Reliable and Available Wireless Architecture
draft-ietf-raw-architecture-17
| Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (detnet WG) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Author | Pascal Thubert | ||
| Last updated | 2024-03-04 | ||
| Replaces | draft-pthubert-raw-architecture | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Additional resources |
GitHub Repository
Mailing list discussion |
||
| Stream | WG state | WG Document | |
| Associated WG milestones |
|
||
| Document shepherd | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-ietf-raw-architecture-17
RAW P. Thubert, Ed.
Internet-Draft 4 March 2024
Intended status: Informational
Expires: 5 September 2024
Reliable and Available Wireless Architecture
draft-ietf-raw-architecture-17
Abstract
Reliable and Available Wireless (RAW) provides for high reliability
and availability for IP connectivity across any combination of wired
and wireless network segments. The RAW Architecture extends the
DetNet Architecture and other standard IETF concepts and mechanisms
to adapt to the specific challenges of the wireless medium, in
particular intermittently lossy connectivity. This document defines
a network control loop that optimizes the use of constrained spectrum
and energy while maintaining the expected connectivity properties,
typically reliability and latency. The loop involves DetNet
Operational Plane functions, with a new recovery Function and a new
Point of Local Repair operation, that dynamically selects the DetNet
path(s) for the future packets to route around local degradations and
failures.
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 5 September 2024.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2024 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Thubert Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft RAW Architecture March 2024
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.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1. Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.1.1. ARQ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.1.2. FEC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.1.3. HARQ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.1.4. MCS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.1.5. OAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.1.6. OODA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.2. Link and Direction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.2.1. Flapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.2.2. Uplink . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.2.3. Downlink . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.2.4. Downstream . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.2.5. Upstream . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.3. Path and Recovery Graphs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.3.1. Path . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.3.2. Recovery Graph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.3.3. Forward and Crossing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.3.4. Lane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.3.5. Segment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.4. Deterministic Networking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.4.1. Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.4.2. Deterministic Flow Identifier (L2) . . . . . . . . . 12
2.4.3. Deterministic Flow Identifier (L3) . . . . . . . . . 12
2.4.4. TSN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.5. Reliability and Availability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.5.1. Service Level Agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.5.2. Service Level Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.5.3. Service Level Indicator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.5.4. Reliability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.5.5. Available . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.5.6. Availability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.6. OAM variations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.6.1. Active OAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.6.2. In-Band OAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.6.3. Out-of-Band OAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Thubert Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft RAW Architecture March 2024
2.6.4. Limited OAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.6.5. Upstream OAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.6.6. Residence Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.6.7. Lower Layer information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.6.8. Additional References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3. Reliable and Available Wireless . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.1. Reliability and Availability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.1.1. High Availability Engineering Principles . . . . . . 15
3.1.2. Applying Reliability Concepts to Networking . . . . . 17
3.1.3. Wireless Effects Affecting Reliability . . . . . . . 18
3.2. The RAW problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4. The RAW Conceptual Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
4.1. The RAW Planes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
4.2. RAW vs. Upper and Lower Layers . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
4.3. RAW and DetNet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
5. The RAW Control Loop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
5.1. Routing Time Scale vs. Forwarding Time Scale . . . . . . 30
5.2. A OODA Loop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
5.3. Observe: The RAW OAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
5.4. Orient: The RAW-extended DetNet Operational Plane . . . . 34
5.5. Decide: The Point of Local Repair . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
5.6. Act: DetNet Path Selection and reliability functions . . 37
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
6.1. Layer-2 encryption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
6.2. Forced Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
8. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
1. Introduction
Deterministic Networking aims to provide bounded latency and
eliminate congestion loss, even when co-existing with best-effort
traffic. It is getting traction in various industries including
professional A/V, manufacturing, online gaming, and smartgrid
automation, with both cost savings and complexity benefits (e.g., vs.
loads of point-to-point (P2P) cables).
Thubert Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft RAW Architecture March 2024
Bringing determinism in a packet network means minimizing 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
budgeted volume of data per unit of time that fits the physical
capabilities of the underlying network, and the use of time-shared
resources (bandwidth and buffers) per circuit, and/or by shaping and/
or scheduling the packets at every hop.
This innovation was initially introduced on wired networks, with IEEE
802.1 Time Sensitive networking (TSN) - for Ethernet LANs - and IETF
DetNet. But the wired and the wireless media are fundamentally
different at the physical level and in the possible abstractions that
can be built for IPv6 [IPv6], more in [IPoWIRELESS]. Nevertheless,
deterministic capabilities are required in a number of wireless use
cases as well [RAW-USE-CASES]. With scheduled radios such as Time
Slotted Channel Hopping (TSCH) and Orthogonal Frequency Division
Multiple Access (OFDMA) [RAW-TECHNOS] being developed to provide
determinism over wireless links at the lower layers, providing DetNet
capabilities is now becoming possible.
Wireless networks operate on a shared medium where uncontrolled
interference, including the self-induced multipath fading cause
random transmission losses. Fixed and mobile obstacles and
reflectors may block or alter the signal, causing transient and
unpredictable variations of the throughput and packet delivery ratio
(PDR) of a wireless link. This adds new dimensions to the
statistical effects that affect the quality and reliability of the
link.
Reliable and Available Wireless (RAW) takes up the challenge of
providing highly available and reliable end-to-end performances in a
network with scheduled wireless segments. To achieve this, RAW can
leverage multiple links and parallel transmissions, providing enough
diversity and redundancy to ensure the timely packet delivery while
preserving energy and optimizing the use of the shared spectrum.
Distance Vector (DV) protocols can enable more than one feasible
successors along non-equal-cost multipath forwarding graphs. This
provides redundancy and allows to dynamically adapt the forwarding
operation to the state of the links. But this protection is limited
since only a subset of the nodes along the path will have a feasible
alternate successor.
Thubert Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft RAW Architecture March 2024
RAW solves that problem by defining Protection Paths that can be
fully non-congruent and can be activated dynamically upon failures.
This requires additional control to take the routing decision early
enough along the possible paths to route around the failure. RAW
defines a end-to-end control loop that dynamically controls the
activation and deactivation of the feasible Protection Paths.
In addition, RAW introduces the RAW API, which is an interface
between the lower layer wireless technology and the DetNet layers.
The RAW API is RAW technology [RAW-TECHNOS] dependent as it can vary
what the different RAW technologies expose towards the DetNet layers.
Furthermore, the different RAW technologies are equipped with
different reliability features, e.g., short range broadcast, MUMIMO,
PHY rate and other Modulation Coding Scheme (MCS) adaptation, (H)ARQ,
constructive interference and overhearing. The RAW API enables
interactions between the reliability functions provided by the
wireless technology and the reliability functions provided by DetNet.
That is, the RAW API makes cross-layer optimization possible for the
reliability functions of different layers depending on the actual
exposure provided via the RAW API by the given RAW technology.
This document presents the RAW problem and associated terminology in
Section 3.2, presents a conceptual model for RAW in Section 4, and,
based on that model, elaborates on an in-network optimization control
loop in Section 5.2.
2. Terminology
RAW reuses terminology defined for DetNet in the "Deterministic
Networking Architecture" [RFC8655], e.g., PREOF for Packet
Replication, Elimination and Ordering Functions. RAW inherits and
augments the IETF art of Protection as seen in DetNet and Traffic
Engineering.
RAW also reuses terminology defined for MPLS in [RFC4427] such as the
term recovery as covering both Protection and Restoration, a number
of recovery types. That document defines a number of concepts like
recovery domain that are used in the RAW works, and creates the new
term recovery graph. A recovery graph associates a topological graph
with usage metadata that represent how the paths within the recovery
graph are built.
RAW also reuses terminology defined for RSVP-TE in [RFC4090] such as
the Point of Local Repair (PLR). The concept of backup path is
generalized with protection path, which is the term mostly found in
recent standards and used in this document.
Thubert Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft RAW Architecture March 2024
RAW also reuses terminology defined for 6TiSCH in [6TiSCH-ARCHI] and
equates the 6TiSCH concept of a Track with that of a recovery graph.
In an quantic analogy, a recovery graph is to a path what an atomic
orbital is to a planetary orbit, in that the electron has a
probability of presence within a known shape as opposed to a
deterministic trajectory.
The concept of recovery graph is agnostic to the underlaying
technology and applies but is not limited to any fully or partially
wireless mesh. RAW specifies strict and loose recovery graphs
depending on whether the path is fully controlled by RAW or traverses
an opaque network where RAW cannot observe and control the individual
hops.
RAW uses the following terminology and acronyms:
2.1. Acronyms
2.1.1. ARQ
Automatic Repeat Request, a well-known mechanism, enabling an
acknowledged transmission with retries to mitigate errors and loss.
