DetNet                                                     B. Varga, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                                 J. Farkas
Intended status: Standards Track                                Ericsson
Expires: November 6, 2019                                       A. Malis
                                                               S. Bryant
                                                     Huawei Technologies
                                                             J. Korhonen
                                                             May 5, 2019

   DetNet Data Plane: IEEE 802.1 Time Sensitive Networking over MPLS


   This document specifies the Deterministic Networking data plane when
   TSN networks interconnected over an MPLS Packet Switched Networks.

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

   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
   ( 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

Varga, et al.           Expires November 6, 2019                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft            TSN over DetNet MPLS                  May 2019

   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     2.1.  Terms Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     2.2.  Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  IEEE 802.1 TSN Over DetNet MPLS Data Plane Scenario . . . . .   4
   5.  DetNet MPLS Data Plane Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     5.1.  End-System Specific Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   6.  MPLS-Based DetNet Data Plane Solution . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     6.1.  DetNet Over MPLS Encapsulation Components . . . . . . . .   8
     6.2.  TSN over MPLS Data Plane Encapsulation  . . . . . . . . .   9
       6.2.1.  Edge Node Processing  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       6.2.2.  Layer 2 Addressing and QoS Considerations . . . . . .  10
   7.  Controller Plane (Management and Control)
       Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   8.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   9.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   10. Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   11. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     11.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     11.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   Appendix A.  Example of TSN over DetNet Data Plane Operation  . .  17
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17

1.  Introduction

   [Editor's note: Introduction to be made specific to TSN over DetNet
   scenario.  Do we intend to cover both TSN over DetNet IP and TSN over
   DetNet MPLS?  Or this document is limited to MPLS scenarios?].

2.  Terminology

   [Editor's note: text to be review what is really needed here.].

2.1.  Terms Used in This Document

   This document uses the terminology established in the DetNet
   architecture [I-D.ietf-detnet-architecture], and the reader is
   assumed to be familiar with that document and its terminology.

   The following terminology is introduced in this document:

Varga, et al.           Expires November 6, 2019                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft            TSN over DetNet MPLS                  May 2019

   F-Label       A Detnet "forwarding" label that identifies the LSP
                 used to forward a DetNet flow across an MPLS PSN, e.g.,
                 a hop-by-hop label used between label switching routers

   S-Label       A DetNet "service" label that is used between DetNet
                 nodes that implement also the DetNet service sub-layer
                 functions.  An S-Label is also used to identify a
                 DetNet flow at DetNet service sub-layer.

   d-CW          A DetNet Control Word (d-CW) is used for sequencing and
                 identifying duplicate packets of a DetNet flow at the
                 DetNet service sub-layer.

2.2.  Abbreviations

   [Editor's note: text to be cleaned up].

   The following abbreviations are used in this document:

   AC            Attachment Circuit.

   CE            Customer Edge equipment.

   CoS           Class of Service.

   CW            Control Word.

   DetNet        Deterministic Networking.

   DF            DetNet Flow.

   DN-IWF        DetNet Inter-Working Function.

   L2            Layer 2.

   L2VPN         Layer 2 Virtual Private Network.

   L3            Layer 3.

   LSR           Label Switching Router.

   MPLS          Multiprotocol Label Switching.

   MPLS-TE       Multiprotocol Label Switching - Traffic Engineering.

   MPLS-TP       Multiprotocol Label Switching - Transport Profile.

Varga, et al.           Expires November 6, 2019                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft            TSN over DetNet MPLS                  May 2019

   MS-PW         Multi-Segment PseudoWire (MS-PW).

   NSP           Native Service Processing.

   OAM           Operations, Administration, and Maintenance.

   PE            Provider Edge.

   PEF           Packet Elimination Function.

   PRF           Packet Replication Function.

   PREOF         Packet Replication, Elimination and Ordering Functions.

   POF           Packet Ordering Function.

   PSN           Packet Switched Network.

   PW            PseudoWire.

   QoS           Quality of Service.

   S-PE          Switching Provider Edge.

   T-PE          Terminating Provider Edge.

   TSN           Time-Sensitive Network.

3.  Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "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.

4.  IEEE 802.1 TSN Over DetNet MPLS Data Plane Scenario

   [Author's note: review required on his part.]

