DetNet B. Varga, Ed.
Internet-Draft J. Farkas
Intended status: Standards Track Ericsson
Expires: November 6, 2019 L. Berger
D. Fedyk
LabN Consulting, L.L.C.
A. Malis
S. Bryant
Huawei Technologies
J. Korhonen
May 5, 2019
DetNet Data Plane: IP
draft-ietf-detnet-ip-00
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 November 6, 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
Varga, et al. Expires November 6, 2019 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft DetNet IP May 2019
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.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Terms Used In This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.3. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. DetNet IP Data Plane Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. DetNet IP Data Plane Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. End-System Specific Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2. DetNet Domain-Specific Considerations . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2.1. DetNet Routers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.3. OAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.4. Class of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.5. Quality of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.6. Cross-DetNet Flow Resource Aggregation . . . . . . . . . 10
4.7. Flow Identification and Aggregation . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.8. Bidirectional Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.9. Aggregation Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5. DetNet IP Data Plane Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.1. DetNet IP Flow Identification Procedures . . . . . . . . 13
5.1.1. IP Header Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.1.2. Other Protocol Header Information . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.2. Forwarding Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5.3. DetNet IP Traffic Treatment Procedures . . . . . . . . . 16
6. Flow Identification Management and Control Information . . . 16
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
9. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
11.1. Normative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
11.2. Informative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
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].
Varga, et al. Expires November 6, 2019 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft DetNet IP May 2019
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, instead
the existing IP and higher layer protocol header information is used
to support flow identification and DetNet service delivery. Common
data plane procedures and control information for all DetNet data
planes can be found in the [I-D.ietf-detnet-framework].
The DetNet Architecture models the DetNet related data plane
functions decomposed into two sub-layers: 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).
Since 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 Ethernet as specified in the IEEE
802.1 TSN task group(referred to in this document simply as 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. Section 5 provides the
procedures for hosts and routers that support IP-based DetNet
services.
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.
2.2. Abbreviations
The following abbreviations used in this document:
CoS Class of Service.
DetNet Deterministic Networking.
DN DetNet.
DiffServ Differentiated Services
Varga, et al. Expires November 6, 2019 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft DetNet IP May 2019
DSCP Differentiated Services Code Point
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.
3. DetNet IP Data Plane Overview
This document describes how IP is used by DetNet nodes, i.e., hosts
and routers, identify DetNet flows and provide a DetNet service using
an IP data plane. 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. Common data plane procedures and
control information for all DetNet data planes can be found in the
[I-D.ietf-detnet-framework].
The DetNet IP data plane uses "6-tuple" based flow identification,
where 6-tuple refers to information carried in IP and higher layer
Varga, et al. Expires November 6, 2019 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft DetNet IP May 2019
protocol headers. The 6-tuple referred to in this document is the
same as that defined in [RFC3290]. Specifically 6-tuple is
(destination address, source address, IP protocol, source port,
destination port, and differentiated services (DiffServ) code point
(DSCP). 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 of DiffServ and "tuple" based flow identification.
Referring to a 6-tuple allows DetNet nodes to forward packets with
the 6-tuple as is or remap the DSCP where required by the DetNet
service.
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
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.
Varga, et al. Expires November 6, 2019 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft DetNet IP May 2019
Note: The sub-network can represent a TSN, MPLS or IP network
segment.
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 2: Non-DetNet aware IP end systems with DetNet IP Domain
Figure 2 illustrates a 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 4.6 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. TSN over MPLS is
discribed in [I-D.ietf-detnet-tsn-over-mpls].
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.
Varga, et al. Expires November 6, 2019 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft DetNet IP May 2019
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
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 4.5 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 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. A 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
Varga, et al. Expires November 6, 2019 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft DetNet IP May 2019
DetNet domain and its encapsulation format. See Figure 3 for L3 end
system connection examples.
____+----+
+----+ _____ / | ES3|
| ES1|____ / \__/ +----+___
+----+ \ / \
+ |
____ \ _/
+----+ __/ \ +__ DetNet IP domain /
| ES2|____/ L2/L3 |___/ \ __ __/
+----+ \_______/ \_______/ \___/
Figure 3: 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. Instead 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 4: Encapsulation of DetNet Routing in simplified IP service L3
end-systems
Varga, et al. Expires November 6, 2019 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft DetNet IP May 2019
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
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
enabled) cannot be provided end-to-end, only within sub-networks.
This is shown for a three sub-network scenario in Figure 5, 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 5: Replication and elimination in sub-networks for DetNet IP
networks
If end to end service protection is desired, it can be implemented,
for example, by the DetNet end systems using Layer-4 (L4) transport
protocols or application protocols. However, these protocols are out
of scope of this document.
4.3. OAM
[Editor's note: This section is TBD. OAM may be dropped from this
document and left for future study.]
Varga, et al. Expires November 6, 2019 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft DetNet IP May 2019
4.4. Class of Service
Class of Service (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].
4.5. Quality of Service
Quality of Service (QoS) for DetNet service flows carried in IP MUST
be provided locally by the DetNet-aware hosts and routers supporting
DetNet flows. Such support leverages the underlying network layer
such as 802.1 TSN. 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
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.
4.6. 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 messaging 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
Varga, et al. Expires November 6, 2019 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft DetNet IP May 2019
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.
4.7. Flow Identification and Aggregation
Section 3 introduces the use of the IP "6-tuple" for flow
identification, and Section 4.5 goes on to discuss how identified
flows use specific QoS mechanisms for flow-specific traffic
treatment, including path control and resource allocation.
Section 5.1 contains detailed DetNet IP flow identification
procedures. Flow identification plays an important role for the
DetNet controller plane.