ARQ may be implemented at various layers in a network. ARQ is
typically implemented at Layer-2, per hop and not end-to-end in
wireless networks. ARQ improves delivery on lossy wireless.
Additionally, ARQ retransmission may be further limited by a bounded
time to meet end-to-end packet latency constraints. Additional
details and considerations for ARQ are detailed in [RFC3366].
2.1.2. FEC
Forward Error Correction, adding redundant data to protect against a
partial loss without retries.
2.1.3. HARQ
Hybrid Automatic Repeat Request, combining FEC and ARQ.
2.1.4. MCS
Modulation and Coding Scheme. Controls the throughput of the Link to
maintain reliable transmissions.
Thubert Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft RAW Architecture March 2024
2.1.5. OAM
OAM stands for Operations, Administration, and Maintenance, and
covers the processes, activities, tools, and standards involved with
operating, administering, managing and maintaining any system. This
document uses the terms Operations, Administration, and Maintenance,
in conformance with the 'Guidelines for the Use of the "OAM" Acronym
in the IETF' [RFC6291] and the system observed by the RAW OAM is the
recovery graph.
2.1.6. OODA
Observe, Orient, Decide, Act. The OODA Loop is a conceptual cyclic
model developed by USAF Colonel John Boyd, and that is applicable in
multiple domains where agility can provide benefits against brute
force.
2.2. Link and Direction
2.2.1. Flapping
In the context of RAW, a link flaps when the reliability of the
wireless connectivity drops abruptly for a short period of time,
typically of a subsecond to seconds duration.
2.2.2. Uplink
Connection from end-devices to a data communication equipment. In
the context of wireless, uplink refers to the connection between a
station (STA) and a controller (AP) or a User Equipment (UE) to a
Base Station (BS) such as a 3GPP 5G gNodeB (gNb).
2.2.3. Downlink
The reverse direction from uplink.
2.2.4. Downstream
Following the direction of the flow data path along a recovery graph.
2.2.5. Upstream
Against the direction of the flow data path along a recovery graph.
2.3. Path and Recovery Graphs
Thubert Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft RAW Architecture March 2024
2.3.1. Path
Quoting section 1.1.3 of [INT-ARCHI]:
| At a given moment, all the IP datagrams from a particular source
| host to a particular destination host will typically traverse the
| same sequence of gateways. We use the term "path" for this
| sequence. Note that a path is unidirectional; it is not unusual
| to have different paths in the two directions between a given host
| pair.
Section 2 of [I-D.irtf-panrg-path-properties] points to a longer,
more modern definition of path, which begins as follows:
| A sequence of adjacent path elements over which a packet can be
| transmitted, starting and ending with a node. A path is
| unidirectional. Paths are time-dependent, i.e., the sequence of
| path elements over which packets are sent from one node to another
| may change. A path is defined between two nodes.
It follows that the general acceptance of a path is a linear sequence
of links and nodes, as opposed to a multi-dimensional graph, defined
by the experience of the packet that went from a node A to a node B.
In the context of this document, a path is observed by following one
copy or one fragment of a packet that conserves its uniqueness and
integrity. For instance, if C replicates to E and F and D eliminates
on the way from A to B, a packet from A to B can experience 2 paths,
A->C->E->D->B and A->C->F->D->B. The terms lane is used to clarify
when dealing with such path.
With DetNet and RAW, a packet may be duplicated, fragmented and
network-coded, and the various byproducts may travel different paths
that are not necessarily end-to-end between A and B; we refer to that
complex experience as a DetNet path. As such, the DetNet path
extends the above description of a path, but it still matches the
experience of a packet that traverses the network.
With RAW, that experience is subject to change from a packet to the
next, but all the possible experiences are all contained within a
finite set. Therefore, we introduce below the term of a recovery
graph that coalesces that set and covers the overall topology where
the possible DetNet paths are all contained. As such, the recovery
graph coalesces all the possible paths a flow may experience, each
with its own statistical probability to be used.
Thubert Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft RAW Architecture March 2024
2.3.2. Recovery Graph
A networking graph that can be followed to transport packets with
equivalent treatment, associated with usage metadata; as opposed to
the definition of a path above, a recovery graph represents not an
actual but a potential, it is not necessarily a linear sequence like
a simple path, and is not necessarily fully traversed (flooded) by
all packets of a flow like a Detnet Path. Still, and as a
simplification, the casual reader may consider that a recovery graph
is very much like a DetNet path, aggregating multiple paths that may
overlap, fork and rejoin, for instance to enable a protection service
by the PREOF operations.
+---------+
| IoT G/W |
+---------+
EGR <=== Elimination at Egress
| |
/------/ \-------\ Wired backbone
| |
+--|--+ +--|--+
| | | Backbone | | | Backbone
| | | Router | | | Router
+--|--+ +--|--+
| |
o \ o / lane
o o o---o---o o o o o
\ o / o o o
o o \ / o low power lossy network
\/ o o o
o IN <=== Replication at recovery graph Ingress
|
o <- source device
Figure 1: Example IoT Recovery Graph to an IoT Gateway with 1+1
Redundancy
Refining further, a recovery graph is defined as the coalescence of
the collection of all the feasible DetNet Paths that a packet which
flow is assigned to the recovery graph may be forwarded along. A
packet that is assigned to the recovery graph will experience one of
the feasible DetNet Paths based on the current selection by the PLR
at the time the packet traverses the network.
Thubert Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft RAW Architecture March 2024
Refining even further, the feasible DetNet Paths within the recovery
graph may or may not be computed in advance, but decided upon the
detection of a change from a clean slate. Furthermore, the PLR
decision may be distributed, which yields a large combination of
possible and dependant decisions, with no node in the network capable
of reporting which is the current DetNet Path within the recovery
graph.
In DetNet [RFC8655] terms, a recovery graph has the following
properties:
* A recovery graph is a Layer-3 abstraction built upon P2P IP links
between routers. A router may form multiple P2P IP links over a
single radio interface.
* A recovery graph has one Ingress and one Egress nodes, which
operate as DetNet Edge nodes.
* The graph of a recovery graph is reversible, meaning that packets
can be routed against the flow of data packets, e.g., to carry OAM
measurements or control messages back to the Ingress.
* The vertices of that graph are DetNet Relay nodes that operate at
the DetNet Service sub-layer and provide the PREOF functions.
* The topological edges of the graph are strict sequences of DetNet
Transit nodes that operate at the DetNet Forwarding sub-layer.
Figure 2 illustrates the generic concept of a recovery graph, between
an Ingress Node and an Egress Node The recovery graph is composed of
forward Lanes and forward or crossing Segments, see the definition
for those terms in the next sections. A Protection Path contains at
least 2 Lanes as a main path and a backup path.
Thubert Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft RAW Architecture March 2024
------------------- forward direction ---------------------->
a ==> b ==> C -=- F ==> G ==> H T1 I: Ingress
/ \ / | \ / E: Egress
I o n E -=- T2 T1, T2, T3:
\ / \ | / \ External
p ==> q ==> R -=- T ==> U ==> v T3 Targets
Uppercase: DetNet Relay nodes
Lowercase: DetNet Transit nodes
I ==> a ==> b ==> C : an forward Segment to targets F and o
C ==> o ==> T: an forward Segment to target T (and/or U)
G | n | U : a crossing Segment to targets G or U
I --> F --> E : an forward Lane to targets T1, T2, and T3
I, a, b, C, F, G, H, E : a path to T1, T2, and/or T3
I, p, q, R, o, F, G, H, E : lane-crossing alternate path
Figure 2: A Recovery Graph and its Components
2.3.3. Forward and Crossing
Forward refers to progress towards the recovery graph Egress.
Forward links are directional, and packets that are forwarded along
the recovery graph can only be transmitted along the link direction.
Crossing links are bidirectional, meaning that they can be used in
both directions, though a given packet may use the link in one
direction only. A Segment can be forward, in which case it is
composed of forward links only, or crossing, in which case it is
composed of crossing links only. A lane is always forward, meaning
that is is composed of forward links and Segments.
2.3.4. Lane
An end-to-end forward lane between the Ingress and Egress Nodes of a
recovery graph. A lane in a recovery graph is expressed as a strict
sequence of DetNet Relay nodes or as a loose sequence of DetNet Relay
nodes that are joined by recovery graph Segments.
2.3.5. Segment
A strict sequence of DetNet Transit nodes between 2 DetNet Relay
nodes; a Segment of a recovery graph is composed topologically of two
vertices of the recovery graph and one edge of the recovery graph
between those vertices.
Thubert Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft RAW Architecture March 2024
2.4. Deterministic Networking
This document reuses the terminology in section 2 of [RFC8557] and
section 4.1.2 of [RFC8655] for deterministic networking and
deterministic networks.
