these parameters can't meet the DetNet requirements.
Xiong, et al. Expires 24 April 2025 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for Bounded Latency October 2024
According to [RFC8655], 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 bounded
latency indicates the minimum and maximum end-to-end latency from
source to destination and bounded jitter (packet delay variation).
[I-D.ietf-detnet-scaling-requirements] has described the enhanced
requirements for DetNet data plane including the information used by
functions ensuring deterministic latency should be supported.
[I-D.ietf-detnet-dataplane-taxonomy] has described the classification
criteria of the solutions. And queuing mechanisms and solutions
require different information to help the functions of ensuring
deterministic latency, including regulation, queue management. As
per [I-D.xiong-detnet-data-fields-edp], the deterministic latency
information should be defined as the DetNet-specific metadata for
enhanced DetNet data plane.
The computing method of end-to-end delay bounds is defined in
[RFC9320]. It is the sum of the 6 delays in DetNet bounded latency
model. And these delays should be measured and collected by IGP, but
the related mechanisms are out of this document. The end-to-end
delay bounds can also be computed as the sum of non queuing delay
bound and queuing delay bound along the path. The upper bounds of
non queuing delay are constant and depend on the specific network and
the value of queuing delay bound depends on the queuing mechanisms
deployed along the path. The queuing delay may differ notably in
their specific queuing solutions, which should be selected and
calculated by the controller (or PCE). The deterministic latency
information related to each queuing mechanism should also be
distributed.
As per [I-D.ietf-detnet-controller-plane-framework], explicit path
should be calculated and established in control plane to guarantee
the deterministic transmission. The corresponding IS-IS and OSPF
extensions are specified in
[I-D.peng-lsr-deterministic-traffic-engineering]. When the PCE is
deployed, the path computation should be applicable for deterministic
networks. It is required that bounded latency including minimum and
maximum end-to-end latency and bounded delay variation are considered
during the deterministic path selection for PCE. The bounded latency
constraints should be extended for PCEP. Moreover, the queuing-based
parameters along the deterministic path should be provided to the PCC
after the path computation such as deterministic latency information.
This document describes the extensions for PCEP to carry bounded
latency constraints and distribute deterministic paths for end-to-end
path computation in deterministic services.
Xiong, et al. Expires 24 April 2025 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for Bounded Latency October 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].
2. Terminology
The terminology is defined as [RFC8655] and [RFC5440].
3. PCEP Extensions
3.1. METRIC Object
The METRIC object is defined in Section 7.8 of [RFC5440], comprising
metric-value and metric-type (T field), and a flags field, comprising
a number of bit flags (B bit and C bit). This document defines two
types for the METRIC object.
3.1.1. End-to-End Bounded Delay Metric
[RFC8233] has proposed the Path Delay metric type of the METRIC
object to represent the sum of the Link Delay metric of all links
along a P2P path. This document proposes the End-to-End Bounded
Delay metric in PCEP to represent the sum of Output delay, Link
delay, Frame preemption delay, Processing delay, Regulation delay and
Queuing delay as defined in [RFC9320] along a deterministic path. Or
the End-to-End Bounded Delay metric can be encoded as the sum of non
queuing delay bound and queuing delay bound along the deterministic
path. The extensions for End-to-End Bounded Delay Metric are as
following shown:
* T=TBD1: End-to-End Bounded Delay Metric.
* The value of End-to-End Bounded Delay Metric is the encoding in
units of microseconds with 32 bits.
* The B bit MUST be set to suggest a maximum bound for the end-to-
end delay of deterministic path. The end-to-end delay must be
less than or equal to the value.
A PCC MAY use the End-to-End Bounded Latency metric in a Path
Computation Request (PCReq) message to request a deterministic path
meeting the end-to-end latency requirement. A PCE MAY use the End-
to-End Bounded Latency metric in a Path Computation Reply (PCRep)
message along with a NO-PATH object in the case where the PCE cannot
compute a path meeting this constraint. A PCE can also use this
metric to send the computed end-to-end bounded latency to the PCC.
Xiong, et al. Expires 24 April 2025 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for Bounded Latency October 2024
3.1.2. End-to-End Bounded Jitter Metric
[RFC8233] has proposed the Path Delay Variation metric type of the
METRIC object to represent the sum of the Link Delay Variation metric
of all links along the path. This document proposes the End-to-End
Bounded Jitter metric in PCEP to represent the difference between the
end-to-end upper bounded latency and the end-to-end lower bounded
latency along a deterministic path. The extensions for End-to-End
Bounded Jitter Metric are as following shown:
* T=TBD2: End-to-End Bounded Jitter Metric.
