DetNet J. Korhonen, Ed.
Internet-Draft
Intended status: Standards Track B. Varga, Ed.
Expires: September 11, 2019 Ericsson
March 10, 2019
DetNet IP Data Plane Encapsulation
draft-ietf-detnet-dp-sol-ip-02
Abstract
This document specifies the Deterministic Networking data plane when
operating in an IP packet switched network.
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 September 11, 2019.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 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 extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Korhonen & Varga Expires September 11, 2019 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft DetNet IP Data Plane March 2019
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Terms Used In This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.3. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. DetNet IP Data Plane Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. DetNet IP Data Plane Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1. End-System Specific Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.2. DetNet Domain-Specific Considerations . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2.1. DetNet Routers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.3. Networks With Multiple Technology Segments . . . . . . . 11
4.4. OAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.5. Class of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.6. Quality of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.7. Cross-DetNet Flow Resource Aggregation . . . . . . . . . 14
4.8. Time Synchronization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5. Management and Control Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5.1. Flow Identification and Aggregation . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5.2. Explcit Routes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
5.3. Contention Loss and Jitter Reduction . . . . . . . . . . 16
5.4. Bidirectional Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5.5. DetNet Controller (Control and Management) Plane
Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
6. DetNet IP Data Plane Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
6.1. DetNet IP Flow Identification Procedures . . . . . . . . 19
6.1.1. IP Header Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
6.1.2. Other Protocol Header Information . . . . . . . . . . 21
6.1.3. Flow Identification Management and Control
Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
6.2. Forwarding Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
6.3. DetNet IP Traffic Treatment Procedures . . . . . . . . . 23
6.4. Aggregation Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
7. IP over DetNet MPLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
7.1. IP Over DetNet MPLS Data Plane Scenarios . . . . . . . . 24
7.2. DetNet IP over DetNet MPLS Encapsulation . . . . . . . . 27
7.3. DetNet IP over DetNet MPLS Flow Identification
Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
7.4. DetNet IP over DetNet MPLS Traffic Treatment Procedures . 29
8. Mapping DetNet IP Flows to IEEE 802.1 TSN . . . . . . . . . . 29
8.1. TSN Stream ID Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
8.2. TSN Usage of FRER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
8.3. Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
8.4. Management and Control Implications . . . . . . . . . . . 34
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
11. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Korhonen & Varga Expires September 11, 2019 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft DetNet IP Data Plane March 2019
12. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
13.1. Normative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
13.2. Informative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Appendix A. Example of DetNet Data Plane Operation . . . . . . . 43
Appendix B. Example of Pinned Paths Using IPv6 . . . . . . . . . 43
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
1. Introduction
Deterministic Networking (DetNet) is a service that can be offered by
a network to DetNet flows. DetNet provides these flows extremely low
packet loss rates and assured maximum end-to-end delivery latency.
General background and concepts of DetNet can be found in the DetNet
Architecture [I-D.ietf-detnet-architecture].
This document specifies the DetNet data plane operation for IP hosts
and routers that provide DetNet service to IP encapsulated data. No
DetNet specific encapsulation is defined to support IP flows, rather
existing IP and higher layer protocol header information is used to
support flow identification and DetNet service delivery.
The DetNet Architecture decomposes the DetNet related data plane
functions into two sub-layers: a service sub-layer and a forwarding
sub-layer. The service sub-layer is used to provide DetNet service
protection and reordering. The forwarding sub-layer is used to
provides congestion protection (low loss, assured latency, and
limited reordering). As no DetNet specific headers are added to
support DetNet IP flows, only the forwarding sub-layer functions are
supported using the DetNet IP defined by this document. Service
protection can be provided on a per sub-net basis using technologies
such as MPLS [I-D.ietf-detnet-dp-sol-mpls] and IEEE802.1 TSN.
This document provides an overview of the DetNet IP data plane in
Section 3, considerations that apply to providing DetNet services via
the DetNet IP data plane in Section 4 and Section 5. Section 6
provides the procedures for hosts and routers that support IP-based
DetNet services. Finally, Section 8 provides rules for mapping IP-
based DetNet flows to IEEE 802.1 TSN streams.
2. Terminology
2.1. Terms Used In This Document
This document uses the terminology and concepts established in the
DetNet architecture [I-D.ietf-detnet-architecture], and the reader is
assumed to be familiar with that document and its terminology.
Korhonen & Varga Expires September 11, 2019 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft DetNet IP Data Plane March 2019
2.2. Abbreviations
The following abbreviations used in this document:
CE Customer Edge equipment.
CoS Class of Service.
DetNet Deterministic Networking.
DF DetNet Flow.
L2 Layer-2.
L3 Layer-3.
LSP Label-switched path.
MPLS Multiprotocol Label Switching.
OAM Operations, Administration, and Maintenance.
PE Provider Edge.
PREOF Packet Replication, Ordering and Elimination Function.
PSN Packet Switched Network.
PW Pseudowire.
QoS Quality of Service.
TE Traffic Engineering.
TSN Time-Sensitive Networking, TSN is a Task Group of the
IEEE 802.1 Working Group.
2.3. Requirements 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.
Korhonen & Varga Expires September 11, 2019 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft DetNet IP Data Plane March 2019
3. DetNet IP Data Plane Overview
This document describes how IP is used by DetNet nodes, i.e., hosts
and routers, to identify DetNet flows and provide a DetNet service.
From a data plane perspective, an end-to-end IP model is followed.
As mentioned above, existing IP and higher layer protocol header
information is used to support flow identification and DetNet service
delivery.
DetNet uses "6-tuple" based flow identification, where "6-tuple"
refers to information carried in IP and higher layer protocol
headers. General background on the use of IP headers, and
"5-tuples", to identify flows and support Quality of Service (QoS)
can be found in [RFC3670]. [RFC7657] also provides useful background
on the delivery differentiated services (DiffServ) and "6-tuple"
based flow identification.
DetNet flow aggregation may be enabled via the use of wildcards,
masks, prefixes and ranges. IP tunnels may also be used to support
flow aggregation. In these cases, it is expected that DetNet aware
intermediate nodes will provide DetNet service assurance on the
aggregate through resource allocation and congestion control
mechanisms.
DetNet IP Relay Relay DetNet IP
End System Node Node End System
+----------+ +----------+
| Appl. |<------------ End to End Service ----------->| Appl. |
+----------+ ............ ........... +----------+
| Service |<-: Service :-- DetNet flow --: Service :->| Service |
+----------+ +----------+ +----------+ +----------+
|Forwarding| |Forwarding| |Forwarding| |Forwarding|
+--------.-+ +-.------.-+ +-.---.----+ +-------.--+
: Link : \ ,-----. / \ ,-----. /
+......+ +----[ Sub ]----+ +-[ Sub ]-+
[Network] [Network]
`-----' `-----'
|<--------------------- DetNet IP --------------------->|
Figure 1: A Simple DetNet (DN) Enabled IP Network
Figure 1 illustrates a DetNet enabled IP network. The DetNet enabled
end systems originate IP encapsulated traffic that is identified as
DetNet flows, relay nodes understand the forwarding requirements of
the DetNet flow and ensure that node, interface and sub-network
resources are allocated to ensure DetNet service requirements. The
Korhonen & Varga Expires September 11, 2019 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft DetNet IP Data Plane March 2019
dotted line around the Service component of the Relay Nodes indicates
that the transit routers are DetNet service aware but do not perform
any DetNet service sub-layer function, e.g., PREOF. IEEE 802.1 TSN
is an example sub-network type which can provide support for DetNet
flows and service. The mapping of DetNet IP flows to TSN streams and
TSN protection mechanisms is covered in Section 8.
Note: The sub-network can represent a TSN, MPLS or IP network
segment.
DetNet IP Relay Transit Relay DetNet IP
End System Node Node Node End System
+----------+ +----------+
| Appl. |<-------------- End to End Service ---------->| Appl. |
+----------+ .....-----+ +-----..... +----------+
| Service |<--: Service |-- DetNet flow ---| Service :-->| Service |
| | : |<- DN MPLS flow ->| : | |
+----------+ +---------+ +----------+ +---------+ +----------+
|Forwarding| |Fwd| |Fwd| |Forwarding| |Fwd| |Fwd| |Forwarding|
+--------.-+ +-.-+ +-.-+ +---.----.-+ +-.-+ +-.-+ +----.-----+
: Link : / ,-----. \ : Link : / ,-----. \
+.......+ +-[ Sub ]-+ +.......+ +--[ Sub ]--+
[Network] [Network]
`-----' `-----'
|<---- DetNet MPLS --->|
|<--------------------- DetNet IP ------------------->|
Figure 2: DetNet IP Over DetNet MPLS Network
Figure 2 illustrates a variant of Figure 1, with an MPLS based DetNet
network as a sub-network between the relay nodes. It shows a more
complex DetNet enabled IP network where an IP flow is mapped to one
or more PWs and MPLS (TE) LSPs. The end systems still originate IP
encapsulated traffic that is identified as DetNet flows. The relay
nodes follow procedures defined in Section 7 to map each DetNet flow
to MPLS LSPs. While not shown, relay nodes can provide service sub-
layer functions such as PREOF using DetNet over MPLS, and this is
indicated by the solid line for the MPLS facing portion of the
Service component. Note that the Transit node is MPLS (TE) LSP aware
and performs switching based on MPLS labels, and need not have any
specific knowledge of the DetNet service or the corresponding DetNet
flow identification. See Section 7 for details on the mapping of IP
flows to MPLS, and [I-D.ietf-detnet-dp-sol-mpls] for general support
of DetNet services using MPLS.