2.4.1. Flow
A collection of consecutive IP packets defined by the upper layers
and signaled by the same 5 or 6-tuple, see section 5.1 of [RFC8939].
Packets of the same flow must be placed on the same recovery graph to
receive an equivalent treatment from Ingress to Egress within the
recovery graph. Multiple flows may be transported along the same
recovery graph. The DetNet Path that is selected for the flow may
change over time under the control of the PLR.
2.4.2. Deterministic Flow Identifier (L2)
A tuple identified by a stream_handle, and provided by a bridge, in
accordance with IEEE 802.1CB. The tuple comprises at least
destination MAC and VLAN ID. Continuous streams are characterized by
bandwidth and max packet size; scheduled streams are characterized by
a repeating pattern of timed transmissions.
2.4.3. Deterministic Flow Identifier (L3)
See section 3.3 of [DetNet-DP]. The classical IP 5-tuple that
identifies a flow comprises the source IP, destination IP, source
port, destination port, and the upper layer protocol (ULP). DetNet
uses a 6-tuple where the extra field is the DSCP field in the packet.
The IPv6 flow label is not used for that purpose.
2.4.4. TSN
TSN stands for Time Sensitive Networking and denotes the efforts at
IEEE 802 for deterministic networking, originally for use on
Ethernet. Wireless TSN (WTSN) denotes extensions of the TSN work on
wireless media such as the selected RAW technologies [RAW-TECHNOS].
2.5. Reliability and Availability
In the context of the RAW work, Reliability and Availability are
defined as follows:
Thubert Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft RAW Architecture March 2024
2.5.1. Service Level Agreement
In the context of RAW, an SLA (service level agreement) is a contract
between a provider (the network) and a client, the application flow,
about measurable metrics such as latency boundaries, consecutive
losses, and packet delivery ratio (PDR).
2.5.2. Service Level Objective
A service level objective (SLO) is one term in the SLA, for which
specific network setting and operations are implemented. For
instance, a dynamic tuning of the packet redundancy will address an
SLO of consecutive losses in a row by augmenting the chances of
delivery of a packet that follows a loss.
2.5.3. Service Level Indicator
A service level indicator (SLI) measures the compliance of an SLO to
the terms of the contract. It can be for instance the statistics of
individual losses and losses in a row as time series.).
2.5.4. Reliability
Reliability is a measure of the probability that an item will perform
its intended function for a specified interval under stated
conditions (SLA). RAW expresses reliability in terms of Mean Time
Between Failure (MTBF) and Maximum Consecutive Failures (MCF). More
in [NASA].).
2.5.5. Available
That is exempt of unscheduled outage or derivation from the terms of
the SLA. A basic expectation for a RAW network is that the flow is
maintained in the face of any single breakage or flapping.
2.5.6. Availability
Availability is a measure of the relative amount of time where a RAW
Network operates in stated condition (SLA), expressed as
(uptime)/(uptime+downtime).
2.6. OAM variations
2.6.1. Active OAM
See [RFC7799]. In the context of RAW, Active OAM is used to observe
a particular recovery graph, DetNet Path, or Segment of a recovery
graph regardless of whether it is used for traffic at that time.
Thubert Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft RAW Architecture March 2024
2.6.2. In-Band OAM
An active OAM packet is considered in-band for the monitored recovery
graph when it traverses the same set of links and interfaces and if
the OAM packet receives the same QoS and service protection treatment
as the packets of the data flows that are injected in the recovery
graph.
2.6.3. Out-of-Band OAM
Out-of-band OAM is an active OAM whose path is not topologically
congruent to the recovery graph, or its test packets receive a QoS
and/or service protection treatment that is different from that of
the packets of the data flows that are injected in the recovery
graph, or both.
2.6.4. Limited OAM
An active OAM packet is a Limited OAM packet when it observes the RAW
operation over a node, a segment, or a DetNet Path of the recovery
graph, though not from Ingress to Egress. It is injected in the
datapath and extracted from the datapath around the particular
function or subnetwork (e.g., around a relay providing a Service sub-
layer replication point) that is being tested.
2.6.5. Upstream OAM
An upstream OAM packet is an Out-of-Band OAM packet that traverses
the recovery graph from egress to ingress on the reverse direction,
to capture and report OAM measurements upstream. The collection may
capture all information along the whole recovery graph, or it may
only learn select data across all, or only a particular DetNet Path,
or Segment of a recovery graph.
2.6.6. Residence Time
A residence time (RT) is defined as the time period between the
reception of a packet starts and the transmission of the packet
begins. In the context of RAW, RT is useful for a transit node, not
ingress or egress.
Thubert Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft RAW Architecture March 2024
2.6.7. Lower Layer information
The RAW Operational Plane elements (PLR and OAM Supervisor) may
gather aggregated information from lower layers about e.g., link
quality. This information may be obtained from inside the device
using specialized API (e.g., L2 triggers) or via control protocols
such as BFD [RFC5880] or DLEP [DLEP]. It may then be massaged and
exported through oOAM messaging, and passed to the Controller Plane
using the aCPF.
2.6.8. Additional References
[DetNet-OAM] provides additional terminology related to OAM in the
context of DetNet and by extension of RAW, whereas [RFC7799] defines
the Active, Passive, and Hybrid OAM methods.
3. Reliable and Available Wireless
3.1. Reliability and Availability
3.1.1. High Availability Engineering Principles
The reliability criteria of a critical system pervades through its
elements, and if the system comprises a data network then the data
network is also subject to the inherited reliability and availability
criteria. It is only natural to consider the art of high
availability engineering and apply it to wireless communications in
the context of RAW.
There are three principles [pillars] of high availability
engineering:
1. elimination of each single point of failure
2. reliable crossover
3. prompt detection of failures as they occur.
These principles are common to all high availability systems, not
just ones with Internet technology at the center. Examples of both
non-Internet and Internet are included.
3.1.1.1. Elimination of Single Points of Failure
Physical and logical components in a system happen to fail, either as
the effect of wear and tear, when used beyond acceptable limits, or
due to a software bug. It is necessary to decouple component failure
from system failure to avoid the latter. This allows failed
components to be restored while the rest of the system continues to
function.
Thubert Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft RAW Architecture March 2024
IP Routers leverage routing protocols to reroute to alternate routes
in case of a failure. There is a rather open-ended issue over
alternate routes -- for example, when links are cabled through the
same conduit, they form a shared risk link group (SRLG), and will
share the same fate if the bundle is cut. The same effect can happen
with virtual links that end up in a same physical transport through
the games of encapsulation. In a same fashion, an interferer or an
obstacle may affect multiple wireless transmissions at the same time,
even between different sets of peers.
Intermediate network Nodes such as routers, switches and APs, wire
bundles and the air medium itself can become single points of
failure. For High Availability, it is thus required to use
physically link- and Node-disjoint paths; in the wireless space, it
is also required to use the highest possible degree of diversity
(time, space, code, frequency, channel width) in the transmissions
over the air to combat the additional causes of transmission loss.
From an economics standpoint, executing this principle properly
generally increases capitalization expense because of the redundant
equipment. In a constrained network where the waste of energy and
bandwidth should be minimized, an excessive use of redundant links
must be avoided; for RAW this means that the extra bandwidth must be
used wisely and with parsimony.
3.1.1.2. Reliable Crossover
Having a backup equipment has a limited value unless it can be
reliably switched into use within the down-time parameters. IP
Routers execute reliable crossover continuously because the routers
will use any alternate routes that are available [RFC0791]. This is
due to the stateless nature of IP datagrams and the dissociation of
the datagrams from the forwarding routes they take. The "IP Fast
Reroute Framework" [FRR] analyzes mechanisms for fast failure
detection and path repair for IP Fast-Reroute, and discusses the case
of multiple failures and SRLG. Examples of FRR techniques include
Remote Loop-Free Alternate [RLFA-FRR] and backup label-switched path
(LSP) tunnels for the local repair of LSP tunnels using RSVP-TE
[RFC4090].
Deterministic flows, on the contrary, are attached to specific paths
where dedicated resources are reserved for each flow. Therefore each
DetNet path must inherently provide sufficient redundancy to provide
the guaranteed SLA at all times. The DetNet PREOF typically
leverages 1+1 redundancy whereby a packet is sent twice, over non-
congruent paths. This avoids the gap during the fast reroute
operation, but doubles the traffic in the network.
Thubert Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft RAW Architecture March 2024
In the case of RAW, the expectation is that multiple transient faults
may happen in overlapping time windows, in which case the 1+1
redundancy with delayed reestablishment of the second path will not
provide the required guarantees. The Data Plane must be configured
with a sufficient degree of redundancy to select an alternate
redundant path immediately upon a fault, without the need for a slow
intervention from the Controller Plane.