Varga, et al.           Expires November 6, 2019                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft            TSN over DetNet MPLS                  May 2019

    TSN             Edge          Transit        Edge        TSN
    End System      Node           Node          Node        End System
                   (T-PE)         (LSR)          (T-PE)

   +----------+  +.........+                   +.........+  +----------+
   |   Appl.  |<-:Svc Proxy:--End to End Svc.--:Svc Proxy:->|   Appl.  |
   +----------+  +---------+                   +---------+  +----------+
   |    TSN   |  |TSN| |Svc|<-- DetNet flow -->|Svc| |TSN|  |    TSN   |
   +----------+  +---+ +---+    +----------+   +---+ +---+  +----------+
   |Forwarding|  |Fwd| |Fwd|    |Forwarding|   |Fwd| |Fwd|  |Forwarding|
   +------.---+  +--.+ +-.-+    +---.----.-+   +--.+ +-.-+  +----.-----+
          :   Link  :    /  ,-----.  \   :  Link  :   /  ,-----.  \
          +.........+    +-[  Sub  ]-+   +........+   +-[  Sub  ]-+
                           [Network]                    [Network]
                            `-----'                      `-----'

           |<- TSN ->| |<------ DetNet MPLS ------>| |<-- TSN --->|

             Figure 1: A TSN over DetNet MPLS Enabled Network

   Figure 1 shows IEEE 802.1 TSN end stations operating over a TSN aware
   DetNet service running over an MPLS network.  DetNet Edge Nodes sit
   at the boundary of a DetNet domain.  They are responsible for mapping
   non-DetNet aware L2 traffic to DetNet services.  They also support
   the imposition and disposition of the required DetNet encapsulation.
   These are functionally similar to pseudowire (PW) Terminating
   Provider Edge (T-PE) nodes which use MPLS-TE LSPs.  In this example
   they understand and support IEEE 802.1 TSN and are able to map TSN
   flows into DetNet flows.  The specific of this operation are
   discussed later in this document.

   Native TSN flow and DetNet MPLS flow differ not only by the
   additional MPLS specific encapsulation, but DetNet MPLS flows have on
   each DetNet node an associated DetNet specific data structure, what
   defines flow related characteristics and required forwarding
   functions.  In this example, edge Nodes provide a service proxy
   function that "associates" the DetNet flows and native flows at the
   edge of the DetNet domain.  This ensures that the DN Flow is properly
   served at the Edge node (and inside the domain).

   Figure 2 illustrates how DetNet can provide services for IEEE
   802.1TSN end systems, CE1 and CE2, over a DetNet enabled MPLS
   network.  Edge nodes, E1 and E2, insert and remove required DetNet
   data plane encapsulation.  The 'X' in the edge nodes and relay node,
   R1, represent a potential DetNet compound flow packet replication and
   elimination point.  This conceptually parallels L2VPN services, and
   could leverage existing related solutions as discussed below.

Varga, et al.           Expires November 6, 2019                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft            TSN over DetNet MPLS                  May 2019

        TSN    |<------- End to End DetNet Service ------>|  TSN
       Service |         Transit          Transit         | Service
   TSN  (AC)   |        |<-Tnl->|        |<-Tnl->|        |  (AC)  TSN
   End    |    V        V    1  V        V   2   V        V   |    End
   System |    +--------+       +--------+       +--------+   |  System
   +---+  |    |   E1   |=======|   R1   |=======|   E2   |   |   +---+
   |   |--|----|._X_....|..DF1..|.._ _...|..DF3..|...._X_.|---|---|   |
   |CE1|  |    |    \   |       |   X    |       |   /    |   |   |CE2|
   |   |       |     \_.|..DF2..|._/ \_..|..DF4..|._/     |       |   |
   +---+       |        |=======|        |=======|        |       +---+
       ^       +--------+       +--------+       +--------+       ^
       |        Edge Node       Relay Node        Edge Node       |
       |          (T-PE)           (S-PE)          (T-PE)         |
       |                                                          |
       |<- TSN -> <------- TSN Over DetNet MPLS -------> <- TSN ->|
       |                                                          |
       |<--- Emulated Time Sensitive Networking (TSN) Service --->|

       X   = Service protection
       DFx = DetNet member flow x over a TE LSP

                    Figure 2: IEEE 802.1TSN Over DetNet

5.  DetNet MPLS Data Plane Considerations

   [Editor's note: Needs clean up, what is relevant for TSN over DetNet

   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:

   Eliminating contention loss and jitter reduction:

      Use 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
      bounds latency.