Korhonen & Varga Expires September 11, 2019 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft DetNet IP Data Plane March 2019
IP Edge Edge IP
End System Node Node End System
+----------+ +.........+ +.........+ +----------+
| Appl. |<--:Svc Proxy:-- E2E Service ---:Svc Proxy:-->| Appl. |
+----------+ +.........+ +.........+ +----------+
| IP |<--:IP : :Svc:----- IP flow ----:Svc: :IP :-->| IP |
+----------+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +----------+
|Forwarding| |Fwd| |Fwd| |Fwd| |Fwd| |Forwarding|
+--------.-+ +-.-+ +-.-+ +-.-+ +-.-+ +---.------+
: Link : \ ,-----. / / ,-----. \
+.......+ +-----[ Sub ]----+ +--[ Sub ]--+
[Network] [Network]
`-----' `-----'
|<--- IP --->| |<------ DetNet IP ------->| |<--- IP --->|
Figure 3: Non-DetNet aware IP end systems with DetNet IP Domain
Figure 3 illustrates another variant of Figure 1 where the end
systems are not DetNet aware. In this case, edge nodes sit at the
boundary of the DetNet domain and provide DetNet service proxies for
the end applications by initiating and terminating DetNet service for
the application's IP flows. The existing header information or an
approach such as described in Section 4.7 can be used to support
DetNet flow identification.
Non-DetNet and DetNet IP packets are identical on the wire. From
data plane perspective, the only difference is that there is flow-
associated DetNet information on each DetNet node that defines the
flow related characteristics and required forwarding behavior. As
shown above, edge nodes provide a Service Proxy function that
"associates" one or more IP flows with the appropriate DetNet flow-
specific information and ensures that the receives the proper traffic
treatment within the domain.
Note: The operation of IEEE802.1 TSN end systems over DetNet enabled
IP networks is not described in this document. While TSN flows could
be encapsulated in IP packets by an IP End System or DetNet Edge Node
in order to produce DetNet IP flows, the details of such are out of
scope of this document.
4. DetNet IP Data Plane Considerations
This section provides informative considerations related to providing
DetNet service to flows which are identified based on their header
information. At a high level, the following are provided on a per
flow basis:
Korhonen & Varga Expires September 11, 2019 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft DetNet IP Data Plane March 2019
Congestion protection and latency control:
Usage of allocated resources (queuing, policing, shaping) to
ensure that the congestion-related loss and latency/jitter
requirements of a DetNet flow are met.
Explicit routes:
Use of a specific path for a flow. This limits misordering and
can improve delivery of deterministic latency.
Service protection:
Which in the case of this document translates to changing the
explicit path after a failure is detected in order to restore
delivery of the required DetNet service characteristics. Path
changes, even in the case of failure recovery, can lead to the out
of order delivery of data.
Note: DetNet PREOF is not provided by the mechanisms defined in
this document.
Load sharing:
Generally, distributing packets of the same DetNet flow over
multiple paths is not recommended. Such load sharing, e.g., via
ECMP or UCMP, impacts ordering and end-to-end jitter.
Troubleshooting:
For example, to support identification of misbehaving flows.
Recognize flow(s) for analytics:
For example, increase counters.
Correlate events with flows:
For example, unexpected loss.
4.1. End-System Specific Considerations
Data-flows requiring DetNet service are generated and terminated on
end systems. This document deals only with IP end systems. The
protocols used by an IP end system are specific to an application and
end systems peer with end systems using the same application
encapsulation format. This said, DetNet's use of 6-tuple IP flow
identification means that DetNet must be aware of not only the format
Korhonen & Varga Expires September 11, 2019 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft DetNet IP Data Plane March 2019
of the IP header, but also of the next protocol carried within an IP
packet.
When IP end systems are DetNet aware, no application-level or
service-level proxy functions are needed inside the DetNet domain.
For DetNet unaware IP end systems service-level proxy functions are
needed inside the DetNet domain.
End systems need to ensure that DetNet service requirements are met
when processing packets associated with a DetNet flow. When
forwarding packets, this means that packets are appropriately shaped
on transmission and received appropriate traffic treatment on the
connected sub-network, see Section 4.6 and Section 4.2.1 for more
details. When receiving packets, this means that there are
appropriate local node resources, e.g., buffers, to receive and
process a DetNet flow packets.
4.2. DetNet Domain-Specific Considerations
As a general rule, DetNet IP domains need to be able to forward any
DetNet flow identified by the IP 6-tuple. Doing otherwise would
limit end system encapsulation format. From a practical standpoint
this means that all nodes along the end-to-end path of a DetNet flows
need to agree on what fields are used for flow identification, and
the transport protocols (e.g., TCP/UDP/IPsec) which can be used to
identify 6-tuple protocol ports.
From a connection type perspective two scenarios are identified:
1. DN attached: end system is directly connected to an edge node or
end system is behind a sub-network. (See ES1 and ES2 in figure
below)
2. DN integrated: end system is part of the DetNet domain. (See ES3
in figure below)
L3 (IP) end systems may use any of these connection types. DetNet
domain allows communication between any end-systems using the same
encapsulation format, independent of their connection type and DetNet
capability. DN attached end systems have no knowledge about the
DetNet domain and its encapsulation format. See Figure 4 for L3 end
system connection scenarios.
Korhonen & Varga Expires September 11, 2019 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft DetNet IP Data Plane March 2019
____+----+
+----+ _____ / | ES3|
| ES1|____ / \__/ +----+___
+----+ \ / \
+ |
____ \ _/
+----+ __/ \ +__ DetNet domain /
| ES2|____/ L2/L3 |___/ \ __ __/
+----+ \_______/ \_______/ \___/
Figure 4: Connection types of L3 end systems
4.2.1. DetNet Routers
Within a DetNet domain, the DetNet enabled IP Routers interconnect
links and sub-networks to support end-to-end delivery of DetNet
flows. From a DetNet architecture perspective, these routers are
DetNet relays, as they must be DetNet service aware. Such routers
identify DetNet flows based on the IP 6-tuple, and ensure that the
DetNet service required traffic treatment is provided both on the
node and on any attached sub-network.
This solution provides DetNet functions end to end, but does so on a
per link and sub-network basis. Congestion protection and latency
control and the resource allocation (queuing, policing, shaping) are
supported using the underlying link / sub net specific mechanisms.
However, service protections (packet replication and packet
elimination functions) are not provided at the DetNet layer end to
end. But such service protection can be provided on a per underlying
L2 link and sub-network basis.
+------+ +------+
| X | | X |
+======+ +------+
End-system | IP | | IP |
-----+------+-------+======+--- --+======+--
DetNet |L2/SbN| |L2/SbN|
+------+ +------+
Figure 5: Encapsulation of DetNet Routing in simplified IP service L3
end-systems
The DetNet Service Flow is mapped to the link / sub-network specific
resources using an underlying system specific means. This implies
each DetNet aware node on path looks into the forwarded DetNet
Korhonen & Varga Expires September 11, 2019 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft DetNet IP Data Plane March 2019
Service Flow packet and utilize e.g., a 5- (or 6-) tuple to find out
the required mapping within a node.
As noted earlier, the Service Protection is done within each link /
sub-network independently using the domain specific mechanisms (due
the lack of a unified end to end sequencing information that would be
available for intermediate nodes). Therefore, service protection (if
any) cannot be provided end-to-end, only within sub-networks. This
is shown for a three sub-network scenario in Figure 6, where each
sub-network can provide service protection between its borders.
______
____ / \__
____ / \__/ \___ ______
+----+ __/ +====+ +==+ \ +----+
|src |__/ SubN1 ) | | \ SubN3 \____| dst|
+----+ \_______/ \ Sub-Network2 | \______/ +----+
\_ _/
\ __ __/
\_______/ \___/
+---+ +---------E--------+ +-----+
+----+ | | | | | | | +----+
|src |----R E--------R +---+ E------R E------+ dst|
+----+ | | | | | | | +----+
+---+ +-----R------------+ +-----+
Figure 6: Replication and elimination in sub-networks for DetNet IP
networks
If end to end service protection is desired that can be implemented,
for example, by the DetNet end systems using Layer-4 (L4) transport
protocols or application protocols. However, these are out of scope
of this document.
4.3. Networks With Multiple Technology Segments
There are network scenarios, where the DetNet domain contains
multiple technology segments (IEEE 802.1 TSN, MPLS) and all those
segments are under the same administrative control (see Figure 7).
Furthermore, DetNet nodes may be interconnected via TSN segments.
DetNet routers ensure that detnet service requirements are met per
hop by allocating local resources, both receive and transmit, and by
mapping the service requirements of each flow to appropriate sub-
Korhonen & Varga Expires September 11, 2019 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft DetNet IP Data Plane March 2019
network mechanisms. Such mapping is sub-network technology specific.
The mapping of DetNet IP Flows to MPLS is covered Section 7. The
mapping of IP DetNet Flows to IEEE 802.1 TSN is covered in Section 8.
______
_____ / \__
____ / \__/ \___ ______
+----+ __/ +======+ +==+ \ +----+
|src |__/ Seg1 ) | | \ Seg3 \__| dst|
+----+ \_______+ \ Segment-2 | \+_____/ +----+
\======+__ _+===/
\ __ __/
\_______/ \___/
Figure 7: DetNet domains and multiple technology segments
4.4. OAM
[Editor's note: This section is TBD. OAM may be dropped from this
document and left for future study.]