3.1.1.3. Prompt Notification of Failures
The execution of the two above principles is likely to render a
system where the user will rarely see a failure. But someone needs
to in order to direct maintenance.
There are many reasons for system monitoring (FCAPS for fault,
configuration, accounting, performance, security is a handy mental
checklist) but fault monitoring is sufficient reason.
"An Architecture for Describing Simple Network Management Protocol
(SNMP) Management Frameworks" [STD 62] describes how to use SNMP to
observe and correct long-term faults.
"Overview and Principles of Internet Traffic Engineering" [TE]
discusses the importance of measurement for network protection, and
provides an abstract method for network survivability with the
analysis of a traffic matrix as observed by SNMP, probing techniques,
FTP, IGP link state advertisements, and more.
Those measurements are needed in the context of RAW to inform the
controller and make the long term reactive decision to rebuild a
recovery graph based on statistical and aggregated information. RAW
itself operates in the DetNet Network Plane at a faster time scale
with live information on speed, state, etc... This live information
can be obtained directly from the lower layer, e.g., using L2
triggers, read from a protocol such as the Dynamic Link Exchange
Protocol (DLEP) [DLEP], or transported over multiple hops using OAM
and reverse OAM, as illustrated in Figure 11.
3.1.2. Applying Reliability Concepts to Networking
The terms Reliability and Availability are defined for use in RAW in
Section 2 and the reader is invited to read [NASA] for more details
on the general definition of Reliability. Practically speaking a
number of nines is often used to indicate the reliability of a data
link, e.g., 5 nines indicate a Packet Delivery Ratio (PDR) of
99.999%.
Thubert Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft RAW Architecture March 2024
This number is typical in a wired environment where the loss is due
to a random event such as a solar particle that affects the
transmission of a particular packet, but does not affect the previous
or next packet, nor packets transmitted on other links. Note that
the QoS requirements in RAW may include a bounded latency, and a
packet that arrives too late is a fault and not considered as
delivered.
For a periodic networking pattern such as an automation control loop,
this number is proportional to the Mean Time Between Failures (MTBF).
When a single fault can have dramatic consequences, the MTBF
expresses the chances that the unwanted fault event occurs. In data
networks, this is rarely the case. Packet loss cannot be fully
avoided and the systems are built to resist to some loss, e.g., using
redundancy with Retries (HARQ) or Packet Replication and Elimination
(PRE), or, in a typical control loop, by linear interpolation from
the previous measurements.
But the linear interpolation method cannot resist multiple
consecutive losses, and a high MTBF is desired as a guarantee that
this will not happen, IOW that the number of losses-in-a-row can be
bounded. In that case, what is really desired is a Maximum
Consecutive Failures (MCF). If the number of losses in a row passes
the MCF, the control loop has to abort and the system, e.g., the
production line, may need to enter an emergency stop condition.
Engineers that build automated processes may use the network
reliability expressed in nines or as an MTBF as a proxy to indicate
an MCF, e.g., as described in section 7.4 of the "Deterministic
Networking Use Cases" [RFC8578].
3.1.3. Wireless Effects Affecting Reliability
In contrast with wired networks, errors in transmission are the
predominant source of packet loss in wireless networks.
The root cause for the loss may be of multiple origins, calling for
the use of different forms of diversity:
Multipath Fading: A destructive interference by a reflection of the
original signal.
Thubert Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft RAW Architecture March 2024
A radio signal may be received directly (line-of-sight) and/or as
a reflection on a physical structure (echo). The reflections take
a longer path and are delayed by the extra distance divided by the
speed of light in the medium. Depending on the frequency, the
echo lands with a different phase which may add up to
(constructive interference) or cancel the direct signal
(destructive interference).
The affected frequencies depend on the relative position of the
sender, the receiver, and all the reflecting objects in the
environment. A given hop will suffer from multipath fading for
multiple packets in a row till a physical movement changes the
reflection patterns.
Co-channel Interference: Energy in the spectrum used for the
transmission confuses the receiver.
The wireless medium itself is a Shared Risk Link Group (SRLG) for
nearby users of the same spectrum, as an interference may affect
multiple co-channel transmissions between different peers within
the interference domain of the interferer, possibly even when they
use different technologies.
Obstacle in Fresnel Zone: The optimal transmission happens when the
Fresnel Zone between the sender and the receiver is free of
obstacles.
As long as a physical object (e.g., a metallic trolley between
peers) that affects the transmission is not removed, the quality
of the link is affected.
In an environment that is rich of metallic structures and mobile
objects, a single radio link will provide a fuzzy service, meaning
that it cannot be trusted to transport the traffic reliably over a
long period of time.
Transmission losses are typically not independent, and their nature
and duration are unpredictable; as long as a physical object (e.g., a
metallic trolley between peers) that affects the transmission is not
removed, or as long as the interferer (e.g., a radar) keeps
transmitting, a continuous stream of packets will be affected.
The key technique to combat those unpredictable losses is diversity.
Different forms of diversity are necessary to combat different causes
of loss and the use of diversity must be maximized to optimize the
PDR.
Thubert Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft RAW Architecture March 2024
A single packet may be sent at different times (time diversity) over
diverse paths (spatial diversity) that rely on diverse radio channels
(frequency diversity) and diverse PHY technologies, e.g., narrowband
vs. spread spectrum, or diverse codes. Using time diversity will
defeat short-term interferences; spatial diversity combats very local
causes such as multipath fading; narrowband and spread spectrum are
relatively innocuous to one another and can be used for diversity in
the presence of the other.
3.2. The RAW problem
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.
Operating at the Layer-3, RAW does not change the wireless technology
at the lower layers. OTOH, it can further increase diversity in the
spatial, time, code, and frequency domains by enabling multiple link-
layer wired and wireless technologies in parallel or sequentially,
for a higher resilience and a wider applicability. RAW can also
provide homogeneous services to critical applications beyond the
boundaries of a single subnetwork, e.g., using diverse radio access
technologies to optimize the end-to-end application experience.
RAW extends the DetNet services by providing elements that are
specialized for transporting IP flows over deterministic radio
technologies such as listed in [RAW-TECHNOS]. Conceptually, RAW is
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. Nevertheless, cross-
layer optimizations may take place to ensure proper link awareness
(think, link quality) and packet handling (think, scheduling).
The "Deterministic Networking Architecture" [RFC8655] is composed of
three planes: the Application (User) Plane, the Controller Plane, and
the Network Plane. The DetNet Network Plane is composed a Dataplane
(packet forwarding) and an Operational Plane where OAM operations
take place. In the Network Plane, the DetNet service sub-layer
focuses on flow protection (e.g., using redundancy) and can be fully
operated at Layer-3, while the DetNet forwarding sub-layer
estapblishes the patsh, associates the flows to the paths, qnd
ensures the availability of the necessary resources, leverages
Layer-2 functionalities for timely delivery to the next DetNet
system.
Thubert Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft RAW Architecture March 2024
The RAW Architecture extends the DetNet Network Plane, to accommodate
one or multiple hops of homogeneous or heterogeneous wired and
wireless technologies. RAW adds reactivity to the DetNet service
sub-layer to compensate the dynamics for the radio links in terms of
lossiness and bandwidth. This may apply for instance to mesh
networks as illustrated in Figure 4, or diverse radio access networks
as illustrated in Figure 10.
As opposed to wired links, the availability and performance of an
individual wireless link cannot be trusted over the long term; it
varies with transient service discontinuity, and any lane that
includes wireless hops is bound to face short periods of high loss.
On the other hand, being broadcast in nature, the wireless medium
provides capabilities that are atypical on modern wired links and
that the RAW Architecture can leverage opportunistically to improve
the end-to-end reliability over a collection of paths.
Those capabilities include:
Promiscuous Overhearing: Because the medium is broadcast as opposed
to physically point to point like a wire, more than one node in
the forward direction of the packet may hear or overhear a
transmission, and the reception by one may compensate the loss by
another. The concept of path can be revisited in favor multipoint
to multipoint progress in the forward direction and statistical
chances of successful reception of any of the transmissions by any
of the receivers.
L2-aware routing: As the quality and speed of a link variates over
time, the concept of metric must also be revisited. Shortest path
loses its absolute value, and hop count turns into a bad idea as
the link budget drops with the distance. Routing over radio
requires both 1) a new and more dynamic sense of the link, with
new protocols such as DLEP and L2-trigger to maintain L3 up to
date with the link quality and availability, and 2) a new approach
to multipath routing, where non-equal cost multipath becomes the
norm as shortest path loses its meaning with the instability of
the metrics.
ARQ, FEC and codes: Though feasible on any technology, proactive
Thubert Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft RAW Architecture March 2024
(forward) and reactive (ARQ) error correction are typical to the
wireless media. Bounded latency can still be obtained on a
wireless link while operating those technologies, provided that
the extra transmission happens within the budget allocated to that
hop, or that the introduced delay is compensated along the path.
