RAW P. Thubert, Ed.
Internet-Draft Cisco Systems
Intended status: Informational G.Z. Papadopoulos
Expires: 3 October 2020 IMT Atlantique
1 April 2020
Reliable and Available Wireless Architecture
draft-pthubert-raw-architecture-00
Abstract
Due to uncontrolled interferences, including the self-induced
multipath fading, deterministic networking can only be approached on
wireless links. The radio conditions may change -way- faster than a
centralized routing can adapt and reprogram, in particular when the
controller is distant and connectivity is slow and limited. RAW
separates the routing time scale at which a complex path is
recomputed from the forwarding time scale at which the forwarding
decision is taken for an individual packet. RAW operates at the
forwarding time scale. The RAW problem is to decide, within the
redundant solutions that are proposed by the routing, which will be
used for each individual packet to provide a DetNet service while
minimizing the waste of resources.
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 3 October 2020.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Thubert & Papadopoulos Expires 3 October 2020 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft RAW Architecture April 2020
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components
extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text
as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Use Cases and Requirements Served . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Radio Access Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2. Track Protection in a Wireless Mesh . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. RAW Architecture Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. Related Work at The IETF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2. Prerequisites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.3. Routing Time Scale vs. Forwarding Time Scale . . . . . . 8
4.4. Track Source-Routed vs. Distributed RAW Decision . . . . 10
5. RAW Architecture Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.1. Reliability and Availability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.2. Wireless Tracks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.3. PAREO Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.3.1. Packet Replication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.3.2. Packet Elimination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.3.3. Promiscuous Overhearing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8. ConTributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
1. Introduction
Bringing determinism in a packet network means eliminating the
statistical effects of multiplexing that result in probabilistic
jitter and loss. This can be approached with a tight control of the
physical resources to maintain the amount of traffic within a
budgetted volume of data per unit of time that fits the physical
capabilities of the underlying technology, and the use of time-shared
resources (bandwidth and buffers) per circuit, and/or by shaping and/
or scheduling the packets at every hop.
Thubert & Papadopoulos Expires 3 October 2020 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft RAW Architecture April 2020
Wireless networks operate on a shared medium where uncontrolled
interference, including the self-induced multipath fading, adds
another dimension to the statistical effects that affect the
delivery. Scheduling transmissions can alleviate those effects by
leveraging diversity in the spatial, time, code, and frequency
domains, and provide a Reliable and Available service while
preserving energy and optimizing the use of the shared spectrum.
Deterministic Networking is an attempt to mostly eliminate packet
loss for a committed bandwidth with a guaranteed worst-case end-to-
end latency, even when co-existing with best-effort traffic in a
shared network. This innovation is enabled by recent developments in
technologies including IEEE 802.1 TSN (for Ethernet LANs) and IETF
DetNet (for wired IP networks). It is getting traction in various
industries including manufacturing, online gaming, professional A/V,
cellular radio and others, making possible many cost and performance
optimizations.
The "Deterministic Networking Architecture" [RFC8655] is composed of
three planes: the Application (User) Plane, the Controller Plane, and
the Network Plane. Reliable and Available Wireless (RAW) extends
DetNet to focus on issues that are mostly a co"ern on wireless links,
and inherits the architecture and the planes. A RAW Network Plane is
thus a Network Plane inherited by RAW from DetNet, composed of one or
multiple hops of homogeneous or heterogeneous technologies, e.g. a
Wi-Fi6 Mesh or one-hop CBRS access links federated by a 5G backhaul.
RAW networking aims at providing highly available and reliable end-
to-end performances in a network with scheduled wireless segments.
Uncontrolled interference and transmission obstacles may impede the
transmission, and techniques such as beamforming with Multi-User MIMO
can only alleviate some of those issues, so the term "deterministic"
is usually not associated with short range radios, in particular in
the ISM band. This uncertainty places limits to the amount of
traffic that can be transmitted on a link while conforming to a RAW
Service Level Agreement (SLA) that may vary rapidly.
