DetNet Enhanced Data Plane
draft-yzz-detnet-enhanced-data-plane-03
| Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (individual) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Xuesong Geng , Tianran Zhou , Li Zhang , Zongpeng Du | ||
| Last updated | 2023-10-23 | ||
| Replaces | draft-detnet-enhanced-data-plane | ||
| 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-yzz-detnet-enhanced-data-plane-03
DetNet X. Geng
Internet-Draft T. Zhou
Intended status: Standards Track L. Zhang
Expires: 25 April 2024 Huawei
Z. Du
China Mobile
23 October 2023
DetNet Enhanced Data Plane
draft-yzz-detnet-enhanced-data-plane-03
Abstract
Aiming at providing the bounded latency to DetNet services, DetNet
data plane is required to be enhanced. This document provides a
method to extend DetNet data plane by introducing the Bounded Latency
Information (BLI), which facilitates DetNet transit nodes to
guarantee the bounded latency transmission in data plane.
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 .
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 25 April 2024.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2023 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Geng, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft DetNet Enhanced Data Plane October 2023
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
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
2. Terminology and Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. Requirement Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Design of DetNet Enhanced Data Plane . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Category 1: Requirement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. Category 2: Resource . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Data Field of Bounded Latency Information . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Encapsulation of Bounded Latency Information . . . . . . . . 9
5.1. DetNet Data Plane of IP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.2. DetNet Data Plane of MPLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.3. DetNet Data Plane of MPLS over UDP/IP . . . . . . . . . . 12
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6.1. New Destination Options and Hop-by-Hop Options . . . . . 13
6.2. New Type of MPLS Extension Header . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6.3. New Subregistry of Bounded Latency Information Type . . . 14
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Appendix A. BLI Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
A.1. Cycle Based Algorithms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
A.2. Time Slot Based Algorithms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
A.3. Budget Based Algorithms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
A.4. Deadline Based Algorithms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
A.5. Priority Based Algorithms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
1. Introduction
DetNet [RFC8655] provides the capability to carry specified unicast
or multicast data flows with extremely low data loss rates and
bounded end-to-end latency within a network domain. Three primary
goals of DetNet QoS are defined in section 3.1 of [RFC8655]:
Geng, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft DetNet Enhanced Data Plane October 2023
* Minimum and maximum end-to-end latency from source to destination,
timely delivery, and bounded jitter (packet delay variation)
derived from these constraints.
* Packet loss ratio under various assumptions as to the operational
states of the nodes and links.
* An upper bound on out-of-order packet delivery. It is worth
noting that some DetNet applications are unable to tolerate any
out-of-order delivery.
To fulfill the goals of DetNet QoS, DetNet architecture [RFC8655]
defines a DetNet data plane protocol stack, which includes DetNet
forwarding and service sub-layers. Specifically, DetNet data plane
framework [RFC8938] specifies two metadata of flow identity and
sequence number to be encoded in data plane. Flow-ID is used for
identification of the flow or aggregate flow to decide the DetNet
traffic treatment and PREOF in both sub-layers. At the same time,
sequence number is only used for PREOF in service sub-layer.
For IP DetNet data plane, [RFC8939] specifies a method of using
6-tuple to identify DetNet flows. Management and control information
defined in DetNet YANG module [I-D.ietf-detnet-yang] is used to
select the forwarding outgoing interface and next hop. It is stated
that the allocation of system resources and provisioning of related
parameters is used for DetNet traffic treatment. However, [RFC8939]
doesn't further specify the related parameters used in data plane.
In [RFC8964], DetNet Control Word (d-CW), DetNet service label
(S-Label), and DetNet MPLS forwarding label(s) (F-Label) are defined
for the MPLS-based DetNet data plane encapsulation, where the first
two information is mainly used for the DetNet service sub-layer
functions, the last information is used for the DetNet forwarding
sub-layer functions. DetNet controller plane takes the
responsibility to provision both flow identification information and
the flow-specific resources needed to provide traffic treatment to
meet each flow's service requirements. There is no specification in
MPLS DetNet data plane to empower the packet treatment capabilities.