In the case of coded fragments and retries, it makes sense to
variate all the possible physical properties of the transmission
to reduce the chances that the same effect causes the loss of both
original and redundant transimissions.
Relay Coordination and constructive interference: Though it can be
difficult to achieve at high speed, a fine time synchronization
and a precise sense of phase allows the energy from multiple
coordinated senders to add up at the receiver and actually improve
the signal quality, compensating for either distance or physical
objects in the Fresnel zone that would reduce the link budget.
RAW and DetNet route application flows that require a special
treatment along the paths that provide that treatment. This may be
seen as a form of Path Aware Networking and may be subject to
impediments documented in [RFC9049].
The establishment of a path is not in-scope for RAW. It may be,
e.g., the product of a centralized Controller Plane Function (CPF)
like a Path computation Element (PCE) [RFC4655], or may be computed
in a distributed fashion ala Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP)
[RFC2205]. On the other hand, RAW leverages DetNet Network Plane
enhancements to optimize the use of the paths and match the quality
of the transmissions over time.
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 (see Section 2.3) 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 time scale where forwarding decisions are made
for a limited time RAW Network Plane operations happen at a time
scale that sits between the routing and the forwarding time scales,
on one DetNet flow, to select a DetNet path within the resources
delineated by a recovery graph (see Section 2.3.2). The recovery
graph is preestablished and installed by means outside of the scope
of RAW; it may be strict or loose depending on whether each or just a
subset of the hops are observed and controlled by RAW.
Thubert Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft RAW Architecture March 2024
The RAW Architecture is based on an abstract OODA Loop (Observe,
Orient, Decide, Act). The generic concept involves:
1. Operational Plane measurement protocols for Operations,
Administration and Maintenance (OAM) to Observe some or all hops
along a recovery graph as well as the end-to-end packet delivery
2. The DetNet Controller Plane Function (CPF) is split with an
optional asynchronous CPF (aCPF) that reports data and
information such as link statistics to be used asynchronously by
the routing CPF (rCPF) to compute, install, and maintain the
recovery graphs, e.g., by generating knowledge and wisdom such as
a trained model for link quality prediction, which in turn can be
used by the aCPF to Orient the Path selection by the PLR within
the RAW OODA loop.
3. An Operational Plane PLR that hosts the Decision function of
which DetNet Paths to use for the future packets that will be
routed within the recovery graph
4. Service protection actions that operate at the DetNet Service
sub-layer to increase the reliability of the end-to-end
transmissions. The RAW architecture also covers in-situ
signaling when the decision is Acted by a node that down the
recovery graph from the PLR.
The overall OODA Loop optimizes the use of redundancy to achieve the
required reliability and availability Service Level Agreement (SLA)
while minimizing the use of constrained resources such as spectrum
and battery.
4. The RAW Conceptual Model
RAW inherits the conceptual model described in section 4 of the
DetNet Architecture [RFC8655] as illustrated in Figure 3, which also
shows example reliability Functions in the different layers. RAW
extends DetNet with Point of Local Repair (PLR, see Section 5.5) to
provide additional agility against transmission loss. The PLR can
act, e.g., based on indications from the wireless layer or based on
OAM.
Thubert Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft RAW Architecture March 2024
.
.
+-----------------------------+
| |
| DetNet Service sub-layer | (e.g., (PREOF)
| |
+-----------------------------+
| |
| DetNet Forwarding sub-layer |
| |
| _____ _____ |
| | PLR +--+ OAM | |
| -+--- ----- |
| | ^ |
| | | |
| ___v_+___ |
+--------+ RAW API +----------+
| --------- |
| Wireless/Radio Layer | (e.g., (H)ARQ)
| |
+-----------------------------+
.
Figure 3: Wireless layer and DetNet sub-layers
The RAW API enables interactions between the reliability functions
provided by the wireless technology and the reliability functions
provided by DetNet. Thus, the RAW aPI enables cross-layer
optimizations to improve reliability.
4.1. The RAW Planes
A RAW Network Plane may be strict (as illustrated in Figure 6 or
loose (as illustrated in Figure 7, depending on whether RAW observes
and takes actions on all hops or not. For instance, the packets
between two wireless entities may be relayed over a wired
infrastructure, in which case RAW observes and controls the
transmission over the wireless first and last hops, as well as end-
to-end metrics such as latency, jitter, and delivery ratio. This
operation is loose since the structure and properties of the wired
infrastructure are ignored, and may be either controlled by other
means such as DetNet/TSN, or neglected in the face of the wireless
hops.
Thubert Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft RAW Architecture March 2024
The RAW Nodes are DetNet relays that operate in the RAW Network Plane
and are capable of additional diversity mechanisms and measurement
functions related to the radio interface. RAW leverages a CPF that
operates inside the RAW Nodes (typically the Ingress Edge Nodes) to
dynamically adapt the path of the packets and optimizes the resource
usage.
An RAW-enabled rCPF interacts with RAW Nodes over a Southbound API.
It consumes data and information from the network and generates
knowledge and wisdom to help steer the traffic optimally inside a
recovery graph.
DetNet Routing
rCPF rCPF rCPF rCPF
Southbound API
_-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-
_-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-
RAW --/ RAW --/ RAW --/ RAW
/-- Node /-- Node /-- Node /-- Node --/
Ingress --/ / / /-- Egress
End / / .. . End
Node ---/ / / .. .. . /-- Node
/-- RAW --/ RAW ( non-RAW ) -- RAW --/
Node /-- Node --- ( Nodes ) Node
... .
--/ wireless wired
/-- link --- link
Figure 4: RAW Nodes
When a new flow is defined, the rCPF uses it current knowledge of the
network to build a new recovery graph between an Ingress End System
and an Egress End System for that flow; it indicates to the RAW Nodes
where the PREOF and/or radio diversity and reliability operations may
be actioned in the Network Plane.
* The recovery graph may be strict, meaning that the DetNet
forwarding sub-layer operations are enforced end-to-end
* The recovery graph may be expressed loosely to enable traversing a
non-RAW subnetwork as in Figure 7. In that case, RAW can not
leverage end-to-end DetNet and cannot provide latency guarantees.
The non-RAW subnetwork is neglected in the RAW computation, that
Thubert Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft RAW Architecture March 2024
is, considered jitterless, and infinitely reliable and/or
available in comparison with the links between RAW nodes, so loss
and jitter that is measured end-to-end is attributed to the RAW
hops (typically an access link).
A local asynchronous CPF in the RAW node reports the Link-Layer
metrics to the rCPF in a time-aggregated, e.g., statistical fashion.
Example Link-Layer metrics include typical Link bandwidth (the medium
speed depends dynamically on the PHY mode), number of flows
(bandwidth that can be reserved for a flow depends on the number and
size of flows sharing the spectrum) and average and mean squared
deviation of availability and reliability figures such as Packet
Delivery Ratio (PDR) over long periods of time.
Based on those metrics, the DetNet rCPF installs the recovery graph
with enough redundant forwarding solutions to ensure that the Network
Plane can reliably deliver the packets within a System Level
Agreement (SLA) associated to the flows that it transports. The SLA
defines end-to-end reliability and availability requirements, where
reliability may be expressed as a successful delivery in order and
within a bounded delay of at least one copy of a packet.
Depending on the use case and the SLA, the recovery graph may
comprise non-RAW segments, either interleaved inside the recovery
graph, or all the way to the Egress End Node (e.g., a server in the
Internet). RAW observes the Lower-Layer Links between RAW nodes
(typically, radio links) and the end-to-end Network Layer operation
to decide at all times which of the diversity schemes is actioned by
which RAW Nodes.
Once a recovery graph is established, per-segment and end-to-end
reliability and availability statistics are periodically reported to
the rCPF to assure that the SLA can be met or have it recompute the
recovery graph if not.
4.2. RAW vs. Upper and Lower Layers
RAW improves the reliability of transmissions and the availability of
the communication resources, but does not provide scheduling and
shaping, so RAW itself does not provide guarantees such as latency
for the application payload. Rather, it should be seen as a dynamic
optimization of the use of redundancy to maintain it within certain
boundaries. For instance, ARQ is operated by the lower layers and
RAW will only abstract the concept and hint the lower layers on the
desired outcome, as opposed to performing the retries at Layer-3.
Thubert Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft RAW Architecture March 2024
Guarantees such as bounded latency depend on the upper layers
(Transport or Application) to provide the payload in volumes and at
times that match the contract with the DetNet sub-layers and the
layers below. Excess of incoming traffic at the DetNet Ingress will
cause either dropping, queueing, or reclassification of the packets,
and entail loss, latency, or jitter, and moot the guarantees that are
provided inside the DetNet Network.