4.5. Class of Service
Class and quality of service, i.e., CoS and QoS, are terms that are
often used interchangeably and confused. In the context of DetNet,
CoS is used to refer to mechanisms that provide traffic forwarding
treatment based on aggregate group basis and QoS is used to refer to
mechanisms that provide traffic forwarding treatment based on a
specific DetNet flow basis. Examples of existing network level CoS
mechanisms include DiffServ which is enabled by IP header
differentiated services code point (DSCP) field [RFC2474] and MPLS
label traffic class field [RFC5462], and at Layer-2, by IEEE 802.1p
priority code point (PCP).
CoS for DetNet flows carried in IPv6 is provided using the standard
differentiated services code point (DSCP) field [RFC2474] and related
mechanisms. The 2-bit explicit congestion notification (ECN)
[RFC3168] field MAY also be used.
One additional consideration for DetNet nodes which support CoS
services is that they MUST ensure that the CoS service classes do not
impact the congestion protection and latency control mechanisms used
to provide DetNet QoS. This requirement is similar to requirement
for MPLS LSRs to that CoS LSPs do not impact the resources allocated
to TE LSPs via [RFC3473].
Korhonen & Varga Expires September 11, 2019 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft DetNet IP Data Plane March 2019
4.6. Quality of Service
Quality of Service (QoS) mechanisms for flow-specific traffic
treatment typically includes a guarantee/agreement for the service,
and allocation of resources to support the service. Example QoS
mechanisms include discrete resource allocation, admission control,
flow identification and isolation, and sometimes path control,
traffic protection, shaping, policing and remarking. Example
protocols that support QoS control include Resource ReSerVation
Protocol (RSVP) [RFC2205] (RSVP) and RSVP-TE [RFC3209] and [RFC3473].
The existing MPLS mechanisms defined to support CoS [RFC3270] can
also be used to reserve resources for specific traffic classes.
In addition to explicit routes, and packet replication and
elimination, DetNet provides zero congestion loss and bounded latency
and jitter. As described in [I-D.ietf-detnet-architecture], there
are different mechanisms that maybe used separately or in combination
to deliver a zero congestion loss service. These mechanisms are
provided by the either the MPLS or IP layers, and may be combined
with the mechanisms defined by the underlying network layer such as
802.1TSN.
A baseline set of QoS capabilities for DetNet flows carried in PWs
and MPLS can provided by MPLS with Traffic Engineering (MPLS-TE)
[RFC3209] and [RFC3473]. TE LSPs can also support explicit routes
(path pinning). Current service definitions for packet TE LSPs can
be found in "Specification of the Controlled Load Quality of
Service", [RFC2211], "Specification of Guaranteed Quality of
Service", [RFC2212], and "Ethernet Traffic Parameters", [RFC6003].
Additional service definitions are expected in future documents to
support the full range of DetNet services. In all cases, the
existing label-based marking mechanisms defined for TE-LSPs and even
E-LSPs are use to support the identification of flows requiring
DetNet QoS.
QoS for DetNet service flows carried in IP MUST be provided locally
by the DetNet-aware hosts and routers supporting DetNet flows. Such
support will leverage the underlying network layer such as 802.1TSN.
The traffic control mechanisms used to deliver QoS for IP
encapsulated DetNet flows are expected to be defined in a future
document. From an encapsulation perspective, the combination of the
"6 tuple" i.e., the typical 5 tuple enhanced with the DSCP code,
uniquely identifies a DetNet service flow.
Packets that are marked with a DetNet Class of Service value, but
that have not been the subject of a completed reservation, can
disrupt the QoS offered to properly reserved DetNet flows by using
Korhonen & Varga Expires September 11, 2019 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft DetNet IP Data Plane March 2019
resources allocated to the reserved flows. Therefore, the network
nodes of a DetNet network must:
o Defend the DetNet QoS by discarding or remarking (to a non-DetNet
CoS) packets received that are not the subject of a completed
reservation.
o Not use a DetNet reserved resource, e.g. a queue or shaper
reserved for DetNet flows, for any packet that does not carry a
DetNet Class of Service marker.
4.7. Cross-DetNet Flow Resource Aggregation
The ability to aggregate individual flows, and their associated
resource control, into a larger aggregate is an important technique
for improving scaling of control in the data, management and control
planes. This document identifies the traffic identification related
aspects of aggregation of DetNet flows. The resource control and
management aspects of aggregation (including the queuing/shaping/
policing implications) will be covered in other documents. The data
plane implications of aggregation are independent for PW/MPLS and IP
encapsulated DetNet flows.
DetNet flows forwarded via IP have more limited aggregation options,
due to the available traffic flow identification fields of the IP
solution. One available approach is to manage the resources
associated with a DSCP identified traffic class and to map (remark)
individually controlled DetNet flows onto that traffic class. This
approach also requires that nodes support aggregation ensure that
traffic from aggregated LSPs are placed (shaped/policed/enqueued) in
a fashion that ensures the required DetNet service is preserved.
In both the MPLS and IP cases, additional details of the traffic
control capabilities needed at a DetNet-aware node may be covered in
the new service descriptions mentioned above or in separate future
documents. Management and control plane mechanisms will also need to
ensure that the service required on the aggregate flow (H-LSP or
DSCP) are provided, which may include the discarding or remarking
mentioned in the previous sections.
4.8. Time Synchronization
While time synchronization can be important both from the perspective
of operating the DetNet network itself and from the perspective of
DetNet-based applications, time synchronization is outside the scope
of this document. This said, a DetNet node can also support time
synchronization or distribution mechanisms.
Korhonen & Varga Expires September 11, 2019 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft DetNet IP Data Plane March 2019
For example, [RFC8169] describes a method of recording the packet
queuing time in an MPLS LSR on a packet by per packet basis and
forwarding this information to the egress edge system. This allows
compensation for any variable packet queuing delay to be applied at
the packet receiver. Other mechanisms for IP networks are defined
based on IEEE Standard 1588 [IEEE1588], such as ITU-T [G.8275.1] and
[G.8275.2].
A more detailed discussion of time synchronization is outside the
scope of this document.
5. Management and Control Considerations
While management plane and control planes are traditionally
considered separately, from the Data Plane perspective there is no
practical difference based on the origin of flow provisioning
information, and the DetNet architecture
[I-D.ietf-detnet-architecture] refers to these collectively as the
'Controller Plane'. This document therefore does not distinguish
between information provided by distributed control plane protocols,
e.g., IGP routing protocols, or by centralized network management
mechanisms, e.g., RestConf [RFC8040], YANG [RFC7950], and the Path
Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) [RFC8283]
[I-D.ietf-teas-pce-native-ip] or any combination thereof. Specific
considerations and requirements for the DetNet Controller Plane are
discussed in Section 5.5.
5.1. Flow Identification and Aggregation
Section 3 introduces the use of the IP "6-tuple" for flow
identification, and Section 4.6 goes on to discuss how identified
flows use specific QoS mechanisms for flow-specific traffic
treatment, including path control and resource allocation.
Section 6.1 contains detailed DetNet IP flow identification
procedures. Flow identification will play an important role for the
DetNet controller plane.
Section 4.7 and Section 6.4 discuss the use of flow aggregation in
DetNet. Flow aggregation can be accomplished using any of the
6-tuple fields defined in Section 6.1, using a DSCP identified
traffic class or other field. It will be the responsibility of the
DetNet controller plane to be able to properly provision the use of
these aggregation mechanisms. These requirements are included in
Section 5.5.
Korhonen & Varga Expires September 11, 2019 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft DetNet IP Data Plane March 2019
5.2. Explcit Routes
Explicit routes are used to ensure that packets are routed through
the resources that have been reserved for them, and hence provide the
DetNet application with the required service. A requirement for the
DetNet Controller Plane will be the ability to assign a particular
identified DetNet IP flow to a path through the DetNet domain that
has been assigned the required nodal resources to provide the
appropriate traffic treatment for the flow, and also to include
particular links as a part of the path that are able to support the
DetNet flow, for example by using IEEE 802.1 TSN links (as discussed
in Section 8). Further considerations and requirements for the
DetNet Controller Plane are discussed in Section 5.5.
Whether configuring, calculating and instantiating these routes is a
single-stage or multi-stage process, or in a centralized or
distributed manner, is out of scope of this document.
There are several of approaches that could be used to provide
explicit routes and resource allocation in the DetNet layer. For
example:
o The path could be explicitly set up by a controller which
calculates the path and explicitly configures each node along that
path with the appropriate forwarding and resource allocation
information.
o The path could be used a distributed control plane such as RSVP
[RFC2205] or RSVP-TE [RFC3473] extended to support DetNet IP
flows.
o The path could be implemented using IPv6-based segment routing
when extended to support resource allocation.
See Section 5.5 for further discussion of these alternatives. In
addition, [RFC2386] contains useful background information on QoS-
based routing, and [RFC5575] discusses a specific mechanism used by
BGP for traffic flow specification and policy-based routing.
5.3. Contention Loss and Jitter Reduction
As discussed in Section 1, this document does not specify the
mechanisms needed to eliminate contention loss or reduce jitter for
DetNet flows at the DetNet forwarding sub-layer. The ability to
manage node and link resources to be able to provide these functions
will be a necessary part of the DetNet controller plane. It will
also be necessary to be able to control the required queuing
mechanisms used to provide these functions along a flow's path
Korhonen & Varga Expires September 11, 2019 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft DetNet IP Data Plane March 2019
through the network. See Section 6.3 and Section 5.5 for further
discussion of these requirements.