There are also other specifications of DetNet data planes such as
[RFC9023], [RFC9024], [RFC9025], [RFC9037], and [RFC9056]. These
documents specifies the DetNet data planes and interworking
technologies of one type of network operating over another sub-
network in order to extend the DetNet service range. However, these
documents do not introduce new procedure or process, but to follow
the specifications defined in [RFC8939] and [RFC8964].
Geng, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft DetNet Enhanced Data Plane October 2023
To meet the requirements for large-scale deterministic networks and
support the bounded latency objective specified in
[I-D.liu-detnet-large-scale-requirements], DetNet data plane is
required to be enhanced in the following aspects:
* Explicit inclusion of the metadata used for traffic treatment,
especially for bounded latency and jitter, when considering the
support of DetNet flows scalability in large scale DetNet networks
* Compatibility to different options of queuing, shaping, policing
or any other underlying network technologies, in order to provide
bounded latency
* Minimize the end-to-end delay difference of multiple forwarding
paths that are used for packet replication and elimination
* DetNet data plane processing of DetNet flow coexists with the non-
DetNet flows
This documents provides a method to extend DetNet data plane by
introducing Bounded Latency Information (BLI), which facilitates
DetNet transit nodes to guarantee the bounded latency transmission in
data plane. The resources include the QoS mechanisms, scheduling
mechanisms, or any other mechanisms from underlying network layer so
as to support bounded latency. This document also proposes a format
of bounded latency information and its encapsulations on DetNet data
planes.
2. Terminology and Conventions
2.1. Requirement Language
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.
2.2. Terminology
The abbreviations used in this document are:
BLI: Bounded Latency Information
PREOF: Packet Replication, Elimination, and Ordering Functions
Geng, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft DetNet Enhanced Data Plane October 2023
3. Design of DetNet Enhanced Data Plane
In order to support the enhanced traffic treatment functions, such as
bounded latency, DetNet data plane is enhanced by carrying a new
defined metadata information in DetNet service packets: Bounded
Latency Information (BLI).
DetNet uses either one or combination of QoS related and resource
allocation technologies to ensure the end-to-end bounded latency.
[I-D.ietf-detnet-bounded-latency] introduces a set of scheduling
mechanisms can be used to assure the bounded latency.
[I-D.stein-srtsn] uses a single stack data structure to provide a
unified approach to forwarding and deadline based scheduling. Noted
that in most scheduling process, an ancillary information is required
to be transmitted between DetNet nodes to facilitate local
scheduling. In this document, this ancillary information is named
bounded latency information. Bounded latency information is
transmitted across multiple DetNet transit nodes and used by the
DetNet forwarding sub-layer.
To cope with a variety of scheduling mechanisms and transfer
different information in a uniform format in data plane, the bounded
latency information is abstracted and classified into two categories:
requirement and resource.
3.1. Category 1: Requirement
Bounded latency information in the requirement category may include
the information like the end-to-end delay budget, local delay budget,
local deadline, delay variation budget, local delay variation budget
etc. For example, end-to-end delay budget describes the upper
bounded latency value of DetNet flow in network. Then DetNet node
may use this information to determine the packet priority or which
queue can be used to transmit this packet. Local delay budget is a
variation of end-to-end delay budget when multiple DetNet nodes may
have same or different delay budget time of each in DetNet network.
Deadline is straightforward to indicate how much time is left for
this packet to meet the upper bounded latency requirement. Similar
practice in 6LoWPANs is given by [RFC9034]. The usage of this
information is similar to the delay budget information when DetNet
node decides the priority or queue for the packet forwarding. Delay
variation [I-D.mohammadpour-detnet-bounded-delay-variation] is
another deterministic goal required by DetNet and should be
considered in scheduling process when it is required. Priority can
also be a type of requirement. DetNet application may assign its
priority by different meanings and formats, which may not be
equivalently fulfilled by existing QoS priority.