When the traffic from upper layers matches the expectation of the
lower layers, RAW still depends on the lower layers to provide the
timing and physical resources guarantees that are needed to match the
traffic SLA. When the availability of the physical resource varies,
RAW will act on the distribution of the traffic to leverage
alternates within a finite set of potential resources.
4.3. RAW and DetNet
RAW leverages the DetNet Forwarding sub-layer and requires the
support of in-situ OAM in DetNet Transit Nodes (see fig 3 of
[RFC8655] for the dynamic acquisition of link capacity and state to
maintain a strict RAW service, end-to-end, over a DetNet Network.
RAW extends DetNet to improve the protection against link errors such
as transient flapping that are far more common in wireless links.
Nevertheless, the RAW methods are for the most part applicable to
wired links as well, e.g., when energy savings are desirable and the
available path diversity exceeds 1+1 linear redundancy.
RAW adds sub-layer functions that operate in the DetNet Operational
Plane. The RAW Operational sub-layer typically runs only in the
DetNet Ingress Edge Node or End System, though it may also run in
DetNet Relay Nodes when the RAW Control sub-layer is distributed
along the recovery graph. The RAW Operational sub-layer
functionality includes the PLR that decides the DetNet Path for the
future packets of a flows along the DetNet Path through specific
signaling, and the OAM Supervisor that triggers, and learns from, OAM
observations, and feeds the PLR for its next decision.
RAW extends the DetNet Stack (see fig 4 of [RFC8655]) with additional
functionality at the DetNet Service sub-layer for the actuation of
the PLR decision. Layer-3 in general and DetNet in particular
operates on abstractions of the lower layers and through APIs to
control those abstractions. For instance, DetNet already leverages
lower layers for time-sensitive operations such as time
synchronization and traffic shapers. Because the performances of the
radio layers are subject to rapid changes, so RAW needs more dynamic
gauges and knobs. To that effect, the RAW API enables interactions
between the reliability functions provided by the wireless technology
and the reliability functions provided by DetNet. That is, the RAW
Thubert Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft RAW Architecture March 2024
API provides a radio abstraction to the DetNet layer. The RAW API
can be used to push reliability and timing hints like suggest X
retries (min, max) within a time window, or send unicast (one next
hop) or multicast (for overhearing). The other way around RAW needs
hints about the radio conditions like L2 triggers (RSSI, LQI, ETX…)
over all the wireless hops. This information is useful to both the
aCPF and the PLR.
The RAW Service sub-layer also adds the OAM Propagator that
(re)generates the OAM information as it is formed and propagated In-
Band or Out-of-Band. The RAW Service sub-layer may be present in
DetNet Edge and Relay Nodes, though the PREOF Actuator has no
operation in the Egress Edge Node.
+------------------------------+ +--------------------------------+
| | | |
.....................................................................
| | | |
| +--------------------------+ | | +----------------------------+ |
| | aCPF | | | | aCPF | |
| +--------------------------+ | | +----------------------------+ |
| +----------+ +------------+ | | .-.-.-.-.-.--. .-.-.-.-.-.--. |
| | PLR | | OAM | | | | Distr. PLR | | Distr. OAM | |
| | | | Supervisor | | | | | | Supervisor | |
| +----------+ +------------+ | | .-.-.-.-.-.--. .-.-.-.-.-.--. |
| | | optional optional |
RAW Operational sub-layer
.....................................................................
DetNet Service sub-layer
| | | |
| +----------+ +------------+ | | +------------+ +------------+ |
| | PREOF | | OAM | | | | PREOF | | OAM | |
| | Actuator | | Observer | | | | Actuator | | Observer | |
| +----------+ +------------+ | | +------------+ +------------+ |
| | | |
DetNet Service sub-layer
.....................................................................
DetNet Forwarding sub-layer
| | | |
| +------------+ | | +------------+ |
| |In-Situ OAM | | | |In-Situ OAM | |
| +------------+ | | +------------+ |
| | | |
+------------------------------+ +--------------------------------+
End System or Relay
Ingress Edge Node Node
Thubert Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft RAW Architecture March 2024
Figure 5: RAW functional posture within DetNet sub-layers
There are 2 main proposed models to deploy RAW and DetNet. In the
first model (strict) illustrated in Figure 6, RAW operates over a
continuous DetNet Service end-to-end between the Ingress and the
Egress Edge Nodes or End Systems.
A minimal Forwarding sub-layer service is provided at all DetNet
Nodes to ensure that the OAM information flows. Relay Nodes may or
may not support RAW services, and the Edge nodes do support RAW.
DetNet guarantees such as latency are provided end-to-end, and RAW
supports the DetNet Service to optimize the use of resources.
--------------------Flow Direction---------------------------------->
+---------+
| RAW |
| Control |
+---------+ +---------+ +---------+
| RAW + | | RAW + | | RAW + |
| DetNet | | DetNet | | DetNet |
| Service | | Service | | Service |
+---------+---------------------------+---------+--------+---------+
| DetNet |
| Forwarding |
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
Ingress Transit Relay Egress
Edge ... Nodes ... Nodes ... Edge
Node Node
<--------------------Full Guarantees------------------------------->
Figure 6: (Strict) RAW over DetNet
In the second model (loose), illustrated in Figure 7, RAW operates
over a partial DetNet Service where typically only the Ingress and
the Egress End Systems support RAW. The DetNet Domain may extend
beyond the Ingress node, or there may be a DetNet domain starting at
an Ingress Edge Node at the first hop after the End System.
In the loose model, RAW cannot observe the hops in network, and the
path beyond the first hop is opaque; RAW can still observe the end-
to-end behavior and use Layer-3 measurements to decide whether to
replicate a packet and select the first hop interface(s).
Thubert Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft RAW Architecture March 2024
--------------------Flow Direction---------------------------------->
+---------+
| RAW |
| Control |
+---------+ +---------+ +---------+
| RAW + | | DetNet | | RAW + |
| DetNet | | Only | | DetNet |
| Service | | Service | | Service |
+---------+----------------------+---+ +---+---------+
| DetNet | | DetNet |
| Forwarding | | Forwarding |
+------------------------------------+ +-------------+
Ingress Transit Relay Internet Egress
End ... Nodes ... Nodes ... ... End
System System
<----------------------No Guarantee-------------------------------->
Figure 7: Loose RAW
5. The RAW Control Loop
5.1. Routing Time Scale vs. Forwarding Time Scale
With DetNet, the Controller Plane Function handles the routing
computation and maintenance. With RAW, the routing part of the CPF
(rCPF) is segregated from the RAW Control Loop, so it may reside
outside of the RAW network. To achieve RAW capabilities, the rCPF is
extended to generate the information required by the local aCPF,
which acts as the orientation component in the loop. The rCPF may,
e.g., propose DetNet Paths to be used as a reflex action in response
to network events, or by provide aggregated history that the aCPF can
use to make an oriented decision.
In a wireless mesh, the path to the DetNet CPF can be expensive and
slow, possibly going across the whole mesh and back. Reaching to the
CPF can also be slow in regards to the speed of events that affect
the forwarding operation at the radio layer. Note that a distributed
routing protocol may also take time and consume excessive wireless
resources to reconverge to a new optimized state.
Thubert Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft RAW Architecture March 2024
As a result, the DetNet CPF is not expected to be aware of and to
react to very transient changes. The abstraction of a link at the
routing level is expected to use statistical metrics that aggregate
the behavior of a link over long periods of time, and represent its
properties as shades of gray as opposed to numerical values such as a
link quality indicator, or a boolean value for either up or down.
The interaction with the (remote) RAW rCPF is handled by a (local)
aCPF that builds reports to the rCPF and digests the control
information back, to be used inside a forwarding control loop for
traffic steering.
+----------------+
| DetNet |
| Routing |
| CPF |
+----------------+
^
|
Slow
|
_-._-._-._-._-._-. | ._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-
_-._-._-._-._-._-._-. | _-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-
|
Expensive
|
.... | .......
.... . | . .......
.... v ...
.. A-------B-------C---D ..
... / \ / \ ..
. I ----M-------N--***-- E ..
.. \ / / ...
.. P--***--Q-----M---R ....
.. ....
. <----- Fast -------> ....
....... ....
.................
*** = flapping at this time
Figure 8: 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
Thubert Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft RAW Architecture March 2024
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 that model, the
routing operation computes a recovery graph that enables multiple
Non-Equal Cost Multi-Path (N-ECMP) forwarding solutions along so-
called protection paths, and leaves it to the Network Plane to make
the per-packet decision of which of these possibilities should be
used.
In the context of Traffic Engineering (TE), 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 controller plane routing time 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 the scale of the
packet rate, and uses information that must be pertinent at the
present time for the current transmission(s).
