Network                                                     Shaofu. Peng
Internet-Draft                                           ZTE Corporation
Intended status: Standards Track                             Ron. Bonica
Expires: 2 September 2024                               Juniper Networks
                                                            1 March 2024


                      Deterministic Routing Header
                   draft-pb-6man-deterministic-crh-00

Abstract

   This document introduces a new IPv6 Routing Header used for
   deterministic forwarding wihch is generally a strict explicit path.
   This Routing Header will contain the decoupled topology instructions
   and deterministic forwarding resource indications.  The target is low
   cost of encapasultion and less amount of allocated SIDs.

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 2 September 2024.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2024 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
   license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
   Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
   and restrictions with respect to this document.  Code Components
   extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
   described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
   provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.



Peng & Bonica           Expires 2 September 2024                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft        Deterministic Routing Header            March 2024


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.1.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  The Compressed Routing Headers for DetNet (CRH-20)  . . . . .   3
   3.  The CRH Forwarding Information Base (CRH-FIB) . . . . . . . .   6
   4.  Processing Rules  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     4.1.  Processing on the Headend Node  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     4.2.  Processing on the Transit or Endpoint Node  . . . . . . .   7
   5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   7.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   8.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10

1.  Introduction

   [RFC8655] describes the architecture of deterministic network and
   defines the QoS goals of deterministic forwarding: Minimum and
   maximum end-to-end latency from source to destination, timely
   delivery, and bounded jitter (packet delay variation); packet loss
   ratio under various assumptions as to the operational states of the
   nodes and links; an upper bound on out-of-order packet delivery.  In
   order to achieve these goals, deterministic networks use resource
   reservation, explicit routing, service protection and other means.
   In general, a deterministic path is generally a strictly explicit
   path calculated by a centralized controller, and resources are
   reserved on the nodes along the path.  There is such a need that
   metadata related to each hop used to provide QoS needs to be carried
   in the packet to avoid network core maintenance flow states and meet
   large scaling deterministic requirements.




















Peng & Bonica           Expires 2 September 2024                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft        Deterministic Routing Header            March 2024


   [RFC8200] defines the Routing Header.  The source node of the IPv6
   packet can include some segment information in the Routing Header to
   control the packet's access to these segments before reaching the
   final destination node.  How to reduce the cost of Routing Header,
   especially in scenarios with strict explicit deterministic forwarding
   paths, is a concern.  Generally, there are two categories of
   optimization methods.  One is to use short indexes to map to IPv6
   addresses, and the other is to rely on a common prefix for all
   segments.  For example, [I-D.ietf-6man-comp-rtg-hdr] defines two new
   routing headers called CRH-16 and CRH-32, containing a short index
   for mapping to 128-bit IPv6 addresses, and retrieving all forwarding
   information from the CRH-FIB entries matched by the index.  And,
   [RFC6554] defines Routing Type 3, where only the different parts of
   each segment need to be stored in the segment list, and the common
   prefix of all elements is stored in the Destination Address field of
   the IPv6 header.  [I-D.ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression] also
   describes another common prefixes based compression method suitable
   for SRv6 network.

   This document introduces a CRH varaint, called CRH-20, to meet the
   requirement of deterministic forwarding.  It contains the decoupled
   topology instructions and deterministic forwarding resource
   indications.  Here, the decoupled means that the SIDs for topology
   instructions and resource indications for DetNet QoS are defined,
   signaled in control plane, and forwarded in data plane,
   independently.  Considering that there are many types of resources
   and the huge amount of resource instances supported by each type,
   this document does not recommend distinguishing different resource
   instances by allocating different SIDs.  The target of CRH-20 is low
   cost of encapasultion and less amount of SIDs.

1.1.  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.

2.  The Compressed Routing Headers for DetNet (CRH-20)











Peng & Bonica           Expires 2 September 2024                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft        Deterministic Routing Header            March 2024


       0                   1                   2                   3
       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |  Next Header  |  Hdr Ext Len  | Routing Type  | Segments Left |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      | ST  | RT  |P| |                   Common RI                   |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |             SID[0]                    |     Individual RI     |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |             SID[1]                    |     Individual RI     |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      //                           ... ...                           //
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |             SID[n-1]                  |     Individual RI     |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                            Padding                            |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


                              Figure 1: CRH-20

   CRH-20 contains the following fields:

   *  Next Header: Defined in [RFC8200].

   *  Hdr Ext Len: Defined in [RFC8200].

   *  Routing Type: Defined in [RFC8200] (TBA for CRH-20)

   *  Segments Left: Defined in [RFC8200].

   *  Type-specific Data: Described in [RFC8200].

   In the CRH-20, the Type-specific data field contains topology
   instructions and forwarding resource indications.  In detailed:

   *  ST (SID Type): 3 bits for the index type.

      -  0: the SID field is 20-bit index that is the default type and
         unrelated to any well-knownn index type.  Implementers need to
         additionally define the announcement, learning, and FIB
         creation for this default index type.