Geng, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft DetNet Enhanced Data Plane October 2023
3.2. Category 2: Resource
Bounded latency information in the resource category includes the
information like cycle ID, queue ID, and time slot ID etc. Since
cycles, queues, or time slots are the real resources can be allocated
for DetNet flow, they are named as the time resource ID. For
example, time resource ID can represent a cycle ID when cyclic
queuing mechanism is used on DetNet node. Time resource ID can also
represent a queue ID when queue based scheduling mechanism is locally
used on DetNet node. Time resource ID can represent a time slot ID
too, when a time slot based mechanism like [RFC9030] is used.
4. Data Field of Bounded Latency Information
This section introduces the data field of bounded latency information
in DetNet data plane. The format of the data field is shown as
follows.
+---------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| BLI Type | Format | Flag | Reserved |
+---------------+-------------+---------------------------+
| ~
~ Bounded Latency Information (variable size) ~
~ |
+---------------------------------------------------------+
Figure 1: Data Field of Bounded Latency Information
where:
* Bounded Latency Information Type: 8-bit identifier to represent
the type of bounded latency information. A new registry is
expected to be created and the value is assigned by IANA. Table 1
lists the value of BLI Type and the corresponding Bounded Latency
Information defined so far,
Geng, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft DetNet Enhanced Data Plane October 2023
+----------------+---------------------------------------+
| BLI Type Value | Bounded Latency Information |
+----------------+---------------------------------------+
| 0 | Reserved |
+----------------+---------------------------------------+
| 1 | Time resource ID |
+----------------+---------------------------------------+
| 2 | Priority |
+----------------+---------------------------------------+
| 3 | End-to-end delay budget |
+----------------+---------------------------------------+
| 4 | Local delay budget |
+----------------+---------------------------------------+
| 5 | End-to-end deadline |
+----------------+---------------------------------------+
| 6 | Local deadline |
+----------------+---------------------------------------+
| 7 | End-to-end delay variation budget |
+----------------+---------------------------------------+
| 8 | Local delay variation budget |
+----------------+---------------------------------------+
Table 1: Bounded Latency Information Type and Value
* Format: 8-bit value to indicate the format of bounded latency
information. For example, the format could be 16-bit unsigned
integer, 32-bit unsigned integer, PTP or NTP timestamp, and other
pre-configured formats. Table 2 lists the value of Format and the
corresponding Format defined so far,
+--------------+-------------------------+
| Format Value | Format |
+--------------+-------------------------+
| 1 | 32-bit unsigned Integer |
+--------------+-------------------------+
| 2 | 16-bit unsigned Integer |
+--------------+-------------------------+
| 3 | 8-bit unsigned Integer |
+--------------+-------------------------+
| 4 | PTP 80-bit Timestamp |
+--------------+-------------------------+
| 5 | PTP 64-bit Timestamp |
+--------------+-------------------------+
| 6 | NTP 64-bit Timestamp |
+--------------+-------------------------+
| 7 | NTP 32-bit Timestamp |
+--------------+-------------------------+
Geng, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft DetNet Enhanced Data Plane October 2023
Table 2: Format
Bounded Latency Information Type and Format are used together to
specify the type, length and format of the bounded latency
information.
Reserved: Reserved for future usage.
Time resource ID: the identifier to indicate the underlying
resources used for bounded latency. The format is 32-bit unsigned
integer.
Priority: QoS priority of the DetNet service packet. As six bits
of the Differentiated Services Field [RFC2474] are used as a
codepoint (DSCP), the format of priority is 8-bit unsigned
integer.
End-to-end delay budget: the end-to-end delay requirement of
DetNet service packet. The format is 32-bit unsigned Integer.
Local delay budget: the per hop delay requirement of DetNet
service packet on this network node. The format is 32-bit
unsigned Integer.
End-to-end deadline: the time when the packet must arrive at the
final destination or exit the DetNet network. This time is
usually the birth time plus the end-to-end delay budget. The
format is the timestamp with proper length.
Local deadline: the time when the packet must exit this network
node. The format is the timestamp with proper length.
End-to-end delay variation budget: the end-to-end delay variation
requirement of DetNet service packet. The format is 16-bit
unsigned Integer.
Local delay variation budget: the per hop delay variation
requirement of DetNet service packet on this network node. The
format is 16-bit unsigned Integer.