5.4. Bidirectional Traffic
Some DetNet applications generate bidirectional traffic. Although
this document discusses the DetNet IP data plane, MPLS definitions
[RFC5654] are useful to illustrate terms such as associated
bidirectional flows and co-routed bidirectional flows. MPLS defines
a point-to-point associated bidirectional LSP as consisting of two
unidirectional point-to-point LSPs, one from A to B and the other
from B to A, which are regarded as providing a single logical
bidirectional forwarding path. This is analogous to standard IP
routing. MPLS defines a point-to-point co-routed bidirectional LSP
as an associated bidirectional LSP which satisfies the additional
constraint that its two unidirectional component LSPs follow the same
path (in terms of both nodes and links) in both directions. An
important property of co-routed bidirectional LSPs is that their
unidirectional component LSPs share fate. In both types of
bidirectional LSPs, resource reservations may differ in each
direction. The concepts of associated bidirectional flows and co-
routed bidirectional flows can also be applied to DetNet IP flows.
While the DetNet IP data plane must support bidirectional DetNet
flows, there are no special bidirectional features with respect to
the data plane other than the need for the two directions of a co-
routed bidirectional flow to take the same path. That is to say that
bidirectional DetNet flows are solely represented at the management
and control plane levels, without specific support or knowledge
within the DetNet data plane. Fate sharing and associated vs. co-
routed bidirectional flows can be managed at the control level.
Control and management mechanisms will need to support bidirectional
flows, but the specification of such mechanisms are out of scope of
this document. An example control plane solution for MPLS can be
found in [RFC7551].
This is further discussed in Section 5.5.
5.5. DetNet Controller (Control and Management) Plane Requirements
While the definition of controller plane for DetNet is out of the
scope of this document, there are particular considerations and
requirements for such that result from the unique characteristics of
the DetNet architecture [I-D.ietf-detnet-architecture] and data plane
as defined herein.
Korhonen & Varga Expires September 11, 2019 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft DetNet IP Data Plane March 2019
The primary requirements of the DetNet controller plane are that it
must be able to:
o Instantiate DetNet flows in a DetNet domain (which may include
some or all of explicit path determination, link bandwidth
reservations, restricting flows to IEEE 802.1 TSN links, node
buffer and other resource reservations, specification of required
queuing disciplines along the path, ability to manage
bidirectional flows, etc.) as needed for a flow.
o The ability to support DetNet flow aggregation
o Advertise static and dynamic node and link resources such as
capabilities and adjacencies to other network nodes (for dynamic
signaling approaches) or to network controllers (for centralized
approaches)
o Scale to handle the number of DetNet flows expected in a domain
(which may require per-flow signaling or provisioning)
o Provision flow identification information at each of the nodes
along the path, and it may differ depending on the location in the
network and the DetNet functionality.
These requirements, as stated earlier, could be satisfied using
distributed control protocol signaling, centralized network
management provisioning mechanisms, or hybrid combinations of the
two, and could also make use of IPv6-based segment routing.
In the abstract, the results of either distributed signaling or
centralized provisioning are equivalent from a DetNet data plane
perspective - flows are instantiated, explicit routes are determined,
resources are reserved, and packets are forwarded through the domain
using the IP data plane.
However, from a practical and implementation standpoint, they are not
equivalent at all. Some approaches are more scalable than others in
terms of signaling load on the network. Some can take advantage of
global tracking of resources in the DetNet domain for better overall
network resource optimization. Some are more resilient than others
if link, node, or management equipment failures occur. While a
detailed analysis of the control plane alternatives is out of the
scope of this document, the requirements from this document can be
used as the basis of a later analysis of the alternatives.
Korhonen & Varga Expires September 11, 2019 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft DetNet IP Data Plane March 2019
6. DetNet IP Data Plane Procedures
This section provides DetNet IP data plane procedures. These
procedures have been divided into the following areas: flow
identification, forwarding and traffic treatment. Flow
identification includes those procedures related to matching IP and
higher layer protocol header information to DetNet flow (state)
information and service requirements. Flow identification is also
sometimes called Traffic classification, for example see [RFC5777].
Forwarding includes those procedures related to next hop selection
and delivery. Traffic treatment includes those procedures related to
providing an identified flow with the required DetNet service.
DetNet IP data plane procedures also have implications on the control
and management of DetNet flows and these are also covered in this
section. Specifically this section identifies a number of
information elements that will require support via the management and
control interfaces supported by a DetNet node. The specific
mechanism used for such support is out of the scope of this document.
A summary of the management and control related information
requirements is included. Conformance language is not used in the
summary as it applies to future mechanisms such as those that may be
provided in YANG models [YANG-REF-TBD].
6.1. DetNet IP Flow Identification Procedures
IP and higher layer protocol header information is used to identify
DetNet flows. All DetNet implementations that support this document
MUST identify individual DetNet flows based on the set of information
identified in this section. Note, that additional flow
identification requirements, e.g., to support other higher layer
protocols, may be defined in future.
The configuration and control information used to identify an
individual DetNet flow MUST be ordered by an implementation.
Implementations MUST support a fixed order when identifying flows,
and MUST identify a DetNet flow by the first set of matching flow
information.
Implementations of this document MUST support DetNet flow
identification when the implementation is acting as a DetNet end
systems, a relay node or as an edge node.
6.1.1. IP Header Information
Implementations of this document MUST support DetNet flow
identification based on IP header information. The IPv4 header is
defined in [RFC0791] and the IPv6 is defined in [RFC8200].
Korhonen & Varga Expires September 11, 2019 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft DetNet IP Data Plane March 2019
6.1.1.1. Source Address Field
Implementations of this document MUST support DetNet flow
identification based on the Source Address field of an IP packet.
Implementations SHOULD support longest prefix matching for this
field, see [RFC1812] and [RFC7608]. Note that a prefix length of
zero (0) effectively means that the field is ignored.
6.1.1.2. Destination Address Field
Implementations of this document MUST support DetNet flow
identification based on the Destination Address field of an IP
packet. Implementations SHOULD support longest prefix matching for
this field, see [RFC1812] and [RFC7608]. Note that a prefix length
of zero (0) effectively means that the field is ignored.
Note: any IP address value is allowed, including IP multicast
destination address.
6.1.1.3. IPv4 Protocol and IPv6 Next Header Fields
Implementations of this document MUST support DetNet flow
identification based on the IPv4 Protocol field when processing IPv4
packets, and the IPv6 Next Header Field when processing IPv6 packets.
An implementation MUST support flow identification based based the
next protocol values defined in Section 6.1.2. Other, non-zero
values, MUST be used for flow identification. Implementations SHOULD
allow for these fields to be ignored for a specific DetNet flow.
6.1.1.4. IPv4 Type of Service and IPv6 Traffic Class Fields
These fields are used to support Differentiated Services [RFC2474]
and Explicit Congestion Notification [RFC3168]. Implementations of
this document MUST support DetNet flow identification based on the
IPv4 Type of Service field when processing IPv4 packets, and the IPv6
Traffic Class Field when processing IPv6 packets. Implementations
MUST support bimask based matching, where one (1) values in the
bitmask indicate which subset of the bits in the field are to be used
in determining a match. Note that a zero (0) value as a bitmask
effectively means that these fields are ignored.
6.1.1.5. IPv6 Flow Label Field
Implementations of this document SHOULD support identification of
DetNet flows based on the IPv6 Flow Label field. Implementations
that support matching based on this field MUST allow for this fields
to be ignored for a specific DetNet flow. When this fields is used
to identify a specific DetNet flow, implementations MAY exclude the
Korhonen & Varga Expires September 11, 2019 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft DetNet IP Data Plane March 2019
IPv6 Next Header field and next header information as part of DetNet
flow identification.
6.1.2. Other Protocol Header Information
Implementations of this document MUST support DetNet flow
identification based on header information identified in this
section. Support for TCP, UDP and IPsec flows are defined. Future
documents are expected to define support for other protocols.
6.1.2.1. TCP and UDP
DetNet flow identification for TCP [RFC0793] and UDP [RFC0768] is
done based on the Source and Destination Port fields carried in each
protocol's header. These fields share a common format and common
DetNet flow identification procedures.
6.1.2.1.1. Source Port Field
Implementations of this document MUST support DetNet flow
identification based on the Source Port field of a TCP or UDP packet.
Implementations MUST support flow identification based on a
particular value carried in the field, i.e., an exact.
Implementations SHOULD support range-based port matching.
Implementation MUST also allow for the field to be ignored for a
specific DetNet flow.
6.1.2.1.2. Destination Port Field
Implementations of this document MUST support DetNet flow
identification based on the Destination Port field of a TCP or UDP
packet. Implementations MUST support flow identification based on a
particular value carried in the field, i.e., an exact.
Implementations SHOULD support range-based port matching.
Implementation MUST also allow for the field to be ignored for a
specific DetNet flow.
6.1.2.2. IPsec AH and ESP
IPsec Authentication Header (AH) [RFC4302] and Encapsulating Security
Payload (ESP) [RFC4303] share a common format for the Security
Parameters Index (SPI) field. Implementations MUST support flow
identification based on a particular value carried in the field,
i.e., an exact. Implementation SHOULD also allow for the field to be
ignored for a specific DetNet flow.