The wireless and wired media are fundamentally different at the
physical level, and while the generic "Deterministic Networking
Problem Statement" [RFC8557] applies to both the wired and the
wireless media, the methods to achieve RAW must extend those used to
support time-sensitive networking over wires, as a RAW solution has
to address less consistent transmissions, energy conservation and
shared spectrum efficiency.
The development of RAW technologies has been lagging behind
deterministic efforts for wired systems both at the IEEE and the
IETF. But recent efforts at the IEEE and 3GPP indicate that wireless
Thubert & Papadopoulos Expires 3 October 2020 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft RAW Architecture April 2020
is finally catching up at the lower layer and that it is now possible
for the IETF to extend DetNet for wireless segments that are capable
of scheduled wireless transmissions.
The intent for RAW is to provide DetNet elements that are specialized
for short range radios. From this inheritance, RAW stays agnostic to
the radio layer underneath though the capability to schedule
transmissions is assumed. How the PHY is programmed to do so, and
whether the radio is single-hop or meshed, are unknown at the IP
layer and not part of the RAW abstraction.
Still, in order to focus on real-worlds issues and assert the
feasibility of the proposed capabilities, RAW will focus on selected
technologies that can be scheduled at the lower layers: IEEE Std.
802.15.4 timeslotted channel hopping (TSCH), 3GPP 5G ultra-reliable
low latency communications (URLLC), IEEE 802.11ax/be where 802.11be
is extreme high throughput (EHT), and L-band Digital Aeronautical
Communications System (LDACS). See [RAW-TECHNOS] for more.
The establishment of a path is not in-scope for RAW. It may be the
product of a centralized Controller Plane as described for DetNet.
As opposed to wired networks, the action of installing a path over a
set of wireless links may be very slow relative to the speed at which
the radio conditions vary, and it makes sense in the wireless case to
provide redundant forwarding solutions along a complex path and to
leave it to the Network Plane to select which of those forwarding
solutions are to be used for a given packet based on the current
conditions.
RAW distinguishes the longer time scale at which routes are computed
from the the shorter forwarding time scale where per-packet decisions
are made. RAW operates at the forwarding time scale on one DetNet
flow over one path that is preestablished and installed by means
outside of the scope of RAW. The scope of the RAW WG comprises
Network plane protocol elements such as OAM and in-band control to
improve the RAW operation at the Service and at the forwarding sub-
layers, e.g., controlling whether to use packet replication, Hybrid
ARQ and coding, with a constraint to limit the use of redundancy when
it is really needed, e.g., when a spike of loss is observed. This is
discussed in more details in Section 4.3 and the next sections.
2. Terminology
RAW defines the following terms:
PAREO: Packet (hybrid) ARQ, Replication, Elimination and Ordering.
PAREO is a superset Of DetNet's PREOF that includes radio-specific
techniques such as short range broadcast, MUMIMO, constructive
Thubert & Papadopoulos Expires 3 October 2020 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft RAW Architecture April 2020
interference and overhearing, which can be leveraged separately or
combined to increase the reliability.
Flapping: In the context of RAW, a link flaps when the wireless
connectivity is interrupted for short transient times, typically
of a subsecond duration.
RAW reuses terminology defined for DetNet in the "Deterministic
Networking Architecture" [RFC8655], e.g., PREOF for Packet
Replication, Elimination and Ordering Functions.
RAW also reuses terminology defined for 6TiSCH in [6TiSCH-ARCH] such
as the term Track. 6TiSCH defined a Track as a complex path with
associated PAREO operations.
This document reuses terms that are well-defined in the context of
automation to networking and packet delivery, in particular for
reliability and availability. In the context of the RAW work, they
are defined as follows:
Reliability: Reliability is a measure of the probability that an
item will perform its intended function for a specified interval
under stated conditions. For RAW, the service that is expected is
delivery within a bounded latency and a failure is when the packet
is either lost or delivered too late. RAW expresses reliability
in terms of Mean Time Between Failure (MTBF) and Maximum
Consecutive Failures (MCF).