* The value of End-to-End Bounded Jitter Metric is the encoding in
units of microseconds with 32 bits.
* The B bit MUST be set to suggest a maximum bound for the end-to-
end jitter of deterministic path. The end-to-end jitter must be
less than or equal to the value.
A PCC MAY use the End-to-End Bounded Jitter metric in a PCReq message
to request a deterministic path meeting the end-to-end delay
variation requirement. A PCE MAY use the End-to-End Bounded Jitter
metric in a PCRep message along with a NO-PATH object in the case
where the PCE cannot compute a path meeting this constraint. A PCE
can also use this metric to send the computed end-to-end bounded
Jitter to the PCC.
3.2. LSP Object
The LSP Object is defined in Section 7.3 of [RFC8231]. This document
defines a new flag (D-flag) to present the deterministic path for the
LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV carried in LSP Object as defined in [RFC9357].
D (Request for Deterministic Path) : If the bit is set to 1, it
indicates that the PCC requests PCE to compute the deterministic
path. A PCE would also set this bit to 1 to indicate that the
deterministic path is included by PCE and encoded in the PCRep, PCUpd
or PCInitiate message.
3.3. Deterministic Path ERO Subobject
The ERO specified in [RFC5440] can be used to carry deterministic
path information. In order to carry deterministic latency
information, this document defines a new ERO subobject referred to as
the Deterministic Path ERO subobject (DP-ERO). An ERO carrying a
deterministic path consists of one or more ERO subobjects, and it
MUST carry DP-ERO subobjects.
Xiong, et al. Expires 24 April 2025 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for Bounded Latency October 2024
An DP-ERO subobject is formatted as shown in the following figure.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|L| Type=TBD3 | Length | Class | DLI Type |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// Deterministic Latency Information(variable, optional) //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: DP-ERO Subobject Format
L (1bit): The L bit is an attribute of the subobject. The L bit is
set if the subobject represents a loose hop in the explicit route.
If the bit is not set, the subobject represents a strict hop in the
explicit route.
Type (8bits): Set to TBD3.
Length (8bits): Contains the total length of the subobject in octets.
The Length MUST be at least 8 and MUST be a multiple of 4.
Class (8bits): indicates the deterministic forwarding class.
DLI Type (8bits): indicates the type of deterministic latency
information.
Deterministic Latency Information (variable): indicates the
corresponding deterministic latency parameters. The format depends
on the value in the DLI type and the following sections shows the
examples of the information.
3.3.1. Deadline Information
When the DLI Type is deadline-based queuing mechanisms, it should
carry deadline information for the DP-ERO subobject. For example,
the deadline-based queuing mechanism has been proposed in
[I-D.stein-srtsn] and [I-D.peng-detnet-deadline-based-forwarding].
The format of the deadline information is shown as following figure.
Xiong, et al. Expires 24 April 2025 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for Bounded Latency October 2024
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Deadline |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: Deadline Information
Deadline (32bits): indicates the deadline for a node to forward a
flow.
3.3.2. Cycle Information
When the DLI Type is cyclic-based queuing mechanisms, it should carry
cycle information for the DP-ERO subobject. For example, the cyclic-
based queuing mechanism has been proposed in [IEEE 802.1Qdv],
[I-D.dang-queuing-with-multiple-cyclic-buffers],
[I-D.eckert-detnet-tcqf] and
[I-D.chen-detnet-sr-based-bounded-latency]. The format of the cycle
information is shown as following figure.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Cycle Profile ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Cycle ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: Cycle Information
Cycle Profile ID (32bits): indicates the profile number which the
cyclic queue applied at a node.
Cycle ID (32bits): indicates the clycle number for a node to forward
a flow.
3.3.3. Timeslot Information
When the DLI Type is timeslot-based queuing mechanisms, it should
carry timeslot information for the DP-ERO subobject. For example,
the timeslot-based queuing mechanism has been proposed in
[I-D.peng-detnet-packet-timeslot-mechanism]. The format of the
timeslot information is shown as following figure.
Xiong, et al. Expires 24 April 2025 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for Bounded Latency October 2024
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Timeslot ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4: Timeslot Information
Timeslot ID (32bits): indicates the timeslot number for a node to
forward a flow.