Korhonen & Varga Expires September 11, 2019 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft DetNet IP Data Plane March 2019
6.1.3. Flow Identification Management and Control Information
The following summarizes the set of information that is needed to
identify an individual DetNet flow:
o IPv4 and IPv6 source address field.
o IPv4 and IPv6 source address prefix length, where a zero (0) value
effectively means that the address field is ignored.
o IPv4 and IPv6 destination address field.
o IPv4 and IPv6 destination address prefix length, where a zero (0)
effectively means that the address field is ignored.
o IPv4 protocol field. A limited set of values is allowed, and the
ability to ignore this field, e.g., via configuration of the value
zero (0), is desirable.
o IPv6 next header field. A limited set of values is allowed, and
the ability to ignore this field, e.g., via configuration of the
value zero (0), is desirable.
o IPv4 Type of Service and IPv6 Traffic Class Fields.
o IPv4 Type of Service and IPv6 Traffic Class Field Bitmask, where a
zero (0) effectively means that theses fields are ignored.
o IPv6 flow label field. This field can be optionally used for
matching. When used, can be exclusive of matching against the
next header field.
o TCP and UDP Source Port. Exact and wildcard matching is required.
Port ranges can optionally be used.
o TCP and UDP Destination Port. Exact and wildcard matching is
required. Port ranges can optionally be used.
This information MUST be provisioned per DetNet flow via
configuration, e.g., via the controller plane described in Section 5.
Information identifying a DetNet flow is ordered and implementations
use the first match. This can, for example, be used to provide a
DetNet service for a specific UDP flow, with unique Source and
Destination Port field values, while providing a different service
for all other flows with that same UDP Destination Port value.
Korhonen & Varga Expires September 11, 2019 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft DetNet IP Data Plane March 2019
6.2. Forwarding Procedures
General requirements for IP nodes are defined in [RFC1122], [RFC1812]
and [RFC6434], and are not modified by this document. The typical
next-hop selection process is impacted by DetNet. Specifically,
implementations of this document SHALL use management and control
information to select the one or more outgoing interfaces and next
hops to be used for a packet belonging to a DetNet flow.
The use of multiple paths or links, e.g., ECMP, to support a single
DetNet flow is NOT RECOMMENDED. ECMP MAY be used for non-DetNet
flows within a DetNet domain.
The above implies that management and control functions will be
defined to support this requirement, e.g., see [YANG-REF-TBD].
6.3. DetNet IP Traffic Treatment Procedures
Implementations if this document MUST ensure that a DetNet flow
receives the traffic treatment that is provisioned for it via
configuration or the controller plane, e.g., via [YANG-REF-TBD].
General information on DetNet service can be found in
[I-D.ietf-detnet-flow-information-model]. Typical mechanisms used to
provide different treatment to different flows includes the
allocation of system resources (such as queues and buffers) and
provisioning or related parameters (such as shaping, and policing).
Support can also be provided via an underlying network technology
such as MPLS Section 7 and IEEE802.1 TSN Section 8. Other than in
the TSN case, the specific mechanisms used by a DetNet node to ensure
DetNet service delivery requirements are met for supported DetNet
flows is outside the scope of this document.
6.4. Aggregation Considerations
The use of prefixes, wildcards, bitmasks, and port ranges allows a
DetNet node to aggregate DetNet flows. This aggregation can take
place within a single node, when that node maintains state about both
the aggregated and component flows. It can also take place between
nodes, where one node maintains state about only flow aggregates
while the other node maintains state on all or a portion of the
component flows. In either case, the management or control function
that provisions the aggregate flows must ensure that adequate
resources are allocated and configured to provide combined service
requirements of the component flows. As DetNet is concerned about
latency and jitter, more than just bandwidth needs to be considered.
Korhonen & Varga Expires September 11, 2019 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft DetNet IP Data Plane March 2019
7. IP over DetNet MPLS
This section defines how IP encapsulated flows are carried over a
DetNet MPLS data plane as defined in [I-D.ietf-detnet-dp-sol-mpls].
As Non-DetNet and DetNet IP packets are identical on the wire, this
section is applicable to any node that supports IP over DetNet MPLS,
and this section refers to both cases as DetNet IP over DetNet MPLS.
7.1. IP Over DetNet MPLS Data Plane Scenarios
This section provides example uses of IP over DetNet MPLS for
illustrative purposes.
IP DetNet Relay Transit Relay IP DetNet
End System Node Node Node End System
(T-PE) (LSR) (T-PE)
+----------+ +----------+
| Appl. |<------------ End to End Service ----------->| Appl. |
+----------+ .....-----+ +-----..... +----------+
| Service |<--: Service |-- DetNet flow --| Service :-->| Service |
+----------+ +---------+ +----------+ +---------+ +----------+
|Forwarding| |Fwd| |Fwd| |Forwarding| |Fwd| |Fwd| |Forwarding|
+-------.--+ +-.-+ +-.-+ +----.---.-+ +-.-+ +-.-+ +---.------+
: Link : / ,-----. \ : Link : / ,-----. \
+........+ +-[ Sub ]-+ +......+ +-[ Sub ]-+
[Network] [Network]
`-----' `-----'
|<- DN IP->| |<---- DetNet MPLS ---->| |< -DN IP ->|
Figure 8: DetNet IP Over MPLS Network
Figure 8 illustrates DetNet enabled End Systems (hosts), connected to
DetNet (DN) enabled IP networks, operating over a DetNet aware MPLS
network. In this figure, Relay nodes sit at the boundary of the MPLS
domain since the non-MPLS domain is DetNet aware. This figure is
very similar to the DetNet MPLS Network figure in
[I-D.ietf-detnet-dp-sol-mpls]. The primary difference is that the
Relay nodes are at the edges of the MPLS domain and therefore
function as T-PEs, and that service sub-layer functions are not
provided over the DetNet IP network. The transit node functions show
above are identical to those described in
[I-D.ietf-detnet-dp-sol-mpls].
Figure 9 illustrates how relay nodes can provide service protection
over an MPLS domain. In this case, CE1 and CE2 are IP DetNet end
systems which are interconnected via a MPLS domain such as described
in [I-D.ietf-detnet-dp-sol-mpls]. Note that R1 and R3 sit at the
Korhonen & Varga Expires September 11, 2019 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft DetNet IP Data Plane March 2019
edges of an MPLS domain and therefore are similar to T-PEs, while R2
sits in the middle of the domain and is therefore similar to an S-PE.
DetNet DetNet
IP Service Transit Transit Service IP
DetNet |<-Tnl->| |<-Tnl->| DetNet
End | V 1 V V 2 V | End
System | +--------+ +--------+ +--------+ | System
+---+ | | R1 |=======| R2 |=======| R3 | | +---+
| |-------|._X_....|..DF1..|.__ ___.|..DF3..|...._X_.|-------| |
|CE1| | | \ | | X | | / | | |CE2|
| | | | \_.|..DF2..|._/ \__.|..DF4..|._/ | | | |
+---+ | |=======| |=======| | +---+
^ +--------+ +--------+ +--------+ ^
| Relay Node Relay Node Relay Node |
| (T-PE) (S-PE) (T-PE) |
| |
|<-DN IP-> <-------- DetNet MPLS ---------------> <-DN IP->|
| |
|<-------------- End to End DetNet Service --------------->|
-------------------------- Data Flow ------------------------->
X = Service protection (PRF, PREOF, PEF/POF)
DFx = DetNet member flow x over a TE LSP
Figure 9: DetNet IP Over DetNet MPLS Network
[Editor's note: Text below in this sub-section is rather DetNet MPLS
related, therefore candidate to be deleted in future versions.]
Korhonen & Varga Expires September 11, 2019 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft DetNet IP Data Plane March 2019
IP Edge Edge IP
End System Node Node End System
(T-PE) (LSR) (T-PE)
+----------+ +....-----+ +-----....+ +----------+
| Appl. |<--:Svc Proxy|-- E2E Service --|Svc Proxy:-->| Appl. |
+----------+ +.....+---+ +---+.....+ +----------+
| IP |<--:IP : |Svc|-- IP/DN Flow ---|Svc| :IP :-->| IP |
+----------+ +---+ +---+ +----------+ +---+ +---+ +----------+
|Forwarding| |Fwd| |Fwd| |Forwarding| |Fwd| |Fwd| |Forwarding|
+-------.--+ +-.-+ +-.-+ +----.---.-+ +-.-+ +-.-+ +---.------+
: Link : / ,-----. \ : Link : / ,-----. \
+........+ +-[ Sub ]-+ +......+ +-[ Sub ]-+
[Network] [Network]
`-----' `-----'
|<--- IP --->| |<----- DetNet MPLS ----->| |<--- IP --->|
Figure 10: Non-DetNet Aware IP Over DetNet MPLS Network
Figure 10 illustrates non-DetNet enabled End Systems (hosts),
connected to DetNet (DN) enabled MPLS network. It differs from
Figure 8 in that the hosts and edge IP networks are not DetNet aware.
In this case, edge nodes sit at the boundary of the MPLS domain since
it is also a DetNet domain boundary. The edge nodes provide DetNet
service proxies for the end applications by initiating and
terminating DetNet service for the application's IP flows. While the
node types differ, there is essentially no difference in data plane
processing between relay and edges. There are likely to be
differences in controller plane operation, particularly when
distributed control plane protocols are used.
Figure 11 illustrates how it is still possible to provided DetNet
service protection for non-DetNet aware end systems. This figures is
basically the same as Figure 9, with the exception that CE1 and CE2
are non-DetNet aware end systems and E1 and E3 are edge nodes that
replace the relay nodes R1 and R3.