      -  1: the SID field is 20-bit MPLS label.  In this case, CRH-FIB
         reuses MPLS ILM (Incoming Label Map) table.

      -  2: the SID field is 20-bit SR-MPLS SID index.  In this case,
         CRH-FIB resuses SR-MPLS SID index table.



Peng & Bonica           Expires 2 September 2024                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft        Deterministic Routing Header            March 2024


      -  3: the SID field is 20-bit BIER ID.  In this case, CRH-FIB
         resuses BIFT table.

      -  Other types may be defined in the future.

   *  RT (Resource Type): 3 bits for the forwarding resource types.

      -  0: undefined.  In this case, Common RI field and Individual RI
         fields may also be 0 and ignored during forwarding procedure of
         the packet, or other values used for user defined purposes.

      -  1: Indicates that the forwarding resources is timeslot
         resources.  [I-D.peng-detnet-packet-timeslot-mechanism] defines
         the timeslot queueing and forwarding (TQF) mechanism in IP/MPLS
         network.  Timeslot resources are defined as multiple equally
         time slots contained within a fixed length of periodic time
         (known as orchestration period).  Different nodes interoperate
         on the same orchestration period, but for the same
         orchestration period, different nodes may configure different
         timeslot lengths.  In this case, Common RI field contains
         orchestration period length (OPL) information, and Individual
         RI field contains the specific timeslot for the corresponding
         segment.

      -  2: Indicates that the forwarding resources is delay resources.
         [I-D.peng-detnet-deadline-based-forwarding] defines the
         deadline based forwarding mechanism in IP/MPLS network.  The
         network may provide multiple delay levels each provided a
         bounded latency according to the schedulability condition of
         EDF (earliest deadline first) scheduling.  In this case, Common
         RI field contains the latency deviation (E) information, and
         Individual RI field contains the planned residence time (D) for
         the corresponding segment.  All segments may have the same
         planned residence time (D) by evenly dividing the total
         residence time budget, but this is not mandatory.

      -  3: Indicate that forwarding resources is network slice
         resources, also known as Network Resource Partition (NRP)
         resources.  [I-D.ietf-teas-ns-ip-mpls] defines a network
         slicing mechanism in IP/MPLS network.  The physical network may
         be partitioned into multiple slices dedicated to specific
         services or customers.  It is possible to directly reuse
         network slices to get deterministic QoS.  In this case, Common
         RI field contains the default NRP-ID, and Individual RI field
         contains the overrided NRP-ID when necessary.

      -  Other types may be defined in the future.




Peng & Bonica           Expires 2 September 2024                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft        Deterministic Routing Header            March 2024


   *  P (Pad) flag: 1 bit to indicate whether there are padding field.
      If P flag is 0, there are no padding.  If P flag is 1, there are
      padding with 4 bytes.

   *  Common RI (Resource Indication): 24 bits for the common forwarding
      resource information that all segments shared.  The information
      contained in Common RI depends on RT.  Please see the above
      explanation of Resource Type field.

   *  SID (Segment Identifier): 20 bits for the topology instruction.
      Each SID identifies an entry in the CRH-FIB.  Each CRH-FIB entry
      identifies an interface on the path that the packet takes to its
      destination.

   *  Individual RI (Resource Indication): 12 bits for the forwarding
      resource that is specific for the corresponding segment.  The
      information contained in Individual RI depends on RT.  Please see
      the above explanation of Resource Type field.

   *  Padding: 0 or 4 bytes to ensure 8-octet alignment.

   In CRH-20, each segment is constructed by 32-bit tuple <SID,
   Individual RI>.  Segments are listed in reverse order.  So, the first
   segment in the list represents the final interface in the path.
   Because segments are listed in reverse order, the Segments Left field
   can be used as an index into the SID list.  In this document, the
   "current Segment" is the Segment list entry referenced by the
   Segments Left field.

   The first segment in the path can be omitted from the list.

3.  The CRH Forwarding Information Base (CRH-FIB)

   Please refer to [I-D.ietf-6man-comp-rtg-hdr].  There are no
   additional considerations for the topology instructions, except that
   FIB may be organized by specific type of index.

4.  Processing Rules

4.1.  Processing on the Headend Node

   The headend node is responsible for encapsulating the CRH-20 for the
   packet.  For a logical Segment List <S1, S2, ..., Sn>, set the SID
   and RI information corresponding to each segment in CRH-20.







Peng & Bonica           Expires 2 September 2024                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft        Deterministic Routing Header            March 2024


   According to the CRH-FIB entry matched with the SID in the segment
   S1, the headend obtain the corresponding destination IPv6 address,
   and copy it to the DA field of the IPv6 header.  In addition, set
   Segment Left to n-1, indicating that there are still n-1 segment
   elements to be processed in the segment list.