   Service protection:

Varga, et al.           Expires November 6, 2019                [Page 6]

Internet-Draft            TSN over DetNet MPLS                  May 2019

      Which in the case of this document primarily relates to
      replication and elimination.  Changing the explicit path after a
      failure is detected in order to restore delivery of the required
      DetNet service characteristics is also possible.  Path changes,
      even in the case of failure recovery, can lead to the out of order
      delivery of data.

   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 possibly jitter.


      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.

   The DetNet data plane also allows for the aggregation of DetNet
   flows, e.g., via MPLS hierarchical LSPs, to improved scaling.  When
   DetNet flows are aggregated, transit nodes provide service to the
   aggregate and not on a per-DetNet flow basis.  In this case, nodes
   performing aggregation will ensure that per-flow service requirements
   are achieved.

5.1.  End-System Specific Considerations

   Data-flows requiring DetNet service are generated and terminated on
   end-systems.  Encapsulation depends on application and its
   preferences.  In a DetNet MPLS domain the DN functions use the d-CWs,
   S-Labels and F-Labels to provide DetNet services.  However, an
   application may exchange further flow related parameters (e.g., time-
   stamp), which are not provided by DN functions.

   Specifics related to non-MPLS DetNet end station behavior are out
   side the scope of this document.  For example, details on support for
   DetNet IP data flows can be found in [I-D.ietf-detnet-dp-sol-ip].
   This document is also useful for end stations that map IP flows to
   DetNet flows.

Varga, et al.           Expires November 6, 2019                [Page 7]

Internet-Draft            TSN over DetNet MPLS                  May 2019

   As a general rule, DetNet MPLS domains are capable of forwarding any
   DetNet MPLS flows and the DetNet domain does not mandate the end-
   system or edge system encapsulation format.  Unless there is a proxy
   of some form present, end-systems peer with similar end-systems using
   the same application encapsulation format.  For example, as shown in
   Figure 3, IP applications peer with IP applications and Ethernet
   L2VPN applications peer with Ethernet L2VPN applications.

             |  X  |                               +-----+
             +-----+                               |  X  |
             | Eth |               ________        +-----+
             +-----+     _____    /        \       | Eth |
                    \   /     \__/          \___   +-----+
                     \ /                        \ /
                      0======== tunnel-1 ========0_
                      |                             \
                       \                             |
                       0========= tunnel-2 =========0
                      / \                        __/ \
               +-----+   \__ DetNet MPLS domain /     \
               |  X  |      \         __       /       +-----+
               +-----+       \_______/  \_____/        |  X  |
               |  IP |                                 +-----+
               +-----+                                 |  IP |

             Figure 3: End-Systems and The DetNet MPLS Domain

6.  MPLS-Based DetNet Data Plane Solution

   [Editor's note: Needs clean up.  Text should focus on Edge node
   related topics.].

6.1.  DetNet Over MPLS Encapsulation Components

   To carry DetNet over MPLS the following is required:

   1.  A method of identifying the MPLS payload type.

   2.  A method of identifying the DetNet flow group to the processing

   3.  A method of distinguishing DetNet OAM packets from DetNet data

   4.  A method of carrying the DetNet sequence number.

Varga, et al.           Expires November 6, 2019                [Page 8]

Internet-Draft            TSN over DetNet MPLS                  May 2019

   5.  A suitable LSP to deliver the packet to the egress PE.

   6.  A method of carrying queuing and forwarding indication.

   In this design an MPLS service label (the S-Label), similar to a
   pseudowire (PW) label [RFC3985], is used to identify both the DetNet
   flow identity and the payload MPLS payload type satisfying (1) and
   (2) in the list above.  OAM traffic discrimination happens through
   the use of the Associated Channel method described in [RFC4385].  The
   DetNet sequence number is carried in the DetNet Control word which
   carries the Data/OAM discriminator.  To simplify implementation and
   to maximize interoperability two sequence number sizes are supported:
   a 16 bit sequence number and a 28 bit sequence number.  The 16 bit
   sequence number is needed to support some types of legacy clients.
   The 28 bit sequence number is used in situations where it is
   necessary ensure that in high speed networks the sequence number
   space does not wrap whilst packets are in flight.