Korhonen & Varga Expires September 11, 2019 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft DetNet IP Data Plane March 2019
IP IP
Non Service Transit Transit Service Non
DetNet |<-Tnl->| |<-Tnl->| DetNet
End | V 1 V V 2 V | End
System | +--------+ +--------+ +--------+ | System
+---+ | | E1 |=======| R2 |=======| E3 | | +---+
| |--------|._X_....|..DF1..|.__ ___.|..DF3..|...._X_.|------| |
|CE1| | | \ | | X | | / | | |CE2|
| | | | \_.|..DF2..|._/ \__.|..DF4..|._/ | | | |
+---+ | |=======| |=======| | +---+
+--------+ +--------+ +--------+
^ Edge Node Relay Node Edge Node^
| (T-PE) (S-PE) (T-PE) |
| |
<--IP-->| <-------- IP Over DetNet MPLS ---------> |<--IP-->
| |
|<------ End to End DetNet Service ------->|
X = Optional service protection (none, PRF, PREOF, PEF/POF)
DFx = DetNet member flow x over a TE LSP
Figure 11: MPLS-Based DetNet (non-MPLS End System)
[Editor's note: End of text being rather DetNet MPLS related.]
7.2. DetNet IP over DetNet MPLS Encapsulation
The basic encapsulation approach is to treat a DetNet IP flow as an
app-flow from the DetNet MPLS app perspective. The corresponding
example DetNet Sub-Network format is shown in Figure 12.
Korhonen & Varga Expires September 11, 2019 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft DetNet IP Data Plane March 2019
/-> +------+ +------+ +------+ ^
| | X | | X | | X | IP App-Flow :
| +------+ +------+ +------+ :
MPLS <-+ |NProto| |NProto| |NProto| :(1)
App-Flow | +------+ +------+ +------+ :
| | IP | | IP | | IP | v
\-> +---+======+--+======+--+======+-----+
DetNet-MPLS | d-CW | | d-CW | | d-CW | ^
+------+ +------+ +------+ :(2)
|Labels| |Labels| |Labels| v
+---+======+--+======+--+======+-----+
Sub-Network | L2 | | TSN | | UDP |
+------+ +------+ +------+
| IP |
+------+
| L2 |
+------+
(1) DetNet IP Flow
(2) DetNet MPLS Flow
Figure 12: Example DetNet IP over MPLS Sub-Network Formats
In the figure, "IP App-Flow" indicates the payload carried by the
DetNet IP data plane. "IP" and "NProto" indicate the fields
described in Section 6.1.1 and Section 6.1.2, respectively. "MPLS
App-Flow" indicates that an individual DetNet IP flow is the payload
from the perspective of the DetNet MPLS data plane defined in
[I-D.ietf-detnet-dp-sol-mpls].
Per [I-D.ietf-detnet-dp-sol-mpls], the DetNet MPLS data plane uses a
single S-Label to support a single app flow. Section 6.1 states that
a single DetNet flow is identified based on IP, and next level
protocol, header information. It also defines that aggregation is
supported (Section 6.4) through the use of prefixes, wildcards,
bimasks, and port ranges. Collectively, this results in the fairly
straight forward procedures defined in this section.
As shown in Figure 2, DetNet relay nodes are responsible for the
mapping of a DetNet flow, at the service sub-layer, from the IP to
MPLS DetNet data planes and back again. Their related DetNet IP over
DetNet MPLS data plane operation is comprised of two sets of
procedures: the mapping of flow identifiers; and ensuring proper
traffic treatment.
Korhonen & Varga Expires September 11, 2019 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft DetNet IP Data Plane March 2019
7.3. DetNet IP over DetNet MPLS Flow Identification Procedures
A relay node that sends a DetNet IP flows over a DetNet MPLS network
MUST map a single DetNet IP flow into a single app-flow and MUST
process that app-flow in accordance to the procedures defined in
[I-D.ietf-detnet-dp-sol-mpls] Section 6.2. PRF MAY be supported for
DetNet IP flows sent over an DetNet MPLS network. Aggregation as
defined in Section 6.4 MAY be used to identify an individual DetNet
IP flow. The provisioning of the mapping of DetNet IP flows to
DetNet MPLS app-flow information MUST be supported via configuration,
e.g., via the controller plane described in Section 5.
A relay node MAY be provisioned to handle packets received via the
DetNet MPLS data plane as DetNet IP flows. A single incoming MPLS
app-flow MAY be treated as a single DetNet IP flow, without
examination of IP headers. Alternatively, packets received via the
DetNet MPLS data plane MAY follow the normal DetNet IP flow
identification procedures defined in Section 6.1. An implementation
MUST support the provisioning of handling of received DetNet MPLS
data plane as DetNet IP flows via configuration. Note that such
configuration MAY include support from PEOF on the incoming DetNet
MPLS flow.
7.4. DetNet IP over DetNet MPLS Traffic Treatment Procedures
The traffic treatment required for a particular DetNet IP flow is
provisioned via configuration or the controller plane. When an
DetNet IP flow is sent over DetNet MPLS a relay node MUST ensure that
the provisioned DetNet IP traffic treatment is provided at the
forwarding sub-layer as described in [I-D.ietf-detnet-dp-sol-mpls]
Section 6.2. Note that the PRF function can also be used when
sending over MPLS.
Traffic treatment for DetNet IP flows received over the DetNet MPLS
data plane MUST follow Section 6.3.
8. Mapping DetNet IP Flows to IEEE 802.1 TSN
[Authors note: how do we handle control protocols such as ICMP,
IPsec, etc.]
This section covers how DetNet IP flows operate over an IEEE 802.1
TSN sub-network. Figure 13 illustrates such a scenario, where two IP
(DetNet) nodes are interconnected by a TSN sub-network. Node-1 is
single homed and Node-2 is dual-homed. IP nodes can be (1) DetNet IP
End System, (2) DetNet IP Edge or Relay node or (3) IP End System.
Korhonen & Varga Expires September 11, 2019 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft DetNet IP Data Plane March 2019
IP (DetNet) IP (DetNet)
Node-1 Node-2
............ ............
<--: Service :-- DetNet flow ---: Service :-->
+----------+ +----------+
|Forwarding| |Forwarding|
+--------.-+ <-TSN Str-> +-.-----.--+
\ ,-------. / /
+----[ TSN-Sub ]---+ /
[ Network ]--------+
`-------'
<----------------- DetNet IP ----------------->
Figure 13: DetNet (DN) Enabled IP Network over a TSN sub-network
The Time-Sensitive Networking (TSN) Task Group of the IEEE 802.1
Working Group have defined (and are defining) a number of amendments
to IEEE 802.1Q [IEEE8021Q] that provide zero congestion loss and
bounded latency in bridged networks. Furthermore IEEE 802.1CB
[IEEE8021CB] defines frame replication and elimination functions for
reliability that should prove both compatible with and useful to,
DetNet networks. All these functions have to identify flows those
require TSN treatment.
As is the case for DetNet, a Layer 2 network node such as a bridge
may need to identify the specific DetNet flow to which a packet
belongs in order to provide the TSN/DetNet QoS for that packet. It
also may need additional marking, such as the priority field of an
IEEE Std 802.1Q VLAN tag, to give the packet proper service.
TSN capabilities of the TSN sub-network are made available for IP
(DetNet) flows via the protocol interworking function defined in IEEE
802.1CB [IEEE8021CB]. For example, applied on the TSN edge port
connected to the IP (DetNet) node it can convert an ingress unicast
IP (DetNet) flow to use a specific multicast destination MAC address
and VLAN, in order to direct the packet through a specific path
inside the bridged network. A similar interworking pair at the other
end of the TSN sub-network would restore the packet to its original
destination MAC address and VLAN.
Placement of TSN functions depends on the TSN capabilities of nodes.
IP (DetNet) Nodes may or may not support TSN functions. For a given
TSN Stream (i.e., DetNet flow) an IP (DetNet) node is treated as a
Talker or a Listener inside the TSN sub-network.
Korhonen & Varga Expires September 11, 2019 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft DetNet IP Data Plane March 2019
8.1. TSN Stream ID Mapping
DetNet IP Flow and TSN Stream mapping is based on the active Stream
Identification function, that operates at the frame level. IEEE
802.1CB [IEEE8021CB] defines an Active Destination MAC and VLAN
Stream identification function, what can replace some Ethernet header
fields namely (1) the destination MAC-address, (2) the VLAN-ID and
(3) priority parameters with alternate values. Replacement is
provided for the frame passed down the stack from the upper layers or
up the stack from the lower layers.
Active Destination MAC and VLAN Stream identification can be used
within a Talker to set flow identity or a Listener to recover the
original addressing information. It can be used also in a TSN bridge
that is providing translation as a proxy service for an End System.
As a result IP (DetNet) flows can be mapped to use a particular {MAC-
address, VLAN} pair to match the Stream in the TSN sub-network.
[Editor's note: there are no requirement on IP DetNet nodes in case
of "IP (DetNet) node without TSN functions" scenarios. Paragraph and
figure beow are candidates to be deleted in future versions.]
From the TSN sub-network perspective DetNet IP nodes without any TSN
functions can be treated as TSN-unaware Talker or Listener. In such
cases relay nodes in the TSN sub-network MUST modify the Ethernet
encapsulation of the DetNet IP flow (e.g., MAC translation, VLAN-ID
setting, Sequence number addition, etc.) to allow proper TSN specific
handling of the flow inside the sub-network. This is illustrated in
Figure 14.
Korhonen & Varga Expires September 11, 2019 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft DetNet IP Data Plane March 2019
IP (DetNet)
Node-1
<---------->
............