Availability: Availability is a measure of the relative amount of
time where a path operates in stated condition, in other words
(uptime)/(uptime+downtime). Because a serial wireless path may
not be good enough to provide the required availability, and even
2 parallel paths may not be over a longer period of time, the RAW
availability implies a path that is a lot more complex than what
DetNet typically envisages (a Track).
3. Use Cases and Requirements Served
[RFC8578] presents a number of wireless use cases including Wireless
for Industrial Applications, Pro-Audio and SmartGrid.
[RAW-USE-CASES] adds a number of use cases that demonstrate the need
for RAW capabilities in new use cases including Pro-Gaming and
drones.
The use cases can be abstracted in two families, radio access
protection and Track protection in a wireless mesh.
Thubert & Papadopoulos Expires 3 October 2020 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft RAW Architecture April 2020
3.1. Radio Access Protection
In order to maintain the committed reliability at all times, a
wireless station may use more than one Radio Access Network (RAN) in
parallel.
The RANs may be heterogeneous, e.g., 5G [I-D.farkas-5g-raw] and Wi-Fi
[RAW-TECHNOS] for high-speed communication, in which case a Layer-3
abstraction becomes useful to select which of the RANs are used at a
particular point of time, and the amount of traffic that is
distributed over each RAN.
The idea is that the rest of the path to the destination(s) is
protected separately (e.g., uses non-congruent paths) and/or is a lot
more reliable, e.g., wired. In that case, RAW observes reliability
of the path through each of the RANs but only acts on the first hop.
*** *
RAN 1 ----- *** ** **
/ * ** ****
+----+ / * ** ***
| |- * **
| |--zzz- RAN 2 -- * Internet ***
| |- * ***
+----+ \ * ***
\ *** ** **
RAN n -------- *** ***
zzz = flapping now
Figure 1: Radio Access Protection
3.2. Track Protection in a Wireless Mesh
A Track
A-------B-------C-----D
/ \ / / \
I ----M-------N--zzzzz--- E
\ \ / /
P--zzz--Q-------------R
zzz = flapping now
Figure 2: Track Protection
4. RAW Architecture Considerations
Thubert & Papadopoulos Expires 3 October 2020 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft RAW Architecture April 2020
4.1. Related Work at The IETF
RAW intersects with protocols or practices in development at the IETF
as follows:
* The Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP) [RFC8175] from [MANET]
can be leveraged at each hop to derive generic radio metrics
(e.g., based on LQI, RSSI, queueing delays and ETX) on individual
hops.
* Operations, Administration and Maintenance (OAM) work at [DetNet]
such as [DetNet-IP-OAM] for the case of the IP Data Plane observes
the state of DetNet paths, typically MPLS and IPv6 pseudowires
[DetNet-DP-FW], in the direction of the traffic. RAW needs
feedback that flows on the reverse path and gathers instantaneous
values from the radio receivers at each hop to inform back the
source and replicating relays so they can make optimized
forwarding decisions. The work named ICAN may be related as well.
* [BFD] detect faults in the path between an ingress and an egress
forwarding engines, but is unaware of the complexity of a path
with replication, and expects bidirectionality. BFD considers
delivery as success whereas with RAW the bounded latency can be as
important as the delivery itself.
* [SPRING] and [BIER] define in-band signaling that influences the
routing when decided at the head-end on the path. There's already
one RAW-related draft at BIER [BIER-PREF] more may follow. RAW
will need new in-band signaling when the decision is distributed,
e.g., required chances of reliable delivery to destination within
latency. This signaling enables relays to tune retries and
replication to meet the required SLA.
* [CCAMP] defines protocol-independent metrics and parameters
(measurement attributes) for describing links and paths that are
required for routing and signaling in technology-specific
networks. RAW would be a source of requirements for CCAMP to
define metrics that are significant to the focus radios.