5.2. A OODA Loop
OODA (Observe, Orient, Decide, Act) is a generic formalism to
represent the operational steps in a Control Loop. The RAW
Architecture applies that generic model to continuously optimize the
spectrum and energy used to forward packets within a recovery graph,
instantiating the OODA steps as follows:
Observe: Network Plane measurements, including protocols for
Operations, Administration and Maintenance (OAM), to Observe the
local state of the links and some or all hops along a recovery
graph as well as the end-to-end packet delivery, more in
Section 5.3;
Orient: An asynchronous CPF that reports data and information such
as the link statistics, and leverages offline-computed wisdom and
knowledge to Orient the PLR for its forwarding decision, more in
Section 5.4;
Decide: A local PLR that decides which DetNet Path to use for the
future packet(s) that are routed along the recovery graph, more in
Section 5.5;
Act: PREOF Dataplane actions are controlled from the DetNet Service
Thubert Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft RAW Architecture March 2024
sub-layer to increase the reliability of the end-to-end
transmission. The RAW architecture also covers in-situ signaling
when the decision is Acted by a node that down the recovery graph
from the PLR, more in Section 5.6.
+-------> Orient (aCPF) -------+
| reflex actions |
| pre-trained model |
| ... |
| v
Observe (OAM) Decide (PLR)
^ |
| |
| |
+-------- Act (PREOF) <--------+
At DetNet
Service sub-layer
Figure 9: The RAW OODA Loop
The overall OODA Loop optimizes the use of redundancy to achieve the
required reliability and availability Service Level Agreement (SLA)
while minimizing the use of constrained resources such as spectrum
and battery.
5.3. Observe: The RAW OAM
RAW In-situ OAM operation in the Network Plane may observe either a
full recovery graph or the DetNet Path that is being used at this
time. As packets may be load balanced, replicated, eliminated, and /
or fragmented for Network Coding (NC) forward error correction (FEC),
the RAW In-situ operation needs to be able to signal which operation
occured to an individual packet.
Active RAW OAM may be needed to observe the unused segments and
evaluate the desirability of a rerouting decision.
Finally, the RAW Service sub-layer Assurance may observe the
individual PREOF operation of a relay node to ensure that it is
conforming; this might require injecting an OAM packet at an upstream
point inside the recovery graph and extracting that packet at another
point downstream before it reaches the egress.
This observation feeds the RAW PLR that makes the decision on which
path is used at which RAW Node, for one a small continuous series of
packets.
Thubert Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft RAW Architecture March 2024
... ..
RAN 1 ----- ... .. ...
/ . .. ....
+-------+ / . .. .... +------+
|Ingress|- . ..... |Egress|
| End |------ RAN 2 -- . Internet ....---| End |
|System |- .. ..... |System|
+-------+ \ . ...... +------+
\ ... ... .....
RAN n -------- ... .....
<------------------> <-------------------->
Observed by OAM Opaque to OAM
Figure 10: Observed Links in Radio Access Protection
In the case of a End-to-End Protection in a Wireless Mesh, the
recovery graph is strict and congruent with the path so all links are
observed.
Conversely, in the case of Radio Access Protection illustrated in
Figure 10, the recovery graph is Loose and only the first hop is
observed; the rest of the path is abstracted and considered
infinitely reliable. The loss if a packet is attributed to the first
hop Radio Access Network (RAN), even if a particular loss effectively
happens farther down the path. In that case, RAW enables technology
diversity (e.g. Wi-Fi and 5G) which in turn improves the diversity
in spectrum usage.
The Links that are not observed by OAM are opaque to it, meaning that
the OAM information is carried across and possibly echoed as data,
but there is no information capture in intermediate nodes. In the
example above, the Internet is opaque and not controlled by RAW;
still the RAW OAM measures the end-to-end latency and delivery ratio
for packets sent via each if RAN 1, RAN 2 and RAN 3, and determines
whether a packet should be sent over either or a collection of those
access links.
5.4. Orient: The RAW-extended DetNet Operational Plane
RAW separates the long time scale at which a recovery graph is
elaborated and installed, from the short time scale at which the
forwarding decision is taken for one or a few packets (see in
Section 5.1) that will experience the same path until the network
conditions evolve and another path is selected within the same
recovery graph.
Thubert Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft RAW Architecture March 2024
The recovery graph computation is out of scope, but RAW expects that
the CPF that installs the recovery graph also provides related
knowledge in the form of meta data about the links, segments and
possible DetNet Paths. That meta data can be a pre-digested
statistical model, and may include prediction of future flaps and
packet loss, as well as recommended actions when that happens.
The meta data may include:
* A set of Pre-Determined DetNet Paths that are prepared to match
expected link degradation profiles, so the DDCPEs can take reflex
rerouting actions when facing a degradation that matches one such
profile.
* Link Quality Statistics history and pre-trained models, e.g., to
predict the short-term variation of quality of the links in a
recovery graph
The recovery graph is installed with measurable objectives that are
computed by the rCPF to achieve the RAW SLA. The objectives can be
expressed as any of maximum number of packet lost in a row, bounded
latency, maximal jitter, maximum number of interleaved out of order
packets, average number of copies received at the elimination point,
and maximal delay between the first and the last received copy of the
same packet.
5.5. Decide: The Point of Local Repair
The RAW OODA Loop operates at the path selection time scale to
provide agility vs. the brute force approach of flooding the whole
recovery graph. The OODA Loop controls, within the redundant
solutions that are proposed by the acynchronous CPF, which will be
used for each packet to provide a Reliable and Available service
while minimizing the waste of constrained resources.
To that effect, RAW defines the Point of Local Repair (PLR) as a
synchronous CPF that performs rapid local adjustments of the
forwarding tables within the diversity that the asynchronous CPF has
in store for the recovery graph. The PLR enables to exploit the
richer forwarding capabilities at a faster time scale over the
smaller domain that is the recovery graph, in either a loose or a
strict fashion.
The PLR operates on metrics that evolve faster, but that need to be
advertised at a fast rate but only locally, within the recovery
graph, and reacts on the metrics updates by changing the DetNet path
in use for the affected flows.
Thubert Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft RAW Architecture March 2024
The rapid changes in the forwarding decisions are made and contained
within the scope of a recovery graph and the actions of the PLR are
not signaled outside the recovery graph. This is as opposed to the
rCPF that must observe the whole network and optimize all the
recovery graphs globally, which can only be done at a slow pace and
using long-term statistical metrics, as presented in Table 1.
+===============+=============================+===================+
| | rCPF | PLR (In Scope) |
+===============+=============================+===================+
| Operation | Typically Centralized | Source-Routed or |
| | | Distributed |
+---------------+-----------------------------+-------------------+
| Communication | Slow, expensive | Fast, local |
+---------------+-----------------------------+-------------------+
| Time Scale | hours and above | seconds and below |
+---------------+-----------------------------+-------------------+
| Network Size | Large, many recovery graphs | Small, within one |
| | to optimize globally | recovery graph |
+---------------+-----------------------------+-------------------+
| Considered | Averaged, Statistical, | Instant values / |
| Metrics | Shade of grey | boolean condition |
+---------------+-----------------------------+-------------------+
Table 1: CPF vs. PLR
The PLR sits in the DetNet Service sub-Layer of Edge and Relay Nodes.
On the one hand, it operates on the packet flow, learning the
recovery graph and path selection information from the packet,
possibly making local decision and retagging the packet to indicate
so. On the other hand, the PLR interacts with the lower layers
(through triggers and DLEP) and with its peers (through iOAM and
oOAM) to obtain up-to-date information about its links and the
quality of the overall recovery graph, respectively, as illustrated
in Figure 11.
Thubert Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 36]
Internet-Draft RAW Architecture March 2024
|
packet | going
down the | stack
+==========v==========+=====================+=====================+
| (iOAM + iCTRL) | (L2 Triggers, DLEP) | (oOAM) |
+==========v==========+=====================+=====================+
| Learn from | | Learn from |
| packet tagging > Maintain < end-to-end |
+----------v----------+ Forwarding | OAM packets |
| Forwarding decision < State +---------^-----------|
+----------v----------+ | Enrich or |
+ Retag Packet | Learn abstracted > Regenerate |
| and Forward | metrics about Links | OAM packets |
+..........v..........+..........^..........+.........^.v.........+
| Lower layers |
+..........v.....................^....................^.v.........+
frame | sent Frame | L2 Ack oOAM | | packet
over | wireless In | In | | and out
v | | v
Figure 11: PLR Interfaces
5.6. Act: DetNet Path Selection and reliability functions
The main action by the PLR is the swapping of the DetNet Path within
the recovery graph for the future packets. The candidate DetNet
Paths represent different energy and spectrum profiles, and provide
protection against different failures.