<--: Service :-- DetNet flow ------------------
+----------+
|Forwarding|
+----------+ +---------------+
| L2 | | L2 Relay with |<--- TSN ----
| | | TSN function | Stream
+-----.----+ +--.---------.--+
\__________/ \______
TSN-unaware
Talker / TSN-Bridge
Listener Relay
<-------- TSN sub-network -------
Figure 14: IP (DetNet) node without TSN functions
IP (DetNet) nodes being TSN-aware can be treated as a combination of
a TSN-unaware Talker/Listener and a TSN-Relay, as shown in Figure 15.
In such cases the IP (DetNet) node MUST provide the TSN sub-network
specific Ethernet encapsulation over the link(s) towards the sub-
network. An TSN-aware IP (DetNet) node MUST support the following
TSN components:
1. For recognizing flows:
* Stream Identification
2. For FRER used inside the TSN domain, additionally:
* Sequencing function
* Sequence encode/decode function
3. For FRER when the node is a replication or elimination point,
additionally:
* Stream splitting function
* Individual recovery function
[Editor's note: Should we added here requirements regarding IEEE
802.1Q C-VLAN component?]
Korhonen & Varga Expires September 11, 2019 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft DetNet IP Data Plane March 2019
IP (DetNet)
Node-2
<---------------------------------->
............
<--: Service :-- DetNet flow ------------------
+----------+
|Forwarding|
+----------+ +---------------+
| L2 | | L2 Relay with |<--- TSN ---
| | | TSN function | Stream
+-----.----+ +--.------.---.-+
\__________/ \ \______
\_________
TSN-unaware
Talker / TSN-Bridge
Listener Relay
<----- TSN Sub-network -----
<------- TSN-aware Tlk/Lstn ------->
Figure 15: IP (DetNet) node with TSN functions
A Stream identification component MUST be able to instantiate the
following functions (1) Active Destination MAC and VLAN Stream
identification function, (2) IP Stream identification function and
(3) the related managed objects in Clause 9 of IEEE 802.1CB
[IEEE8021CB]. IP Stream identification function provides a 6-tuple
match.
The Sequence encode/decode function MUST support the Redundancy tag
(R-TAG) format as per Clause 7.8 of IEEE 802.1CB [IEEE8021CB].
8.2. TSN Usage of FRER
TSN Streams supporting DetNet flows may use Frame Replication and
Elimination for Redundancy (FRER) [802.1CB] based on the loss service
requirements of the TSN Stream, which is derived from the DetNet
service requirements of the DetNet mapped flow. The specific
operation of FRER is not modified by the use of DetNet and follows
IEEE 802.1CB [IEEE8021CB].
FRER function and the provided service recovery is available only
within the TSN sub-network (as shown in Figure 6) as the Stream-ID
and the TSN sequence number are not valid outside the sub-network.
An IP (DetNet) node represents a L3 border and as such it terminates
all related information elements encoded in the L2 frames.
Korhonen & Varga Expires September 11, 2019 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft DetNet IP Data Plane March 2019
8.3. Procedures
[Editor's note: This section is TBD - covers required behavior of a
TSN-aware DetNet node using a TSN underlay.]
This section provides DetNet IP data plane procedures to interwork
with a TSN underlay sub-network when the IP (DetNet) node acts as a
TSN-aware Talker or Listener (see Figure 15). These procedures have
been divided into the following areas: flow identification, mapping
of a DetNet flow to a TSN Stream and ensure proper TSN encapsulation.
Flow identification procedures are described in Section 6.1. A TSN-
aware IP (DetNet) node SHALL support the Stream Identification TSN
components as per IEEE 802.1CB [IEEE8021CB].
Implementations of this document SHALL use management and control
information to map a DetNet flow to a TSN Stream. N:1 mapping
(aggregating DetNet flows in a single TSN Stream) SHALL be supported.
The management or control function that provisions flow mapping SHALL
ensure that adequate resources are allocated and configured to
provide proper service requirements of the mapped flows.
For proper TSN encapsulation implementations of this document SHALL
support active Stream Identification function as defined in chapter
6.6 in IEEE 802.1CB [IEEE8021CB].
A TSN-aware IP (DetNet) node SHALL support Ethernet encapsulation
with Redundancy tag (R-TAG) as per chapter 7.8 in IEEE 802.1CB
[IEEE8021CB].
Depending whether FRER functions are used in the TSN sub-network to
serve the mapped TSN Stream, a TSN-aware IP (DetNet) node SHALL
support Sequencing function and Sequence encode/decode function as
per chapter 7.4 and 7.6 in IEEE 802.1CB [IEEE8021CB]. Furthermore
when a TSN-aware IP (DetNet) node acting as a replication or
elimination point for FRER it SHALL implement the Stream splitting
function and the Individual recovery function as per chapter 7.7 and
7.5 in IEEE 802.1CB [IEEE8021CB].
8.4. Management and Control Implications
[Editor's note: This section is TBD Covers Creation, mapping, removal
of TSN Stream IDs, related parameters and,when needed, configuration
of FRER. Supported by management/control plane.]
DetNet flow and TSN Stream mapping related information are required
only for TSN-aware IP (DetNet) nodes. From the Data Plane
Korhonen & Varga Expires September 11, 2019 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft DetNet IP Data Plane March 2019
perspective there is no practical difference based on the origin of
flow mapping related information (management plane or control plane).
TSN-aware DetNet IP nodes are member of both the DetNet domain and
the TSN sub-network. Within the TSN sub-network the TSN-aware IP
(DetNet) node has a TSM-aware Talker/Listener role, so TSN specific
management and control plane functionalities must be implemented.
There are many similarities in the management plane techniques used
in DetNet and TSN, but that is not the case for the control plane
protocols. For example, RSVP-TE and MSRP behaves differently.
Therefore management and control plane design is an important aspect
of scenarios, where mapping between DetNet and TSN is required.
In order to use a TSN sub-network between DetNet nodes, DetNet
specific information must be converted to TSN sub-network specific
ones. DetNet flow ID and flow related parameters/requirements must
be converted to a TSN Stream ID and stream related parameters/
requirements. Note that, as the TSN sub-network is just a portion of
the end2end DetNet path (i.e., single hop from IP perspective), some
parameters (e.g., delay) may differ significantly. Other parameters
(like bandwidth) also may have to be tuned due to the L2
encapsulation used in the TSN sub-network.
In some case it may be challenging to determine some TSN Stream
related information. For example on a TSN-aware IP (DetNet) node
that acts as a Talker, it is quite obvious which DetNet node is the
Listener of the mapped TSN stream (i.e., the IP Next-Hop). However
it may be not trivial to locate the point/interface where that
Listener is connected to the TSN sub-network. Such attributes may
require interaction between control and management plane functions
and between DetNet and TSN domains.
Mapping between DetNet flow identifiers and TSN Stream identifiers,
if not provided explicitly, can be done by a TSN-aware IP (DetNet)
node locally based on information provided for configuration of the
TSN Stream identification functions (IP Stream identification and
active Stream identification function).
Triggering the setup/modification of a TSN Stream in the TSN sub-
network is an example where management and/or control plane
interactions are required between the DetNet and TSN sub-network.
TSN-unaware IP (DetNet) nodes make such a triggering even more
complicated as they are fully unaware of the sub-network and run
independently.
Configuration of TSN specific functions (e.g., FRER) inside the TSN
sub-network is a TSN specific decision and may not be visible in the
DetNet domain.
Korhonen & Varga Expires September 11, 2019 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft DetNet IP Data Plane March 2019
9. Security Considerations
The security considerations of DetNet in general are discussed in
[I-D.ietf-detnet-architecture] and [I-D.ietf-detnet-security]. Other
security considerations will be added in a future version of this
draft.
10. IANA Considerations
TBD.
11. Contributors
RFC7322 limits the number of authors listed on the front page of a
draft to a maximum of 5, far fewer than the 20 individuals below who
made important contributions to this draft. The editor wishes to
thank and acknowledge each of the following authors for contributing
text to this draft. See also Section 12.
Korhonen & Varga Expires September 11, 2019 [Page 36]
Internet-Draft DetNet IP Data Plane March 2019
Loa Andersson
Huawei
Email: loa@pi.nu
Yuanlong Jiang
Huawei
Email: jiangyuanlong@huawei.com
Norman Finn
Huawei
3101 Rio Way
Spring Valley, CA 91977
USA
Email: norman.finn@mail01.huawei.com
Janos Farkas
Ericsson
Magyar Tudosok krt. 11
Budapest 1117
Hungary
Email: janos.farkas@ericsson.com
Carlos J. Bernardos
Universidad Carlos III de Madrid
Av. Universidad, 30
Leganes, Madrid 28911
Spain
Email: cjbc@it.uc3m.es
Tal Mizrahi
Marvell
6 Hamada st.
Yokneam
Israel
Email: talmi@marvell.com
Lou Berger
LabN Consulting, L.L.C.
Email: lberger@labn.net
Andrew G. Malis
Huawei Technologies
Email: agmalis@gmail.com
Korhonen & Varga Expires September 11, 2019 [Page 37]
Internet-Draft DetNet IP Data Plane March 2019
12. Acknowledgements
The author(s) ACK and NACK.
The following people were part of the DetNet Data Plane Solution
Design Team:
Jouni Korhonen
Janos Farkas
Norman Finn
Balazs Varga
Loa Andersson
Tal Mizrahi
David Mozes
Yuanlong Jiang
Andrew Malis
Carlos J. Bernardos
The DetNet chairs serving during the DetNet Data Plane Solution
Design Team:
Lou Berger
Pat Thaler
Thanks for Stewart Bryant for his extensive review of the previous
versions of the document.