Thubert & Papadopoulos Expires 3 October 2020 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft RAW Architecture April 2020
4.2. Prerequisites
A prerequisite to the RAW work is that an end-to-end routing function
computes a complex sub-topology along which forwarding can happen
between a source and one or more destinations. For 6TiSCH, this is a
Track. The concept of Track is specified in the 6TiSCH Architecture
[6TiSCH-ARCH]. Tracks provide a high degree of redundancy and
diversity and enable DetNet PREOF, end-to-end network coding, and
possibly radio-specific abstracted techniques such as ARQ,
overhearing, frequency diversity, time slotting, and possibly others.
How the routing operation computes the Track is out of scope for RAW.
The scope of the RAW operation is one Track, and the goal of the RAW
operation is to optimize the use of the Track at the forwarding
timescale to maintain the expected service while optimizing the usage
of constrained resources such as energy and spectrum.
Another prerequisite is that an IP link can be established over the
radio with some guarantees in terms of service reliability, e.g., it
can be relied upon to transmit a packet within a bounded latency and
provides a guaranteed BER/PDR outside rare but existing transient
outage windows that can last from split seconds to minutes. The
radio layer can be programmed with abstract parameters, and can
return an abstract view of the state of the Link to help forwarding
decision (think DLEP from MANET). In the layered approach, how the
radio manages its PHY layer is out of control and out of scope.
Whether it is single hop or meshed is also unknown and out of scope.
4.3. Routing Time Scale vs. Forwarding Time Scale
With DetNet, the end-to-end routing can be centralized and can reside
outside the network. In wireless, and in particular in a wireless
mesh, the path to the controller that performs the route computation
and maintenance expensive in terms of critical resources such as air
time and energy.
Reaching to the routing computation can also be slow in regards to
the speed of events that affect the forwarding operation at the radio
layer. Due to the cost and latency to perform a route computation,
the controller plane is not expected to be sensitive/reactive to
transient changes. The abstraction of a link at the routing level is
expected to use statistical operational metrics that aggregate the
behavior of a link over long periods of time, and represent its
availability as shades of gray as opposed to either up or down.
Thubert & Papadopoulos Expires 3 October 2020 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft RAW Architecture April 2020
+----------------+
| Controller |
| (PCE) |
| [Routing ] |
| [Function] |
+----------------+
^
|
Slow
|
_-._-._-._-._-._-. | ._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-
_-._-._-._-._-._-._-. | _-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-
|
Expensive
.... | .......
.... . | . .....
.... v ...
.. A-------B-------C---D ..
... / \ / / \ ..
. I ----M-------N--zzz-- E ..
.. \ \ / / .
.. P--zzz--Q----------R ..
.. ..
....... ...
...............
zzz = flapping now
Figure 3: Time Scales
In the case of wireless, the changes that affect the forwarding
decision can happen frequently and often for short durations, e.g., a
mobile object moves between a transmitter and a receiver, and will
cancel the line of sight transmission for a few seconds, or a radar
measures the depth of a pool and interferes on a particular channel
for a split second.
There is thus a desire to separate the long term computation of the
route and the short term forwarding decision. In such a model, the
routing operation computes a complex Track that enables multiple Non-
Equal Cost Multi-Path (N-ECMP) forwarding solutions, and leaves it to
the forwarding plane to make the per-packet decision of which of
these possibilities should be used.
In the case of wires, the concept is known in traffic engineering
where an alternate path can be used upon the detection of a failure
in the main path, e.g., using OAM in MPLS-TP or BFD over a collection
of SD-WAN tunnels. RAW formalizes a forwarding time scale that is an
order(s) of magnitude shorter than the controler plane routing time
Thubert & Papadopoulos Expires 3 October 2020 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft RAW Architecture April 2020
scale, and separates the protocols and metrics that are used at both
scales. Routing can operate on long term statistics such as delivery
ratio over minutes to hours, but as a first approximation can ignore
flapping. On the other hand, the RAW forwarding decision is made at
packet speed, and uses information that must be pertinent at the
present time for the current transmission.