3.3.4. Ratio Information
When the DLI Type is rate-based queuing mechanisms, it should carry
ratio information for the DP-ERO subobject. For example, the rate-
based queuing mechanism has been proposed in
[I-D.joung-detnet-stateless-fair-queuing], [IEEE802.1Qcr] and
[I-D.eckert-detnet-glbf]. The format of the ratio information is
shown as following figure.
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Maximum packet size |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Service rate |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 5: Ratio Information
Maximum packet size (32bits): indicates the maximum packet size which
the node should forward.
Service rate (32bits): indicates the service rate which the node
should forward.
3.3.5. Damper Information
When the DLI Type is damper-based queuing mechanisms, it should carry
damper information in the DP-ERO subobject. For example, the damper-
based queuing mechanism has been proposed in
[I-D.mohammadpour-detnet-bounded-delay-variation] and
[I-D.eckert-detnet-glbf]. The format of the damper information is
shown as following figure.
Xiong, et al. Expires 24 April 2025 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for Bounded Latency October 2024
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Budget delay |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 6: Damper Information
Budget delay (32bits): indicates the budget delay which the PCE
calculated for this deterministic path.
4. Operations
The PCE needs to collect the value of the delays and related
parameters by IGP, calculate the bounded latency, select a
deterministic path with a specific queuing mechanism which meet the
requirements and configure the related parameters to the PCC. And as
discussed in [I-D.ietf-detnet-dataplane-taxonomy], the end-to-end
bounded latency calculation includes the bounded delay and jitter.
The calculation of end-to-end bounded delay and jitter will differ in
each queuing solution. For example, the end-to-end jitter is 2 times
of the cycle ID when selecting cyclic-based queuing mechanism.
A PCC can request the computation of deterministic path and a PCE may
respond with PCRep message. And the deterministic path can also be
initiated by PCE with PCInitiate or PCUpd message in stateful PCE
mode. When the D bit in LSP object is set to 1 within the message,
it indicates to request the calculation of deterministic path. When
the bit is set in Metric object to indicate the End-to-End Bounded
Delay Metric, the PCE should calculate the end-to-end delay to select
the optimal deterministic path to meet the requirements. And when
the bit is set in Metric object to indicate the End-to-End Bounded
Jitter Metric, the PCE should calculate the end-to-end jitter. The
path being received by PCC encoded in DP-ERO, which carry the
deterministic latency information. And the PCC may insert the
deterministic latency information as the DetNet-specific metadata
into the packet headers to achieve the deterministic forwarding.
5. Security Considerations
Security considerations for DetNet are covered in the DetNet
architecture [RFC8655], DetNet security considerations [RFC9055] and
DetNet control plane [I-D.ietf-detnet-controller-plane-framework].
This document defines a new D bit and DP-ERO subobject for
deterministic path in PCEP, which do not introduce any new security
considerations beyond those already listed in [RFC5440],[RFC8231] and
[RFC9357].
Xiong, et al. Expires 24 April 2025 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for Bounded Latency October 2024
6. IANA Considerations
6.1. New Metric Types
This document defines two new metric type for the PCEP. IANA is
requested to allocate the following codepoint in the PCEP "METRIC
Object T Field" registry:
Value Description Reference
------ ------------------------------- -------------
TBD1 End-to-End Bounded Delay Metric This document
TBD2 End-to-End Bounded Jitter Metric This document
6.2. New LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG Flag Registry
[RFC9357] defines the LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV. IANA is requested to
make allocations from the Flag field registry, as follows:
Bit Description Reference
------ ------------------------------ -------------
D flag Request for Deterministic Path This document
6.3. New ERO Subobject
This document defines a new subobject type for the PCEP explicit
route object (ERO). The code points for subobject types of these
objects is maintained in the RSVP parameters registry, under the
EXPLICIT_ROUTE objects. IANA is requested to confirm the following
allocations in the RSVP Parameters registry for each of the new
subobject types defined in this document.
Object Subobject Subobject Type
-------------- --------------------- ---------------
EXPLICIT_ROUTE DP-ERO (PCEP-specific) TBD3
7. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Dhruv Dhody, Andrew Stone, Lou
Berger, Janos Farkas for their review, suggestions and comments to
this document.
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-detnet-controller-plane-framework]
Malis, A. G., Geng, X., Chen, M., Varga, B., and C. J.