   The LSP used to forward the DetNet packet may be of any type (MPLS-
   [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls]).  The LSP (F-Label) label
   and/or the S-Label may be used to indicate the queue processing as
   well as the forwarding parameters.  Note that the possible use of
   Penultimate Hop Popping (PHP) means that the only label in a received
   label stack may be the S-Label.

6.2.  TSN over MPLS Data Plane Encapsulation

6.2.1.  Edge Node Processing

   An edge node is resposable for matching ingress packets to the
   service they require and encapsulating them accordingly.An edge node
   may participate in the packet replication and duplication

   The DetNet-aware forwarder selects the egress DetNet member flow
   segment based on the flow identification.  The mapping of ingress
   DetNet member flow segment to egress DetNet member flow segment may
   be statically or dynamically configured.  Additionally the DetNet-
   aware forwarder does duplicate frame elimination based on the flow
   identification and the sequence number combination.  The packet
   replication is also done within the DetNet-aware forwarder.  During
   elimination and the replication process the sequence number of the
   DetNet member flow MUST be preserved and copied to the egress DetNet
   member flow.

   The internal design of a relay node is out of scope of this document.
   However the reader's attention is drawn to the need to make any PREOF

Varga, et al.           Expires November 6, 2019                [Page 9]

Internet-Draft            TSN over DetNet MPLS                  May 2019

   state available to the packet processor(s) dealing with packets to
   which the PREOF functions must be applied, and to maintain that state
   is such as way that it is available to the packet processor operation
   on the next packet in the DetNet flow (which may be a duplicate, a
   late packet, or the next packet in sequence.

   [Editor's note: I think the rest of this section belongs in a new
   "802.1 TSN (island Interconnect) over DetNet MPLS" section.]

   This may be done in the DetNet layer, or where the native service
   processing (NSP) [RFC3985] is IEEE 802.1CB [IEEE8021CB] capable, the
   packet replication and duplicate elimination MAY entirely be done in
   the NSP, bypassing the DetNet flow encapsulation and logic entirely.
   This enables operating over unmodified implementations and
   deployments.  The NSP approach works only between edge nodes and
   cannot make use of relay nodes.

   The NSP approach is useful end to end tunnel and for for "island
   interconnect" scenarios.  However, when there is a need to do PREOF
   in a middle of the network, such plain edge to edge operation is not

   The extended forwarder MAY copy the sequencing information from the
   native DetNet packet into the DetNet sequence number field and vice
   versa.  If there is no existing sequencing information available in
   the native packet or the forwarder chose not to copy it from the
   native packet, then the extended forwarder MUST maintain a sequence
   number counter for each DetNet flow (indexed by the DetNet flow

6.2.2.  Layer 2 Addressing and QoS Considerations

   [Editor's NOTE: review and simplify this section if possible.]

   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.  IEEE 802.1CB [IEEE8021CB]
   defines packet replication and elimination functions that should
   prove both compatible with and useful to, DetNet networks.

   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 will likely need a CoS marking, such as the priority field of an
   IEEE Std 802.1Q VLAN tag, to give the packet proper service.

Varga, et al.           Expires November 6, 2019               [Page 10]

Internet-Draft            TSN over DetNet MPLS                  May 2019

   Although the flow identification methods described in IEEE 802.1CB
   [IEEE8021CB] are flexible, and in fact, include IP 5-tuple
   identification methods, the baseline TSN standards assume that every
   Ethernet frame belonging to a TSN stream (i.e.  DetNet flow) carries
   a multicast destination MAC address that is unique to that flow
   within the bridged network over which it is carried.  Furthermore,
   IEEE 802.1CB [IEEE8021CB] describes three methods by which a packet
   sequence number can be encoded in an Ethernet frame.

   Ensuring that the proper Ethernet VLAN tag priority and destination
   MAC address are used on a DetNet/TSN packet may require further
   clarification of the customary L2/L3 transformations carried out by
   routers and edge label switches.  Edge nodes may also have to move
   sequence number fields among Layer 2, PW, and IP encapsulations.

7.  Controller Plane (Management and Control) Considerations

   [Editor's note: requires considerations related to TSN over DetNet.].

8.  Security Considerations

   The security considerations of DetNet in general are discussed in
   [I-D.ietf-detnet-architecture] and [I-D.sdt-detnet-security].  Other
   security considerations will be added in a future version of this

9.  IANA Considerations

   This document makes no IANA requests.