4.4. Track Source-Routed vs. Distributed RAW Decision
Within a large routed topology, the route-over mesh operation builds
a particular complex Track with one source and one or more
destinations; within the Track, packets may follow different paths
and may be subject to RAW forwarding operations that include
replication, elimination, retries, overhearing and reordering.
The RAW forwarding decisions include the selection of points of
replication and elimination, how many retries can take place, and a
limit of validity for the packet beyond which the packet should be
destroyed rather than forwarded uselessly further down the Track.
The decision to apply the RAW techniques must be done quickly, and
depends on a very recent and precise knowledge of the forwarding
conditions within the complex Track. There is a need for an
observation method to provide the RAW forwarding plane with the
specific knowledge of the state of the Track for the type of flow of
interest (e.g., for a QoS level of interest). To observe the whole
Track in quasi real time, RAW will consider existing tools such as
L2-triggers, DLEP, BFD and in-band and out-of-band OAM.
One possible way of making the RAW forwarding decisions is to make
them all at the ingress and express them in-band in the packet, which
requires new loose or strict Hop-by-hop signaling. To control the
RAW forwarding operation along a Track for the individual packets,
RAW may leverage and extend known techniques such as DetNet tagging,
Segment Routing (SRv6) or BIER-TE such as done with [BIER-PREF].
An alternate way is to enable each forwarding node to make the RAW
forwarding decisions for a packet on its own, based on its knowledge
of the expectation (timeliness and reliability) for that packet and a
recent observation of the rest of the way across the possible paths
within the Track. Information about the service should be placed in
the packet and matched with the forwarding node's capabilities and
policies.
In either case, a per-flow state is installed in all intermediate
nodes to recognize the flow and determine the forwarding policy to be
applied.
Thubert & Papadopoulos Expires 3 October 2020 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft RAW Architecture April 2020
5. RAW Architecture Components
5.1. Reliability and Availability
5.2. Wireless Tracks
The "6TiSCH Architecture" [6TiSCH-ARCH] introduces the concept of
Track a a possibly complex path with the PAREO functions operated
within.
A simple track is composed of a direct sequence of reserved hops to
ensure the transmission of a single packet from a source node to a
destination node across a multihop path.
A Complex Track is designed as a directed acyclic graph from a source
node towards a destination node to support multi-path forwarding, as
introduced in "6TiSCH Architecture" [6TiSCH-ARCH]. By employing
Packet Replication and Elimination (PRE) functions [RFC8655], several
paths may be computed, and these paths may be more or less
independent. For example, a complex Track may branch off and rejoin
over non-congruent paths (branches).
Some more details for Deterministic Network PRE techniques are
presented in the following Section.
5.3. PAREO Functions
In a nutshell, Packet Replication and Elimination (PRE) establishes
several paths in a network to provide redundancy and parallel
transmissions to bound the end-to-end delay to traverse the network.
Optionally, promiscuous listening between paths is possible, such
that the nodes on one path may overhear transmissions along the other
path. Considering the scenario shown in Figure 4, many different
paths are possible for S to reach R. A simple way to benefit from
this topology could be to use the two independent paths via nodes A,
C, E and via B, D, F. But more complex paths are possible by
interleaving transmissions from the lower level of the path to the
upper level.
PRE may also take advantage of the shared properties of the wireless
medium to compensate for the potential loss that is incurred with
radio transmissions. For instance, when the source sends to A, B may
listen also and get a second chance to receive the frame without an
additional transmission. Note that B would not have to listen if it
already received that particular frame at an earlier timeslot in a
dedicated transmission towards B.