Bernardos, "Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Controller
Xiong, et al. Expires 24 April 2025 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for Bounded Latency October 2024
Plane Framework", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
ietf-detnet-controller-plane-framework-07, 5 July 2024,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-detnet-
controller-plane-framework-07>.
[I-D.ietf-detnet-dataplane-taxonomy]
Joung, J., Geng, X., Peng, S., and T. T. Eckert,
"Dataplane Enhancement Taxonomy", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-detnet-dataplane-taxonomy-02,
20 October 2024, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
draft-ietf-detnet-dataplane-taxonomy-02>.
[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>.
[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>.
[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>.
[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>.
Xiong, et al. Expires 24 April 2025 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for Bounded Latency October 2024
[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>.
[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>.
8.2. Infomative References
[I-D.chen-detnet-sr-based-bounded-latency]
Chen, M., Geng, X., Li, Z., Joung, J., and J. Ryoo,
"Segment Routing (SR) Based Bounded Latency", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-chen-detnet-sr-based-
bounded-latency-03, 7 July 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-chen-detnet-
sr-based-bounded-latency-03>.
[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://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-dang-
queuing-with-multiple-cyclic-buffers-00>.
[I-D.eckert-detnet-glbf]
Eckert, T. T., Clemm, A., Bryant, S., and S. Hommes,
"Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Data Plane - guaranteed
Latency Based Forwarding (gLBF) for bounded latency with
low jitter and asynchronous forwarding in Deterministic
Networks", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-eckert-
detnet-glbf-03, 5 July 2024,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-eckert-
detnet-glbf-03>.
[I-D.eckert-detnet-tcqf]
Eckert, T. T., Li, Y., Bryant, S., Malis, A. G., Ryoo, J.,
Liu, P., Li, G., Ren, S., and F. Yang, "Deterministic
Networking (DetNet) Data Plane - Tagged Cyclic Queuing and
Forwarding (TCQF) for bounded latency with low jitter in
large scale DetNets", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
draft-eckert-detnet-tcqf-06, 5 July 2024,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-eckert-
detnet-tcqf-06>.
Xiong, et al. Expires 24 April 2025 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for Bounded Latency October 2024
[I-D.joung-detnet-stateless-fair-queuing]
Joung, J., Ryoo, J., Cheung, T., Li, Y., and P. Liu,
"Latency Guarantee with Stateless Fair Queuing", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-joung-detnet-stateless-
fair-queuing-03, 2 July 2024,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-joung-detnet-
stateless-fair-queuing-03>.
[I-D.mohammadpour-detnet-bounded-delay-variation]
Mohammadpour, E. and J. Le Boudec, "DetNet Bounded Packet-
Delay-Variation", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
mohammadpour-detnet-bounded-delay-variation-00, 10
September 2021, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
draft-mohammadpour-detnet-bounded-delay-variation-00>.
[I-D.peng-detnet-deadline-based-forwarding]
Peng, S., Du, Z., Basu, K., cheng, Yang, D., and C. Liu,
"Deadline Based Deterministic Forwarding", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-peng-detnet-deadline-
based-forwarding-12, 8 August 2024,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-peng-detnet-
deadline-based-forwarding-12>.
[I-D.peng-detnet-packet-timeslot-mechanism]
Peng, S., Liu, P., Basu, K., Liu, A., Yang, D., and G.
Peng, "Timeslot Queueing and Forwarding Mechanism", Work
in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-peng-detnet-packet-
timeslot-mechanism-09, 12 August 2024,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-peng-detnet-
packet-timeslot-mechanism-09>.
[I-D.peng-lsr-deterministic-traffic-engineering]
Peng, S., "IGP Extensions for Deterministic Traffic
Engineering", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
peng-lsr-deterministic-traffic-engineering-02, 24 June
2024, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-peng-
lsr-deterministic-traffic-engineering-02>.
[I-D.stein-srtsn]
Stein, Y. J., "Segment Routed Time Sensitive Networking",
Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-stein-srtsn-01, 29
August 2021, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-
stein-srtsn-01>.
Xiong, et al. Expires 24 April 2025 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for Bounded Latency October 2024
[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>.
[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>.
[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>.
Authors' Addresses
Quan Xiong (editor)
ZTE Corporation
China
Email: xiong.quan@zte.com.cn
Peng Liu
China Mobile
Beijing
China
Email: liupengyjy@chinamobile.com
Rakesh Gandhi
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Canada
Email: rgandhi@cisco.com
Xiong, et al. Expires 24 April 2025 [Page 14]