* Flags: 8 bits of flags. A new registry "Bounded Latency Flags" is
expected to be created. At the writing time, all flags are unused
and undefined.
Geng, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft DetNet Enhanced Data Plane October 2023
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|U U U U U U U U|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: Flag
* Reserved: Keeps zero when it is not specified.
* Bounded Latency Information: indicates the bounded latency
information used for local scheduling processing. Table 1 shows
the bounded latency information type and the corresponding values.
The bounded latency information is different depending on the type
of bounded latency information.
5. Encapsulation of Bounded Latency Information
BLI data field can be encapsulated in different DetNet data planes.
5.1. DetNet Data Plane of IP
For IPv6 based DetNet data plane, the data field of bounded latency
information is recommended to be carried in IPv6 Extension Header
Options, called Bounded Latency Information Option, 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 2
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Option Type | Opt Data Len |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| BLI Type | Format | Flag | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ~
~ Bounded Latency Information (variable size) ~
~ |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: Bounded Latency Information Option
* Option Type: 8-bit identifier of the type of option. Value TBD by
IANA; the highest-order 3 bits of this field is 001 to skip over
this option and continue processing the header if the processing
IPv6 node does not recognize the Option Type and to permit the
Option Data may change en route to the destination of packet.
Geng, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft DetNet Enhanced Data Plane October 2023
* Opt Data Len: 8-bit unsigned integer. Length of the Option Data
field of this option, in octets.
* For Bounded Latency Information data field, see section 4 for
details.
Bounded latency information data field is encapsulated in either IPv6
Hop-by-Hop Options header or IPv6 Destination Options header
depending on the processing happens at each hop or at the last hop.
More than one bounded latency information can appear in one Bounded
Latency Information Option. The Option Data Length and the Format
are used to locate every bounded latency information. The
encapsulation of Bounded Latency Information Option is shown in
Figure 4 and Figure 5.
+--------------------------------------+
| DetNet App-Flow |
| (Original IP) Packet |
+--------------------------------------+
| UDP/GRE/IPSec... Header |
+--------------------------------------+
| Other IPv6 EHs |
+--------------------------------------+
| IPv6 Hop-by-Hop Options Header |
| (Bounded Latency Information Option) |
+--------------------------------------+
| IPv6 Header |
+--------------------------------------+
| Data-Link |
+--------------------------------------+
| Physical |
+--------------------------------------+
Figure 4: Encapsulation of BLI Option in IPv6 Hop-by-Hop Options
Headers
Geng, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft DetNet Enhanced Data Plane October 2023
+--------------------------------------+
| DetNet App-Flow |
| (Original IP) Packet |
+--------------------------------------+
| UDP/GRE/IPSec... Header |
+--------------------------------------+
| IPv6 Destination Options Header |
| (Bounded Latency Information Option) |
+--------------------------------------+
| Other IPv6 EHs |
+--------------------------------------+
| IPv6 Header |
+--------------------------------------+
| Data-Link |
+--------------------------------------+
| Physical |
+--------------------------------------+
Figure 5: Encapsulation of BLI Option in IPv6 Destination Options
Headers
5.2. DetNet Data Plane of MPLS
An MPLS extension header is proposed in
[I-D.song-mpls-extension-header]. An MPLS Extension Header (EH)
encapsulated with the format of bounded latency information is called
Bounded Latency Information Extension Header (BLIEH) and shown in
Figure 6.
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 2
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| NH | HLEN | EXT | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| BLI Type | Format | Flag | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ~
~ Bounded Latency Information (variable size) ~
~ |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 6: Bounded Latency Information Extension Header
* NH: 8-bit indicator for the Next Header. This field identifies
the type of the EH immediately following this EH.
Geng, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft DetNet Enhanced Data Plane October 2023
* HLEN: 8-bit unsigned integer for the Extension Header Length in
4-octet units, not including the first 4 octets.
* EXT: 8-bit optional type extension.
The encapsulation of bounded latency information in MPLS extension
headers with MPLS label stack is shown in the following figure. More
than one BLI can be carried in one Bounded Latency Information
Extension Header (BLIEH).