13. References
13.1. Normative references
[RFC0768] Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768,
DOI 10.17487/RFC0768, August 1980,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc768>.
[RFC0791] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791,
DOI 10.17487/RFC0791, September 1981,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc791>.
Korhonen & Varga Expires September 11, 2019 [Page 38]
Internet-Draft DetNet IP Data Plane March 2019
[RFC0793] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7,
RFC 793, DOI 10.17487/RFC0793, September 1981,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc793>.
[RFC1812] Baker, F., Ed., "Requirements for IP Version 4 Routers",
RFC 1812, DOI 10.17487/RFC1812, June 1995,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1812>.
[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>.
[RFC2211] Wroclawski, J., "Specification of the Controlled-Load
Network Element Service", RFC 2211, DOI 10.17487/RFC2211,
September 1997, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2211>.
[RFC2212] Shenker, S., Partridge, C., and R. Guerin, "Specification
of Guaranteed Quality of Service", RFC 2212,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2212, September 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2212>.
[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>.
[RFC3168] Ramakrishnan, K., Floyd, S., and D. Black, "The Addition
of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP",
RFC 3168, DOI 10.17487/RFC3168, September 2001,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3168>.
[RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
Tunnels", RFC 3209, DOI 10.17487/RFC3209, December 2001,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3209>.
[RFC3270] Le Faucheur, F., Wu, L., Davie, B., Davari, S., Vaananen,
P., Krishnan, R., Cheval, P., and J. Heinanen, "Multi-
Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Support of Differentiated
Services", RFC 3270, DOI 10.17487/RFC3270, May 2002,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3270>.
Korhonen & Varga Expires September 11, 2019 [Page 39]
Internet-Draft DetNet IP Data Plane March 2019
[RFC3473] Berger, L., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-
Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3473, January 2003,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3473>.
[RFC4302] Kent, S., "IP Authentication Header", RFC 4302,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4302, December 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4302>.
[RFC4303] Kent, S., "IP Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP)",
RFC 4303, DOI 10.17487/RFC4303, December 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4303>.
[RFC5462] Andersson, L. and R. Asati, "Multiprotocol Label Switching
(MPLS) Label Stack Entry: "EXP" Field Renamed to "Traffic
Class" Field", RFC 5462, DOI 10.17487/RFC5462, February
2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5462>.
[RFC6003] Papadimitriou, D., "Ethernet Traffic Parameters",
RFC 6003, DOI 10.17487/RFC6003, October 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6003>.
[RFC7608] Boucadair, M., Petrescu, A., and F. Baker, "IPv6 Prefix
Length Recommendation for Forwarding", BCP 198, RFC 7608,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7608, July 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7608>.
[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>.
[RFC8200] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8200>.
13.2. Informative references
[G.8275.1]
International Telecommunication Union, "Precision time
protocol telecom profile for phase/time synchronization
with full timing support from the network", ITU-T
G.8275.1/Y.1369.1 G.8275.1, June 2016,
<https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-G.8275.1/en>.
Korhonen & Varga Expires September 11, 2019 [Page 40]
Internet-Draft DetNet IP Data Plane March 2019
[G.8275.2]
International Telecommunication Union, "Precision time
protocol telecom profile for phase/time synchronization
with partial timing support from the network", ITU-T
G.8275.2/Y.1369.2 G.8275.2, June 2016,
<https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-G.8275.2/en>.
[I-D.ietf-detnet-architecture]
Finn, N., Thubert, P., Varga, B., and J. Farkas,
"Deterministic Networking Architecture", draft-ietf-
detnet-architecture-11 (work in progress), February 2019.
[I-D.ietf-detnet-dp-sol-mpls]
Korhonen, J. and B. Varga, "DetNet MPLS Data Plane
Encapsulation", draft-ietf-detnet-dp-sol-mpls-01 (work in
progress), October 2018.
[I-D.ietf-detnet-flow-information-model]
Farkas, J., Varga, B., Cummings, R., and Y. Jiang, "DetNet
Flow Information Model", draft-ietf-detnet-flow-
information-model-03 (work in progress), March 2019.
[I-D.ietf-detnet-security]
Mizrahi, T., Grossman, E., Hacker, A., Das, S., Dowdell,
J., Austad, H., Stanton, K., and N. Finn, "Deterministic
Networking (DetNet) Security Considerations", draft-ietf-
detnet-security-04 (work in progress), March 2019.
[I-D.ietf-teas-pce-native-ip]
Wang, A., Zhao, Q., Khasanov, B., Chen, H., and R. Mallya,
"PCE in Native IP Network", draft-ietf-teas-pce-native-
ip-02 (work in progress), October 2018.
[IEEE1588]
IEEE, "IEEE 1588 Standard for a Precision Clock
Synchronization Protocol for Networked Measurement and
Control Systems Version 2", 2008.
[IEEE8021CB]
Finn, N., "Draft Standard for Local and metropolitan area
networks - Seamless Redundancy", IEEE P802.1CB
/D2.1 P802.1CB, December 2015,
<http://www.ieee802.org/1/files/private/cb-drafts/
d2/802-1CB-d2-1.pdf>.
Korhonen & Varga Expires September 11, 2019 [Page 41]
Internet-Draft DetNet IP Data Plane March 2019
[IEEE8021Q]
IEEE 802.1, "Standard for Local and metropolitan area
networks--Bridges and Bridged Networks (IEEE Std 802.1Q-
2014)", 2014, <http://standards.ieee.org/about/get/>.
[RFC1122] Braden, R., Ed., "Requirements for Internet Hosts -
Communication Layers", STD 3, RFC 1122,
DOI 10.17487/RFC1122, October 1989,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1122>.
[RFC2205] Braden, R., Ed., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and S.
Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1
Functional Specification", RFC 2205, DOI 10.17487/RFC2205,
September 1997, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2205>.
[RFC2386] Crawley, E., Nair, R., Rajagopalan, B., and H. Sandick, "A
Framework for QoS-based Routing in the Internet",
RFC 2386, DOI 10.17487/RFC2386, August 1998,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2386>.
[RFC3670] Moore, B., Durham, D., Strassner, J., Westerinen, A., and
W. Weiss, "Information Model for Describing Network Device
QoS Datapath Mechanisms", RFC 3670, DOI 10.17487/RFC3670,
January 2004, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3670>.
[RFC5575] Marques, P., Sheth, N., Raszuk, R., Greene, B., Mauch, J.,
and D. McPherson, "Dissemination of Flow Specification
Rules", RFC 5575, DOI 10.17487/RFC5575, August 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5575>.
[RFC5654] Niven-Jenkins, B., Ed., Brungard, D., Ed., Betts, M., Ed.,
Sprecher, N., and S. Ueno, "Requirements of an MPLS
Transport Profile", RFC 5654, DOI 10.17487/RFC5654,
September 2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5654>.
[RFC5777] Korhonen, J., Tschofenig, H., Arumaithurai, M., Jones, M.,
Ed., and A. Lior, "Traffic Classification and Quality of
Service (QoS) Attributes for Diameter", RFC 5777,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5777, February 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5777>.
[RFC6434] Jankiewicz, E., Loughney, J., and T. Narten, "IPv6 Node
Requirements", RFC 6434, DOI 10.17487/RFC6434, December
2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6434>.
Korhonen & Varga Expires September 11, 2019 [Page 42]
Internet-Draft DetNet IP Data Plane March 2019
[RFC7551] Zhang, F., Ed., Jing, R., and R. Gandhi, Ed., "RSVP-TE
Extensions for Associated Bidirectional Label Switched
Paths (LSPs)", RFC 7551, DOI 10.17487/RFC7551, May 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7551>.
[RFC7657] Black, D., Ed. and P. Jones, "Differentiated Services
(Diffserv) and Real-Time Communication", RFC 7657,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7657, November 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7657>.
[RFC7950] Bjorklund, M., Ed., "The YANG 1.1 Data Modeling Language",
RFC 7950, DOI 10.17487/RFC7950, August 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7950>.
[RFC8040] Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and K. Watsen, "RESTCONF
Protocol", RFC 8040, DOI 10.17487/RFC8040, January 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8040>.
[RFC8169] Mirsky, G., Ruffini, S., Gray, E., Drake, J., Bryant, S.,
and A. Vainshtein, "Residence Time Measurement in MPLS
Networks", RFC 8169, DOI 10.17487/RFC8169, May 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8169>.
[RFC8283] Farrel, A., Ed., Zhao, Q., Ed., Li, Z., and C. Zhou, "An
Architecture for Use of PCE and the PCE Communication
Protocol (PCEP) in a Network with Central Control",
RFC 8283, DOI 10.17487/RFC8283, December 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8283>.
Appendix A. Example of DetNet Data Plane Operation
[Editor's note: Add a simplified example of DetNet data plane and how
labels etc work in the case of MPLS-based PSN and utilizing PREOF.
The figure is subject to change depending on the further DT decisions
on the label handling..]
Appendix B. Example of Pinned Paths Using IPv6
TBD.
Authors' Addresses
Jouni Korhonen (editor)
Email: jouni.nospam@gmail.com
Korhonen & Varga Expires September 11, 2019 [Page 43]
Internet-Draft DetNet IP Data Plane March 2019
Balazs Varga (editor)
Ericsson
Magyar Tudosok krt. 11.
Budapest 1117
Hungary
Email: balazs.a.varga@ericsson.com
Korhonen & Varga Expires September 11, 2019 [Page 44]