Thubert & Papadopoulos Expires 3 October 2020 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft RAW Architecture April 2020
(A) (C) (E)
source (S) (R) (root)
(B) (D) (F)
Figure 4: A Typical Ladder Shape with Two Parallel Paths Toward
the Destination
The PRE model can be implemented in both centralized and distributed
scheduling approaches. In the centralized approach, a Path
Computation Element (PCE) scheduler calculates the routes and
schedules the communication among the nodes along a circuit such as a
Label switched path. In the distributed approach, each node selects
its route to the destination, typically using a source routing
header. In both cases, at each node in the paths, a default parent
and alternative parent(s) should be selected to set up complex
tracks.
In the following Subsections, all the required operations defined by
PRE, namely, Alternative Path Selection, Packet Replication, Packet
Elimination and Promiscuous Overhearing, are described.
5.3.1. Packet Replication
The objective of PRE is to provide deterministic networking
properties: high reliability and bounded latency. To achieve this
goal, determinism in every hop of the forwarding paths MUST be
guaranteed. By employing a Packet Replication procedure, each node
forwards a copy of each data packet to multiple parents: its Default
Parent (DP) and multiple Alternative Parents (APs). To do so, each
node (i.e., source and intermediate node) transmits the data packet
multiple times in unicast to each parent. For instance, in Figure 5,
the source node S is transmitting the packet to both parents, nodes A
and B, in two different timeslots within the same TSCH slotframe. An
example TSCH schedule is shown in Figure 6. Thus, the packet
eventually obtains parallel paths to the destination.
===> (A) => (C) => (E) ===
// \\// \\// \\
source (S) //\\ //\\ (R) (root)
\\ // \\ // \\ //
===> (B) => (D) => (F) ===
Figure 5: Packet Replication: S transmits twice the same data
packet, to its DP (A) and to its AP (B).
Thubert & Papadopoulos Expires 3 October 2020 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft RAW Architecture April 2020
Timeslot
+---------++------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Channel || 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
+---------++======+======+======+======+======+======+======+
| 0 || S->A | S->B | B->C | B->D | C->F | E->R | F->R |
+---------++------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| 1 || | A->C | A->D | C->E | D->E | D->F | |
+---------++------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
Figure 6: Packet Replication: Sample TSCH schedule
5.3.2. Packet Elimination
The replication operation increases the traffic load in the network,
due to packet duplications. Thus, a Packet Elimination operation
SHOULD be applied at each RPL DODAG level to reduce the unnecessary
traffic. To this aim, once a node receives the first copy of a data
packet, it discards the subsequent copies. Because the first copy
that reaches a node is the one that matters, it is the only copy that
will be forwarded upward. Then, once a node performs the Packet
Elimination operation, it will proceed with the Packet Replication
operation to forward the packet toward the RPL DODAG Root.
5.3.3. Promiscuous Overhearing
Considering that the wireless medium is broadcast by nature, any
neighbor of a transmitter may overhear a transmission. By employing
the Promiscuous Overhearing operation, a DP and some AP(s) eventually
have more chances to receive the data packets. In Figure 7, when
node A is transmitting to its DP (node C), the AP (node D) and its
sibling (node B) may decode this data packet as well. As a result,
by employing corellated paths, a node may have multiple opportunities
to receive a given data packet. This feature not only enhances the
end-to-end reliability but also it reduces the end-to-end delay and
increases energy efficiency.
===> (A) ====> (C) ====> (E) ====
// ^ | \\ \\
source (S) | | \\ (R) (root)
\\ | v \\ //
===> (B) ====> (D) ====> (F) ====
Figure 7: Unicast to DP with Overhearing: by employing
Promiscuous Overhearing, DP, AP and the sibling nodes have more
opportunities to receive the same data packet.
Thubert & Papadopoulos Expires 3 October 2020 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft RAW Architecture April 2020
6. Security Considerations
7. IANA Considerations
This document has no IANA actions.
8. ConTributors
Xavi Vilajosana: Wireless Networks Research Lab, Universitat Oberta
de Catalunya
Remous-Aris Koutsiamanis: IMT Atlantique
Nicolas Montavont: IMT Atlantique
9. Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[6TiSCH-ARCH]
Thubert, P., "An Architecture for IPv6 over the TSCH mode
of IEEE 802.15.4", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
draft-ietf-6tisch-architecture-28, 29 October 2019,
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6tisch-
architecture-28>.