10.  Acknowledgements

   Thanks for Norman Finn and Lou Berger for their comments and

11.  References

11.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,

   [RFC2211]  Wroclawski, J., "Specification of the Controlled-Load
              Network Element Service", RFC 2211, DOI 10.17487/RFC2211,
              September 1997, <>.

Varga, et al.           Expires November 6, 2019               [Page 11]

Internet-Draft            TSN over DetNet MPLS                  May 2019

   [RFC2212]  Shenker, S., Partridge, C., and R. Guerin, "Specification
              of Guaranteed Quality of Service", RFC 2212,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2212, September 1997,

   [RFC3031]  Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., and R. Callon, "Multiprotocol
              Label Switching Architecture", RFC 3031,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3031, January 2001,

   [RFC3032]  Rosen, E., Tappan, D., Fedorkow, G., Rekhter, Y.,
              Farinacci, D., Li, T., and A. Conta, "MPLS Label Stack
              Encoding", RFC 3032, DOI 10.17487/RFC3032, January 2001,

   [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,

   [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,

   [RFC3443]  Agarwal, P. and B. Akyol, "Time To Live (TTL) Processing
              in Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Networks",
              RFC 3443, DOI 10.17487/RFC3443, January 2003,

   [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,

   [RFC4206]  Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Label Switched Paths (LSP)
              Hierarchy with Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
              (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE)", RFC 4206,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4206, October 2005,

   [RFC4385]  Bryant, S., Swallow, G., Martini, L., and D. McPherson,
              "Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) Control Word for
              Use over an MPLS PSN", RFC 4385, DOI 10.17487/RFC4385,
              February 2006, <>.

Varga, et al.           Expires November 6, 2019               [Page 12]

Internet-Draft            TSN over DetNet MPLS                  May 2019

   [RFC5085]  Nadeau, T., Ed. and C. Pignataro, Ed., "Pseudowire Virtual
              Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV): A Control
              Channel for Pseudowires", RFC 5085, DOI 10.17487/RFC5085,
              December 2007, <>.

   [RFC5129]  Davie, B., Briscoe, B., and J. Tay, "Explicit Congestion
              Marking in MPLS", RFC 5129, DOI 10.17487/RFC5129, January
              2008, <>.

   [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, <>.

   [RFC7510]  Xu, X., Sheth, N., Yong, L., Callon, R., and D. Black,
              "Encapsulating MPLS in UDP", RFC 7510,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7510, April 2015,

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <>.

11.2.  Informative References

              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,

              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,

              Finn, N., Thubert, P., Varga, B., and J. Farkas,
              "Deterministic Networking Architecture", draft-ietf-
              detnet-architecture-12 (work in progress), March 2019.

              Korhonen, J., Varga, B., "DetNet IP Data Plane
              Encapsulation", 2018.

Varga, et al.           Expires November 6, 2019               [Page 13]

Internet-Draft            TSN over DetNet MPLS                  May 2019

              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.

              Zhao, Q., Li, Z., Negi, M., and C. Zhou, "PCEP Procedures
              and Protocol Extensions for Using PCE as a Central
              Controller (PCECC) of LSPs", draft-ietf-pce-pcep-
              extension-for-pce-controller-01 (work in progress),
              February 2019.

              Bashandy, A., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Decraene, B.,
              Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment Routing with MPLS
              data plane", draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls-22
              (work in progress), May 2019.

              Mizrahi, T., Grossman, E., Hacker, A., Das, S.,
              "Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Security
              Considerations, draft-sdt-detnet-security, work in
              progress", 2017.

              IEEE, "IEEE 1588 Standard for a Precision Clock
              Synchronization Protocol for Networked Measurement and
              Control Systems Version 2", 2008.

              Finn, N., "Draft Standard for Local and metropolitan area
              networks - Seamless Redundancy", IEEE P802.1CB
              /D2.1 P802.1CB, December 2015,

              IEEE 802.1, "Standard for Local and metropolitan area
              networks--Bridges and Bridged Networks (IEEE Std 802.1Q-
              2014)", 2014, <>.

   [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, <>.