   In order to further save the cost of CRH-20, because the destination
   IPv6 address corresponding to the first segment has already been
   copied to the DA field of the IPv6 header, the headend node may
   exclude the first segment from the segment list of CRH-20.  If this
   is the case, only n-1 segments (from [0] to [n-2]) need to be
   included in the list, and the segment [n-2] field stores the segment
   S2.  The Segment Left is still set to n-1, indicating that there are
   still n-1 segment elements to be processed in the segment list.  The
   headend node must ensure that when forwarding packets to the first
   segment S1, it accesses the specified forwarding resource (although
   it is also not included in the list).  Note that this attempting to
   reduce overhead may not be meaningful due to the need for 8-octet
   alignment.

4.2.  Processing on the Transit or Endpoint Node

   When a transit or endpoint node receives an IPv6 packet, if the DA in
   the IPv6 header matches the local IP address, and the Next Header
   field of the IPv6 header indicates that the next layer header is CRH-
   20, then continue to process CRH-20 as below:

























Peng & Bonica           Expires 2 September 2024                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft        Deterministic Routing Header            March 2024


    S01. When a CRH-20 is processed {
    S02.   if (Segments Left == 0) {
    S03.      Stop processing the CRH-20, and proceed to process the
                next header in the packet, whose type is identified by
                the Next Header field in the routing header.
    S04.   }
    S05.   If (IPv6 Hop Limit <= 1) {
    S06.      Send an ICMP Time Exceeded message to the Source Address
                with Code 0 (Hop limit exceeded in transit), interrupt
                packet processing, and discard the packet.
    S07.   }
    S08.   Decrement IPv6 Hop Limit by 1
    S09.   Decrement Segments Left by 1
    S10.   Read the next 32-bit segment by Segment List[Segments Left].
           Match CRH-FIB entry by ST field and segment.SID field.
    S11.   If there is no matched FIB entry, discard the packet and send
             an ICMPv6 Parameter Problem, Code 0, message to the Source
             Address, pointing to the current segment.
    S12.   Get the destinatoin IPv6 address and output interface from
             the matched FIB entry, and copy the destinatoin IPv6
             address to the DA field in the IPv6 header.
    S13.   Transmit the packet to the output interface, and access the
             forwarding resource indicated by Common RI field and
             Individual RI field.
    S14. }

5.  IANA Considerations

   TBD

6.  Security Considerations

   TBD

7.  Acknowledgements

   TBD

8.  Normative References

   [I-D.ietf-6man-comp-rtg-hdr]
              Bonica, R., Kamite, Y., Alston, A., Henriques, D., and L.
              Jalil, "The IPv6 Compact Routing Header (CRH)", Work in
              Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-6man-comp-rtg-hdr-03,
              18 January 2024, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
              draft-ietf-6man-comp-rtg-hdr-03>.





Peng & Bonica           Expires 2 September 2024                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft        Deterministic Routing Header            March 2024


   [I-D.ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression]
              Cheng, W., Filsfils, C., Li, Z., Decraene, B., and F.
              Clad, "Compressed SRv6 Segment List Encoding", Work in
              Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-
              compression-13, 29 February 2024,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-spring-
              srv6-srh-compression-13>.

   [I-D.ietf-teas-ns-ip-mpls]
              Saad, T., Beeram, V. P., Dong, J., Wen, B., Ceccarelli,
              D., Halpern, J. M., Peng, S., Chen, R., Liu, X.,
              Contreras, L. M., Rokui, R., and L. Jalil, "Realizing
              Network Slices in IP/MPLS Networks", Work in Progress,
              Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-teas-ns-ip-mpls-03, 26 November
              2023, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-
              teas-ns-ip-mpls-03>.

   [I-D.peng-detnet-deadline-based-forwarding]
              Peng, S., Du, Z., Basu, K., cheng, Yang, D., and C. Liu,
              "Deadline Based Deterministic Forwarding", Work in
              Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-peng-detnet-deadline-
              based-forwarding-08, 14 December 2023,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-peng-detnet-
              deadline-based-forwarding-08>.

   [I-D.peng-detnet-packet-timeslot-mechanism]
              Peng, S., Liu, P., Basu, K., Liu, A., Yang, D., and G.
              Peng, "Timeslot Queueing and Forwarding Mechanism", Work
              in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-peng-detnet-packet-
              timeslot-mechanism-05, 14 December 2023,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-peng-detnet-
              packet-timeslot-mechanism-05>.

   [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>.

   [RFC6554]  Hui, J., Vasseur, JP., Culler, D., and V. Manral, "An IPv6
              Routing Header for Source Routes with the Routing Protocol
              for Low-Power and Lossy Networks (RPL)", RFC 6554,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6554, March 2012,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6554>.

   [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>.




Peng & Bonica           Expires 2 September 2024                [Page 9]


Internet-Draft        Deterministic Routing Header            March 2024


   [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>.

   [RFC8655]  Finn, N., Thubert, P., Varga, B., and J. Farkas,
              "Deterministic Networking Architecture", RFC 8655,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8655, October 2019,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8655>.

Authors' Addresses

   Shaofu Peng
   ZTE Corporation
   China
   Email: peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn


   Ron Bonica
   Juniper Networks
   United States of America
   Email: rbonica@juniper.net





























Peng & Bonica           Expires 2 September 2024               [Page 10]