0 31
+--------+--------+--------+--------+ \
| | |
~ MPLS Label Stack ~ |
| | |
+--------+--------+--------+--------+ |
| EH Indicator (TBD) | > MPLS Label Stack
+--------+--------+--------+--------+ | (extended with EHI)
| | |
~ MPLS Label Stack ~ |
| | |
+--------+--------+--------+--------+ <
| Header of Extension Headers (HEH) | |
+--------+--------+--------+--------+ |
| | > MPLS EH Fields
~ Extension Header (EH) with BLI ~ | (new)
| | |
+--------+--------+--------+--------+ <
| | |
~ Upper Layer Headers/Payload ~ > MPLS Payload
| | | (as is)
+--------+--------+--------+--------+ /
Figure 7: MPLS Encapsulation of Bounded Latency Information Extension
Header
5.3. DetNet Data Plane of MPLS over UDP/IP
This document describes a DetNet IP encapsulation that includes the
bounded latency information based on the DetNet MPLS over UDP/IP data
plane [RFC9025], i.e., leveraging the MPLS-over-UDP technology. The
bounded latency guarantee capable DetNet IP encapsulation builds on
encapsulating DetNet PW over an IP/UDP tunnel [RFC7510]. It is noted
that the format of MPLS Bounded Latency Extension Header (BLIEH)
after UDP header is the same with the format of MPLS Bounded Latency
Extension Header (BLIEH) defined in section 5.2, as well as without
using any MPLS forwarding labels. The encapsulation of bounded
Geng, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft DetNet Enhanced Data Plane October 2023
latency information in DetNet Data Plane of MPLS over UDP/IP is shown
in the following figure.
0 31
+----------------------------------+
| |
| DetNet App-Flow |
| (original IP) Packet |
| |
+----------------------------------+<--\
| | |
~ MPLS Bounded Latency Information ~ |
~ Extension Header (BLIEH) ~ |
| | |
+----------------------------------+ +--> Bounded latency support
| UDP/GRE/IPSec... Header | | DetNet IP data
+----------------------------------+ | plane encapsulation
| IP Header | |
+----------------------------------+<--/
| Data-Link |
+----------------------------------+
| Physical |
+----------------------------------+
Figure 8: IPv6 extension option of bounded latency
6. IANA Considerations
6.1. New Destination Options and Hop-by-Hop Options
IANA is requested to allocate a value of "Destination Options and
Hop-by-Hop Options" under "Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6)
Parameters" registry. The suggested value is:
+------+-----+-----+-------+---------------------+-----------+
| Hex | act | chg | rest | Description | Reference |
+------+-----+-----+-------+---------------------+-----------+
| TBD | 00 | 1 | TBD | BLI Option | This I-D |
+------+-----+-----+-------+---------------------+-----------+
Bounded Latency Information Option
Geng, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft DetNet Enhanced Data Plane October 2023
6.2. New Type of MPLS Extension Header
IANA is requested to allocate a 8-bit indicator for the Next Header
to the Bounded Latency Extension Header.
6.3. New Subregistry of Bounded Latency Information Type
IANA is requested to define a new subregistry of "Bounded Latency
Information Type" for the "Bounded Latency Information Option" under
"Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Parameters" registry.
This new subregistry will include the following registries:
+-----------------+---------------------------------+-----------+
| Suggested Value | Meaning | Reference |
+-----------------+---------------------------------+-----------+
| TBD | Reserved | This I-D |
+-----------------+---------------------------------+-----------+
| TBD | Time resource ID | This I-D |
+-----------------+---------------------------------+-----------+
| TBD | Priority | This I-D |
+-----------------+---------------------------------+-----------+
| TBD | End-to-end delay budget | This I-D |
+-----------------+---------------------------------+-----------+
| TBD | Local delay budget | This I-D |
+-----------------+---------------------------------+-----------+
| TBD | End-to-end deadline | This I-D |
+-----------------+---------------------------------+-----------+
| TBD | Local deadline | This I-D |
+-----------------+---------------------------------+-----------+
| TBD |End-to-end delay variation budget| This I-D |
+-----------------+---------------------------------+-----------+
| TBD | Local delay variation budget | This I-D |
+-----------------+---------------------------------+-----------+
Bounded Latency Information Type
7. Security Considerations
TBD
8. References
8.1. Normative References
Geng, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft DetNet Enhanced Data Plane October 2023
[I-D.ietf-detnet-bounded-latency]
Finn, N., Le Boudec, J., Mohammadpour, E., Zhang, J., and
B. Varga, "Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Bounded
Latency", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-
detnet-bounded-latency-10, 8 April 2022,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-detnet-
bounded-latency-10>.
