DetNet B. Varga, Ed.
Internet-Draft J. Farkas
Intended status: Standards Track Ericsson
Expires: November 6, 2019 L. Berger
LabN Consulting, L.L.C.
A. Malis
S. Bryant
Huawei Technologies
J. Korhonen
May 5, 2019
DetNet Data Plane: IP over MPLS
draft-ietf-detnet-ip-over-mpls-00
Abstract
This document specifies the Deterministic Networking data plane when
operating in an IP over MPLS 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
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
Varga, et al. Expires November 6, 2019 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft DetNet IP over DetNet MPLS Data Plane May 2019
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. IP over DetNet MPLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1. IP Over DetNet MPLS Data Plane Scenarios . . . . . . . . 5
4.2. DetNet IP over DetNet MPLS Encapsulation . . . . . . . . 8
4.3. DetNet IP over DetNet MPLS Flow Identification
Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.4. DetNet IP over DetNet MPLS Traffic Treatment Procedures . 10
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9.1. Normative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9.2. Informative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
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). Since no DetNet specific headers are added to
support DetNet IP flows, only the forwarding sub-layer functions are
Varga, et al. Expires November 6, 2019 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft DetNet IP over DetNet MPLS Data Plane May 2019
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-mpls] and IEEE802.1 TSN.
This document provides an overview of the DetNet IP data plane over
MPLS.
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
[I-D.ietf-detnet-data-plane-framework], and the reader is assumed to
be familiar with these documents and their terminology.
2.2. Abbreviations
This document uses the abbreviations defined in the DetNet
architecture [I-D.ietf-detnet-architecture] and
[I-D.ietf-detnet-data-plane-framework]. This document uses the
following abbreviations:
CE Customer Edge equipment.
DetNet Deterministic Networking.
DF DetNet Flow.
DN DetNet.
L2 Layer-2.
L3 Layer-3.
LSP Label-switched path.
MPLS Multiprotocol Label Switching.
PE Provider Edge.
PREOF Packet Replication, Ordering and Elimination Function.
PSN Packet Switched Network.
PW Pseudowire.
TE Traffic Engineering.
Varga, et al. Expires November 6, 2019 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft DetNet IP over DetNet MPLS Data Plane May 2019
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
Figure 1 illustrates an IP DetNet, 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 4 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 4 for details on the mapping of IP
flows to MPLS, and [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls] for general support of
DetNet services using MPLS.
Varga, et al. Expires November 6, 2019 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft DetNet IP over DetNet MPLS Data Plane May 2019
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| | Fwd |
+--------.-+ +-.-+ +-.-+ +---.----.-+ +-.-+ +-.-+ +----.----+
: Link : / ,-----. \ : Link : / ,-----. \
+.......+ +-[ Sub ]-+ +.......+ +--[ Sub ]--+
[Network] [Network]
`-----' `-----'
|<---- DetNet MPLS --->|
|<--------------------- DetNet IP ------------------->|
Figure 1: DetNet IP Over DetNet MPLS Network
4. 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-mpls]. Since
both Non-DetNet and DetNet IP packet 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.
4.1. IP Over DetNet MPLS Data Plane Scenarios
An example use of IP over DetNet MPLS follows below.
Varga, et al. Expires November 6, 2019 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft DetNet IP over DetNet MPLS Data Plane May 2019
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 2: DetNet IP Over MPLS Network
Figure 2 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-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-mpls].
Figure 3 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-mpls]. Note that R1 and R3 sit at the 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.
Varga, et al. Expires November 6, 2019 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft DetNet IP over DetNet MPLS Data Plane May 2019
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 3: DetNet IP Over DetNet MPLS Network
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 4: Non-DetNet Aware IP Over DetNet MPLS Network
Figure 4 illustrates non-DetNet enabled End Systems (hosts),
connected to DetNet (DN) enabled MPLS network. It differs from
Figure 2 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
Varga, et al. Expires November 6, 2019 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft DetNet IP over DetNet MPLS Data Plane May 2019
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 5 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 3, 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.
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 5: MPLS-Based DetNet (non-MPLS End System)
4.2. 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 6.
Varga, et al. Expires November 6, 2019 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft DetNet IP over DetNet MPLS Data Plane May 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 6: 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 7.1.1. IP Header Information and Section 7.1.2.
Other Protocol Header Information in [I-D.ietf-detnet-ip],
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-mpls].
Per [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls], the DetNet MPLS data plane uses a single
S-Label to support a single app flow. Section 7.1. DetNet IP Flow
Identification Procedures in [I-D.ietf-detnet-ip] states that a
single DetNet flow is identified based on IP, and next level
protocol, header information. Section 7.4. Aggregation
Considerations in [I-D.ietf-detnet-ip] defines that aggregation is
supported through the use of prefixes, wildcards, bitmasks, and port
ranges. Collectively, this results in the fairly straight forward
procedures defined in this section.
As shown in Figure 4, 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.
Varga, et al. Expires November 6, 2019 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft DetNet IP over DetNet MPLS Data Plane May 2019
4.3. DetNet IP over DetNet MPLS Flow Identification Procedures
A relay node that sends a DetNet IP flow over a DetNet MPLS network
MUST map that 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-mpls] Section 6.1. PRF MAY be supported for DetNet
IP flows sent over an DetNet MPLS network. Aggregation MAY be
supported as defined in [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls] Section 5.4.
Aggregation Considerations in [I-D.ietf-detnet-ip] MAY be used to
identify an individual DetNet IP flow. The provisioning of the
mapping of DetNet IP flows to DetNet MPLS app-flows MUST be supported
via configuration, e.g., via the controller plane.
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 [I-D.ietf-detnet-ip]
Section 7.1. An implementation MUST support the provisioning for
handling any 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.
4.4. 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-mpls]
Section 5.2. Note that the PRF function MAY be utilized when sending
IP over MPLS.
Traffic treatment for DetNet IP flows received over the DetNet MPLS
data plane MUST follow Section 7.3 DetNet IP Traffic Treatment
Procedures in [I-D.ietf-detnet-ip].
5. 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.
Varga, et al. Expires November 6, 2019 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft DetNet IP over DetNet MPLS Data Plane May 2019
6. IANA Considerations
TBD.
7. 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 8.
Varga, et al. Expires November 6, 2019 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft DetNet IP over DetNet MPLS Data Plane 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
Varga, et al. Expires November 6, 2019 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft DetNet IP over DetNet MPLS Data Plane May 2019
8. 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 to Stewart Bryant for his extensive review of the previous
versions of the document.
9. References
9.1. Normative 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.
Varga, et al. Expires November 6, 2019 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft DetNet IP over DetNet MPLS Data Plane May 2019
[I-D.ietf-detnet-ip]
Varga, B., Farkas, J., Berger L., MAlis A., Bryant S.,
Korhonen J., "DetNet Data Plane IP", 2019.
[I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls]
Varga, B., Farkas, J., Berger L., MAlis A., Bryant S.,
Korhonen J., "DetNet MPLS", 2019.
[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>.
[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>.
9.2. Informative references
[I-D.ietf-detnet-data-plane-framework]
Varga, B., Farkas, J., Berger L., MAlis A., Bryant S.,
Korhonen J., "DetNet Data Plane Framework", 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.
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 14]
Internet-Draft DetNet IP over DetNet MPLS Data Plane May 2019
Lou Berger
LabN Consulting, L.L.C.
Email: lberger@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 15]