Section 4.6 and Section 4.9 discuss the use of flow aggregation in
DetNet. Flow aggregation can be accomplished using any of the
6-tuple fields defined in Section 5.1, 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.
4.8. Bidirectional Traffic
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 or co-
routed bidirectional flows can be managed at the control level.
Varga, et al. Expires November 6, 2019 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft DetNet IP May 2019
Control and management mechanisms 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].
4.9. 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.
5. 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 establishment and operational procedures also
have requirements on the control and management systems for DetNet
flows and these are covered in this section. Specifically this
section identifies a number of information elements that 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 requirements for
management and control related information is included. Conformance
language is not used in the summary since applies to future
mechanisms such as those that may be provided in YANG models [YANG-
REF-TBD].
Varga, et al. Expires November 6, 2019 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft DetNet IP May 2019
5.1. 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.
5.1.1. 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].
5.1.1.1. 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.
5.1.1.2. 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 an IP multicast
destination address.
Varga, et al. Expires November 6, 2019 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft DetNet IP May 2019
5.1.1.3. 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 5.1.2. Other, non-zero
values, MUST be used for flow identification. Implementations SHOULD
allow for these fields to be ignored for a specific DetNet flow.
5.1.1.4. 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 bitmask based matching, where bits set to one (1) in the
bitmask indicate which subset of the bits in the field are to be used
in determining a match. Note that all bits set to zero (0) value as
a bitmask effectively means that these fields are ignored.
5.1.1.5. 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 field
to be ignored for a specific DetNet flow. When this field is used to
identify a specific DetNet flow, implementations MAY exclude the IPv6
Next Header field and next header information as part of DetNet flow
identification.
5.1.2. 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 is defined. Future
documents are expected to define support for other protocols.
5.1.2.1. TCP and UDP
DetNet flow identification for TCP [RFC0793] and UDP [RFC0768] is
achieved 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.
Varga, et al. Expires November 6, 2019 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft DetNet IP May 2019
5.1.2.1.1. 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 value.
Implementations SHOULD support range-based port matching.
Implementation MUST also allow for the field to be ignored for a
specific DetNet flow.
5.1.2.1.2. 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 value.
Implementations SHOULD support range-based port matching.
Implementation MUST also allow for the field to be ignored for a
specific DetNet flow.
5.1.2.2. 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 value. Implementation SHOULD also allow for the field
to be ignored for a specific DetNet flow.
5.2. 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].
Varga, et al. Expires November 6, 2019 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft DetNet IP May 2019
5.3. 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 [I-D.ietf-detnet-ip-over-mpls]. and IEEE802.1 TSN
[I-D.ietf-ip-over-tsn]. 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. 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.
Varga, et al. Expires November 6, 2019 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft DetNet IP May 2019
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 or management plane.
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.
7. 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.
8. IANA Considerations
TBD.
9. 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 10.
Varga, et al. Expires November 6, 2019 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft DetNet IP May 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
Don Fedyk
LabN Consulting, L.L.C.
Email: dfedyk@labn.net
Varga, et al. Expires November 6, 2019 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft DetNet IP May 2019
10. 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.
11. References
11.1. 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>.
Varga, et al. Expires November 6, 2019 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft DetNet IP May 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>.
[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>.
[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>.
[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>.
Varga, et al. Expires November 6, 2019 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft DetNet IP May 2019
[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>.
11.2. Informative references
[I-D.ietf-detnet-architecture]
Finn, N., Thubert, P., Varga, B., and J. Farkas,
"Deterministic Networking Architecture", draft-ietf-
detnet-architecture-12 (work in progress), March 2019.
[I-D.ietf-detnet-dp-sol-mpls]
Korhonen, J. and B. Varga, "DetNet MPLS Data Plane
Encapsulation", draft-ietf-detnet-dp-sol-mpls-02 (work in
progress), March 2019.
[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-framework]
Korhonen, J., Varga, B., "DetNet Data Plane Framework",
2019.
[I-D.ietf-detnet-ip-over-mpls]
Korhonen, J., Varga, B., "DetNet IP over DetNet MPLS Data
Plane", 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-detnet-tsn-over-mpls]
Varga, B., "DetNet Data Plane: IEEE 802.1 Time Sensitive
Networking over MPLS", 2019.
[I-D.ietf-ip-over-tsn]
Korhonen, J., Varga, B., "DetNet Data Plane: IP over IEEE
802.1 Time Sensitive Networking (TSN)", 2019.
[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>.
Varga, et al. Expires November 6, 2019 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft DetNet IP May 2019
[RFC3290] Bernet, Y., Blake, S., Grossman, D., and A. Smith, "An
Informal Management Model for Diffserv Routers", RFC 3290,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3290, May 2002,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3290>.
[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>.
[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>.
[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>.
Authors' Addresses
Balazs Varga (editor)
Ericsson
Magyar Tudosok krt. 11.
Budapest 1117
Hungary
Email: balazs.a.varga@ericsson.com
Janos Farkas
Ericsson
Magyar Tudosok krt. 11.
Budapest 1117
Hungary
Email: janos.farkas@ericsson.com
Varga, et al. Expires November 6, 2019 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft DetNet IP May 2019
Lou Berger
LabN Consulting, L.L.C.
Email: lberger@labn.net
Don Fedyk
LabN Consulting, L.L.C.
Email: dfedyk@labn.net
Andrew G. Malis
Huawei Technologies
Email: agmalis@gmail.com
Stewart Bryant
Huawei Technologies
Email: stewart.bryant@gmail.com
Jouni Korhonen
Email: jouni.nospam@gmail.com
Varga, et al. Expires November 6, 2019 [Page 23]