[I-D.ietf-detnet-yang]
Geng, X., Ryoo, Y., Fedyk, D., Rahman, R., and Z. Li,
"Deterministic Networking (DetNet) YANG Model", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-detnet-yang-18, 10
July 2023, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-
ietf-detnet-yang-18>.
[I-D.liu-detnet-large-scale-requirements]
Liu, P., Li, Y., Eckert, T. T., Xiong, Q., Ryoo, J.,
zhushiyin, and X. Geng, "Requirements for Large-Scale
Deterministic Networks", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
draft-liu-detnet-large-scale-requirements-05, 20 October
2022, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-liu-
detnet-large-scale-requirements-05>.
[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.song-mpls-extension-header]
Song, H., Zhou, T., Andersson, L., Zhang, Z. J., and R.
Gandhi, "MPLS Network Actions using Post-Stack Extension
Headers", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-song-
mpls-extension-header-13, 11 October 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-song-mpls-
extension-header-13>.
[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>.
[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>.
Geng, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft DetNet Enhanced Data Plane October 2023
[RFC2474] Nichols, K., Blake, S., Baker, F., and D. Black,
"Definition of the Differentiated Services Field (DS
Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers", RFC 2474,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2474, December 1998,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2474>.
[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>.
[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>.
[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>.
[RFC9023] Varga, B., Ed., Farkas, J., Malis, A., and S. Bryant,
"Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Data Plane: IP over
IEEE 802.1 Time-Sensitive Networking (TSN)", RFC 9023,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9023, June 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9023>.
[RFC9024] Varga, B., Ed., Farkas, J., Malis, A., Bryant, S., and D.
Fedyk, "Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Data Plane: IEEE
802.1 Time-Sensitive Networking over MPLS", RFC 9024,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9024, June 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9024>.
[RFC9025] Varga, B., Ed., Farkas, J., Berger, L., Malis, A., and S.
Bryant, "Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Data Plane:
MPLS over UDP/IP", RFC 9025, DOI 10.17487/RFC9025, April
2021, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9025>.
Geng, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft DetNet Enhanced Data Plane October 2023
[RFC9030] 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>.
[RFC9034] Thomas, L., Anamalamudi, S., Anand, S.V.R., Hegde, M., and
C. Perkins, "Packet Delivery Deadline Time in the Routing
Header for IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area
Networks (6LoWPANs)", RFC 9034, DOI 10.17487/RFC9034, June
2021, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9034>.
[RFC9037] Varga, B., Ed., Farkas, J., Malis, A., and S. Bryant,
"Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Data Plane: MPLS over
IEEE 802.1 Time-Sensitive Networking (TSN)", RFC 9037,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9037, June 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9037>.
[RFC9056] Varga, B., Ed., Berger, L., Fedyk, D., Bryant, S., and J.
Korhonen, "Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Data Plane:
IP over MPLS", RFC 9056, DOI 10.17487/RFC9056, October
2021, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9056>.
8.2. Informative References
[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-07, 18 October 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-peng-detnet-
deadline-based-forwarding-07>.
[I-D.yizhou-detnet-ipv6-options-for-cqf-variant]
Li, Y., Ren, S., Li, G., Yang, F., Ryoo, J., and P. Liu,
"IPv6 Options for Cyclic Queuing and Forwarding Variants",
Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-yizhou-detnet-
ipv6-options-for-cqf-variant-02, 26 April 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-yizhou-
detnet-ipv6-options-for-cqf-variant-02>.