[RAW-TECHNOS]
Thubert, P., Cavalcanti, D., Vilajosana, X., and C.
Schmitt, "Reliable and Available Wireless Technologies",
Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-thubert-raw-
technologies-04, 6 January 2020,
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-thubert-raw-
technologies-04>.
[RAW-USE-CASES]
Papadopoulos, G., Thubert, P., Theoleyre, F., and C.
Bernardos, "RAW use cases", Work in Progress, Internet-
Draft, draft-bernardos-raw-use-cases-03, 8 March 2020,
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bernardos-raw-use-
cases-03>.
[RFC8578] Grossman, E., Ed., "Deterministic Networking Use Cases",
Thubert & Papadopoulos Expires 3 October 2020 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft RAW Architecture April 2020
RFC 8578, DOI 10.17487/RFC8578, May 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8578>.
[RFC8175] Ratliff, S., Jury, S., Satterwhite, D., Taylor, R., and B.
Berry, "Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP)", RFC 8175,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8175, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8175>.
[RFC8557] Finn, N. and P. Thubert, "Deterministic Networking Problem
Statement", RFC 8557, DOI 10.17487/RFC8557, May 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8557>.
[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>.
10.2. Informative References
[BIER-PREF]
Thubert, P., Eckert, T., Brodard, Z., and H. Jiang, "BIER-
TE extensions for Packet Replication and Elimination
Function (PREF) and OAM", Work in Progress, Internet-
Draft, draft-thubert-bier-replication-elimination-03, 3
March 2018, <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-thubert-
bier-replication-elimination-03>.
[DetNet-IP-OAM]
Mirsky, G., Chen, M., and D. Black, "Operations,
Administration and Maintenance (OAM) for Deterministic
Networks (DetNet) with IP Data Plane", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-mirsky-detnet-ip-oam-02, 23 March
2020, <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mirsky-detnet-ip-
oam-02>.
[DetNet-DP-FW]
Varga, B., Farkas, J., Berger, L., Malis, A., and S.
Bryant, "DetNet Data Plane Framework", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-detnet-data-plane-framework-04,
3 February 2020, <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-
detnet-data-plane-framework-04>.
[I-D.farkas-5g-raw]
Farkas, J., Dudda, T., Shapin, A., and S. Sandberg, "5G -
Ultra-Reliable Wireless Technology with Low Latency", Work
in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-farkas-5g-raw-00, 9
March 2020,
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-farkas-5g-raw-00>.
Thubert & Papadopoulos Expires 3 October 2020 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft RAW Architecture April 2020
[MANET] IETF, "Mobile Ad hoc Networking",
<https://dataTracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-manet/>.
[DetNet] IETF, "Deterministic Networking",
<https://dataTracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-detnet/>.
[SPRING] IETF, "Source Packet Routing in Networking",
<https://dataTracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-spring/>.
[BIER] IETF, "Bit Indexed Explicit Replication",
<https://dataTracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-bier/>.
[BFD] IETF, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection",
<https://dataTracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-bfd/>.
[CCAMP] IETF, "Common Control and Measurement Plane",
<https://dataTracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-ccamp/>.
Authors' Addresses
Pascal Thubert (editor)
Cisco Systems, Inc
Building D
45 Allee des Ormes - BP1200
06254 MOUGINS - Sophia Antipolis
France
Phone: +33 497 23 26 34
Email: pthubert@cisco.com
Georgios Z. Papadopoulos
IMT Atlantique
Office B00 - 114A
2 Rue de la Chataigneraie
35510 Cesson-Sevigne - Rennes
France
Phone: +33 299 12 70 04
Email: georgios.papadopoulos@imt-atlantique.fr
Thubert & Papadopoulos Expires 3 October 2020 [Page 16]