The RAW API enriches the DetNet protection services (PREOF) with
potential possiblity to interact with lower layer one-hop reliability
functions that are more typical to wireless than wires, including
Automatic Repeat reQuest (ARQ), Forward Error Correction (FEC),
Hybrid ARQ (HARQ) that includes both, and other techniques such as
overhearing and constructive interferences. Because RAW may be
leveraged on wired links, e.g., to save power, it is not expected
that all lower layers support all those capabilities.
RAW provides hints to the lower layer services on the desired
outcome, and the lower layer acts on those hints to provide the best
approximation of that outcome, e.g., a level of reliability for one-
hop transmission within a bounded budget of time and/or energy.
Thus, the RAW API makes possible cross-layer optimization for
reliability depending on the actual abstraction provided. That is,
some reliability functions are controlled from Layer-3 using an
abstract interface, while they are really operated at the lower
layers.
Thubert Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 37]
Internet-Draft RAW Architecture March 2024
The RAW Path Selection can be implemented in both centralized and
distributed scheduling approaches. In the centralized approach, the
PLR may obtain a set of pre-computed DetNet paths matching a set of
expected failures, and apply the appropriate DetNet paths for the
current state of the wireless links. In the distributed approach,
the signaling in the packet may be more abstract than an explicit
Path, and the PLR decision might be revised along the select DetNet
Path based on a better knowledge of the rest of the way.
The dynamic DetNet Path selection in RAW avoids the waste of critical
resources such as spectrum and energy while providing for the
guaranteed SLA, e.g., by rerouting and/or adding redundancy only when
a spike of loss is observed.
6. Security Considerations
RAW uses all forms of diversity including radio technology and
physical path to increase the reliability and availability in the
face of unpredictable conditions. While this is not done
specifically to defeat an attacker, the amount of diversity used in
RAW makes an attack harder to achieve.
6.1. Layer-2 encryption
Radio networks typically encrypt at the MAC layer to protect the
transmission. If the encryption is per pair of peers, then certain
RAW operations like promiscuous overhearing become impossible.
6.2. Forced Access
A RAW policy may typically select the cheapest collection of links
that matches the requested SLA, e.g., use free Wi-Fi vs. paid 3GPP
access. By defeating the cheap connectivity (e.g., PHY-layer
interference) the attacker can force an End System to use the paid
access and increase the cost of the transmission for the user.
7. IANA Considerations
This document has no IANA actions.
8. Contributors
The editor wishes to thank the document co-authors:
Lou Berger: Lab N
Xavi Vilajosana: Wireless Networks Research Lab, Universitat Oberta
de Catalunya
Thubert Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 38]
Internet-Draft RAW Architecture March 2024
Geogios Papadopolous: IMT Atlantique
Remous-Aris Koutsiamanis: IMT Atlantique
Rex Buddenberg: Individual contributor
Greg Mirsky: Ericsson
for their contributions to the text and ideas exposed in this
document.
9. Acknowledgments
This architecture could never have been completed without the support
and recommendations from the DetNet Chairs Janos Farkas and Lou
Berger, and Dave Black, the DetNet Tech Advisor. Many thanks to all
of you.
The authors wish to thank Balazs Varga, Dave Cavalcanti, Don Fedyk,
Nicolas Montavont, and Fabrice Theoleyre for their in-depth reviews
during the development of this document.
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[6TiSCH-ARCHI]
Thubert, P., Ed., "An Architecture for IPv6 over the Time-
Slotted Channel Hopping Mode of IEEE 802.15.4 (6TiSCH)",
RFC 9030, DOI 10.17487/RFC9030, May 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9030>.
[INT-ARCHI]
Braden, R., Ed., "Requirements for Internet Hosts -
Communication Layers", STD 3, RFC 1122,
DOI 10.17487/RFC1122, October 1989,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1122>.
[RFC4427] Mannie, E., Ed. and D. Papadimitriou, Ed., "Recovery
(Protection and Restoration) Terminology for Generalized
Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)", RFC 4427,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4427, March 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4427>.
[RAW-TECHNOS]
Thubert, P., Cavalcanti, D., Vilajosana, X., Schmitt, C.,
and J. Farkas, "Reliable and Available Wireless
Technologies", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
Thubert Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 39]
Internet-Draft RAW Architecture March 2024
ietf-raw-technologies-08, 10 July 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-raw-
technologies-08>.
[RAW-USE-CASES]
Bernardos, C. J., Papadopoulos, G. Z., Thubert, P., and F.
Theoleyre, "RAW Use-Cases", Work in Progress, Internet-
Draft, draft-ietf-raw-use-cases-11, 17 April 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-raw-use-
cases-11>.
[RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J.-P., and J. Ash, "A Path
Computation Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4655, August 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4655>.
[RFC6291] Andersson, L., van Helvoort, H., Bonica, R., Romascanu,
D., and S. Mansfield, "Guidelines for the Use of the "OAM"
Acronym in the IETF", BCP 161, RFC 6291,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6291, June 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6291>.
[RFC7799] Morton, A., "Active and Passive Metrics and Methods (with
Hybrid Types In-Between)", RFC 7799, DOI 10.17487/RFC7799,
May 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7799>.
[RFC8578] Grossman, E., Ed., "Deterministic Networking Use Cases",
RFC 8578, DOI 10.17487/RFC8578, May 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8578>.
[IPv6] 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>.
[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>.
[RFC8939] Varga, B., Ed., Farkas, J., Berger, L., Fedyk, D., and S.
Bryant, "Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Data Plane:
IP", RFC 8939, DOI 10.17487/RFC8939, November 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8939>.
Thubert Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 40]
Internet-Draft RAW Architecture March 2024
[RFC9049] Dawkins, S., Ed., "Path Aware Networking: Obstacles to
Deployment (A Bestiary of Roads Not Taken)", RFC 9049,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9049, June 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9049>.
10.2. Informative References
[RFC0791] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791,
DOI 10.17487/RFC0791, September 1981,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc791>.
[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, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2205>.
[TE] 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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3272>.
[RFC3366] Fairhurst, G. and L. Wood, "Advice to link designers on
link Automatic Repeat reQuest (ARQ)", BCP 62, RFC 3366,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3366, August 2002,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3366>.
[STD 62] Harrington, D., Presuhn, R., and B. Wijnen, "An
Architecture for Describing Simple Network Management
Protocol (SNMP) Management Frameworks", STD 62, RFC 3411,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3411, December 2002,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3411>.
[RFC4090] Pan, P., Ed., Swallow, G., Ed., and A. Atlas, Ed., "Fast
Reroute Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Tunnels", RFC 4090,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4090, May 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4090>.
[RFC5880] Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
(BFD)", RFC 5880, DOI 10.17487/RFC5880, June 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5880>.
[FRR] Shand, M. and S. Bryant, "IP Fast Reroute Framework",
RFC 5714, DOI 10.17487/RFC5714, January 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5714>.
Thubert Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 41]
Internet-Draft RAW Architecture March 2024
[RLFA-FRR] Bryant, S., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Shand, M., and N.
So, "Remote Loop-Free Alternate (LFA) Fast Reroute (FRR)",
RFC 7490, DOI 10.17487/RFC7490, April 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7490>.
[DetNet-DP]
Varga, B., Ed., Farkas, J., Berger, L., Malis, A., and S.
Bryant, "Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Data Plane
Framework", RFC 8938, DOI 10.17487/RFC8938, November 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8938>.
[DLEP] 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>.
[I-D.irtf-panrg-path-properties]
Enghardt, R. and C. Krähenbühl, "A Vocabulary of Path
Properties", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-irtf-
panrg-path-properties-08, 6 March 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-irtf-panrg-
path-properties-08>.
[IPoWIRELESS]
Thubert, P. and M. Richardson, "Architecture and Framework
for IPv6 over Non-Broadcast Access", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-thubert-6man-ipv6-over-wireless-15,
8 March 2023, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
draft-thubert-6man-ipv6-over-wireless-15>.
[DetNet-OAM]
Mirsky, G., Theoleyre, F., Papadopoulos, G. Z., Bernardos,
C. J., Varga, B., and J. Farkas, "Framework of Operations,
Administration and Maintenance (OAM) for Deterministic
Networking (DetNet)", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
draft-ietf-detnet-oam-framework-11, 8 January 2024,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-detnet-
oam-framework-11>.
[NASA] Adams, T., "RELIABILITY: Definition & Quantitative
Illustration", <https://kscddms.ksc.nasa.gov/Reliability/
Documents/150814-3bWhatIsReliability.pdf>.
Author's Address
Pascal Thubert (editor)
06330 Roquefort-les-Pins
France
Thubert Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 42]
Internet-Draft RAW Architecture March 2024
Email: pascal.thubert@gmail.com
Thubert Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 43]