Appendix A. BLI Examples
The following examples are provided to give instructions on how
Bounded Latency Information is used when network node implements
different algorithms to guarantee the bounded latency transmission.
Geng, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft DetNet Enhanced Data Plane October 2023
A.1. Cycle Based Algorithms
When network node implements cycle based algorithms for example
[I-D.yizhou-detnet-ipv6-options-for-cqf-variant] , cycles are the
local resources used to guarantee the bounded latency transmission.
Cycle ID is expected to be carried in data plane. Thus, the data
field of BLI is suggested as follows:
+---------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+
| BLI Type (=1) | Format(=1) | Flag | Reserved |
+---------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+
| Cycle ID |
+------------------------------------------------------------+
Figure A.1: Data Field of BLI Used With Cycle Based Algorithms
A.2. Time Slot Based Algorithms
When network node implements time slot based algorithms, time slots
are the local resources used to guarantee the bounded latency
transmission. Time Slot ID is expected to be carried in data plane.
Thus, the data field of BLI is suggested as follows:
+---------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+
| BLI Type (=1) | Format(=1) | Flag | Reserved |
+---------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+
| Time Slot ID |
+------------------------------------------------------------+
Figure A.2: Data Field of BLI Used With Time Slot Based Algorithms
A.3. Budget Based Algorithms
When network node implements the budget based algorithms to provide
bounded latency transmission, end to end or per hop delay budget or
delay variation budget information is the requirement proposed from
the services and expected to be carried in data plane. The data
fields of BLI used with delay budget based algorithms are suggested
as follows:
+---------------+---------------+---------------+--------------+
| BLI Type(=3/4)| Format(=1) | Flag | Reserved |
+---------------+---------------+---------------+--------------+
| E2E/Local Delay Budget |
+--------------------------------------------------------------+
Geng, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft DetNet Enhanced Data Plane October 2023
Figure A.3: Data Field of BLI Used With Delay Budget Based Algorithms
The data fields of BLI used with delay variation budget based
algorithms are suggested as follows:
+---------------+----------------+---------------+---------------+
| BLI Type(=7/8)| Format(=2) | Flag | Reserved |
+---------------+----------------+---------------+---------------+
|E2E/Local Delay Variation Budget|
+--------------------------------+
Figure A.4: Data Field of BLI Used With Delay Variation Budget Based
Algorithms
A.4. Deadline Based Algorithms
When network node implements deadline based algorithms like EDF,
Deadine forwarding [I-D.peng-detnet-deadline-based-forwarding] to
provide bounded latency transmission, end to end or per hop packet
deadline is the requirement proposed from the services and expected
to be carried in data plane. The data fields of BLI used with
deadline based algorithms are suggested as follows:
+---------------+---------------+---------------+--------------+
| BLI Type(=5/6)| Format(=5) | Flag | Reserved |
+---------------+---------------+---------------+--------------+
| E2E/Local Deadline |
| |
+--------------------------------------------------------------+
Figure A.5: Data Field of BLI Used With Deadline Based Algorithms
A.5. Priority Based Algorithms
When network node implements priority based algorithms, priority is
the requirement proposed from the services. Priority ID is expected
to be carried in data plane. The data field of BLI is suggested as
follows:
Geng, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft DetNet Enhanced Data Plane October 2023
+---------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+
| BLI Type (=2) | Format(=3) | Flag | Reserved |
+---------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+
| Priority ID |
+---------------+
Figure A.6: Data Field of BLI Used With Priority Based Algorithms
Authors' Addresses
Xuesong Geng
Huawei
156 Beiqing Rd.
Beijing
100095
China
Email: gengxuesong@huawei.com
Tianran Zhou
Huawei
156 Beiqing Rd.
Beijing
100095
China
Email: zhoutianran@huawei.com
Li Zhang
Huawei
156 Beiqing Rd.
Beijing
100095
China
Email: zhangli344@huawei.com
Zongpeng Du
China Mobile
No.32 XuanWuMen West Street
Beijing
100053
China
Email: duzongpeng@foxmail.com
Geng, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 20]