Varga, et al.           Expires November 6, 2019               [Page 14]

Internet-Draft            TSN over DetNet MPLS                  May 2019

   [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,

   [RFC3272]  Awduche, D., Chiu, A., Elwalid, A., Widjaja, I., and X.
              Xiao, "Overview and Principles of Internet Traffic
              Engineering", RFC 3272, DOI 10.17487/RFC3272, May 2002,

   [RFC3985]  Bryant, S., Ed. and P. Pate, Ed., "Pseudo Wire Emulation
              Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) Architecture", RFC 3985,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3985, March 2005,

   [RFC4448]  Martini, L., Ed., Rosen, E., El-Aawar, N., and G. Heron,
              "Encapsulation Methods for Transport of Ethernet over MPLS
              Networks", RFC 4448, DOI 10.17487/RFC4448, April 2006,

   [RFC4872]  Lang, J., Ed., Rekhter, Y., Ed., and D. Papadimitriou,
              Ed., "RSVP-TE Extensions in Support of End-to-End
              Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)
              Recovery", RFC 4872, DOI 10.17487/RFC4872, May 2007,

   [RFC4873]  Berger, L., Bryskin, I., Papadimitriou, D., and A. Farrel,
              "GMPLS Segment Recovery", RFC 4873, DOI 10.17487/RFC4873,
              May 2007, <>.

   [RFC4875]  Aggarwal, R., Ed., Papadimitriou, D., Ed., and S.
              Yasukawa, Ed., "Extensions to Resource Reservation
              Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) for Point-to-
              Multipoint TE Label Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 4875,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4875, May 2007,

   [RFC5440]  Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation
              Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, March 2009,

   [RFC5586]  Bocci, M., Ed., Vigoureux, M., Ed., and S. Bryant, Ed.,
              "MPLS Generic Associated Channel", RFC 5586,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5586, June 2009,

Varga, et al.           Expires November 6, 2019               [Page 15]

Internet-Draft            TSN over DetNet MPLS                  May 2019

   [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, <>.

   [RFC5921]  Bocci, M., Ed., Bryant, S., Ed., Frost, D., Ed., Levrau,
              L., and L. Berger, "A Framework for MPLS in Transport
              Networks", RFC 5921, DOI 10.17487/RFC5921, July 2010,

   [RFC6003]  Papadimitriou, D., "Ethernet Traffic Parameters",
              RFC 6003, DOI 10.17487/RFC6003, October 2010,

   [RFC6006]  Zhao, Q., Ed., King, D., Ed., Verhaeghe, F., Takeda, T.,
              Ali, Z., and J. Meuric, "Extensions to the Path
              Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) for
              Point-to-Multipoint Traffic Engineering Label Switched
              Paths", RFC 6006, DOI 10.17487/RFC6006, September 2010,

   [RFC6073]  Martini, L., Metz, C., Nadeau, T., Bocci, M., and M.
              Aissaoui, "Segmented Pseudowire", RFC 6073,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6073, January 2011,

   [RFC6387]  Takacs, A., Berger, L., Caviglia, D., Fedyk, D., and J.
              Meuric, "GMPLS Asymmetric Bandwidth Bidirectional Label
              Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 6387, DOI 10.17487/RFC6387,
              September 2011, <>.

   [RFC6790]  Kompella, K., Drake, J., Amante, S., Henderickx, W., and
              L. Yong, "The Use of Entropy Labels in MPLS Forwarding",
              RFC 6790, DOI 10.17487/RFC6790, November 2012,

   [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,

   [RFC7950]  Bjorklund, M., Ed., "The YANG 1.1 Data Modeling Language",
              RFC 7950, DOI 10.17487/RFC7950, August 2016,

   [RFC8040]  Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and K. Watsen, "RESTCONF
              Protocol", RFC 8040, DOI 10.17487/RFC8040, January 2017,

Varga, et al.           Expires November 6, 2019               [Page 16]

Internet-Draft            TSN over DetNet MPLS                  May 2019

   [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,

Appendix A.  Example of TSN over DetNet Data Plane Operation

   [Editor's note: Add a simplified example of DetNet data plane and how
   labels etc work in the case of TSN over DetNet MPLS and utilizing
   e.g., PREOF.]

Authors' Addresses

   Balazs Varga (editor)
   Magyar Tudosok krt. 11.
   Budapest  1117


   Janos Farkas
   Magyar Tudosok krt. 11.
   Budapest  1117


   Andrew G. Malis
   Huawei Technologies


   Stewart Bryant
   Huawei Technologies


   Jouni Korhonen


Varga, et al.           Expires November 6, 2019               [Page 17]