DetNet IP Data Plane Encapsulation
draft-ietf-detnet-dp-sol-ip-01
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Replaced".
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Jouni Korhonen , Balazs Varga | ||
| Last updated | 2018-10-21 (Latest revision 2018-07-01) | ||
| Replaces | draft-ietf-detnet-dp-sol | ||
| Replaced by | draft-ietf-detnet-ip, draft-ietf-detnet-data-plane-framework, RFC 8938, RFC 8939 | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
| Stream | WG state | WG Document | |
| Document shepherd | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-ietf-detnet-dp-sol-ip-01
DetNet J. Korhonen, Ed.
Internet-Draft
Intended status: Standards Track B. Varga, Ed.
Expires: April 24, 2019 Ericsson
October 21, 2018
DetNet IP Data Plane Encapsulation
draft-ietf-detnet-dp-sol-ip-01
Abstract
This document specifies Deterministic Networking data plane operation
for IP encapsulated user data.
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 April 24, 2019.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include 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.
Korhonen & Varga Expires April 24, 2019 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft DetNet IP Data Plane October 2018
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Terms used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.3. Requirements language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. DetNet IP Data Plane Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. DetNet IP Data Plane Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1. End-system specific considerations . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.2. DetNet domain specific considerations . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2.1. DetNet Routers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.3. Networks with multiple technology segments . . . . . . . 11
4.4. OAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.5. Class of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.6. Quality of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.7. Cross-DetNet flow resource aggregation . . . . . . . . . 14
4.8. Time synchronization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5. Management and control plane considerations . . . . . . . . . 15
5.1. Explicit routes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5.2. Service protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5.3. Congestion protection and latency control . . . . . . . . 15
5.4. Flow aggregation control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5.5. Bidirectional traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6. DetNet IP Data Plane Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6.1. DetNet IP Flow Identification Procedures . . . . . . . . 16
6.1.1. IP Header Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
6.1.2. Other Protocol Header Information . . . . . . . . . . 18
6.1.3. Flow Identification Management and Control
Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
6.2. Forwarding Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
6.3. DetNet IP Traffic Treatment Procedures . . . . . . . . . 20
6.4. Aggregation Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
7. Mapping IP DetNet Flows to IEEE 802.1 TSN . . . . . . . . . . 21
7.1. TSN Stream ID Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
7.2. TSN Usage of FRER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
7.3. Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
7.4. Management and Control Implications . . . . . . . . . . . 25
8. Security considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
9. IANA considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
10. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
11. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
12.1. Normative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
12.2. Informative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Appendix A. Example of DetNet data plane operation . . . . . . . 31
Appendix B. Example of pinned paths using IPv6 . . . . . . . . . 31
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Korhonen & Varga Expires April 24, 2019 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft DetNet IP Data Plane October 2018
1. Introduction
Deterministic Networking (DetNet) is a service that can be offered by
a network to DetNet flows. DetNet provides these flows extremely low
packet loss rates and assured maximum end-to-end delivery latency.
General background and concepts of DetNet can be found in the DetNet
Architecture [I-D.ietf-detnet-architecture].
This document specifies the DetNet data plane operation for IP hosts
and routers that provide DetNet service to IP encapsulated data. No
DetNet specific encapsulation is defined to support IP flows, rather
existing IP and higher layer protocol header information is used to
support flow identification and DetNet service delivery.
The DetNet Architecture decomposes the DetNet related data plane
functions into two layers: a service layer and a transport layer.
The service layer is used to provide DetNet service protection and
reordering. The transport layer is used to provides congestion
protection (low loss, assured latency, and limited reordering). As
no DetNet specific headers are added to support IP DetNet flows, only
the transport layer functions are supported using the IP DetNet
defined by this document. Service protection can be provided on a
per sub-net basis using technologies such as MPLS
[I-D.ietf-detnet-dp-sol-mpls] and IEEE802.1 TSN.
This document provides an overview of the DetNet IP data plane in
Section 3, considerations that apply to providing DetNet services via
the DetNet IP data plane in Section 4 and Section 5. Section 6
provides the procedures for hosts and routers that support IP-based
DetNet services. Finally, Section 7 provides rules for mapping IP-
based DetNet flows to IEEE 802.1 TSN streams.
2. Terminology
2.1. Terms used in this document
This document uses the terminology and concepts established in the
DetNet architecture [I-D.ietf-detnet-architecture] the reader is
assumed to be familiar with that document.
2.2. Abbreviations
The following abbreviations used in this document:
CE Customer Edge equipment.
CoS Class of Service.
Korhonen & Varga Expires April 24, 2019 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft DetNet IP Data Plane October 2018
DetNet Deterministic Networking.
DF DetNet Flow.
L2 Layer-2.
L3 Layer-3.
LSP Label-switched path.
MPLS Multiprotocol Label Switching.
OAM Operations, Administration, and Maintenance.
PE Provider Edge.
PREOF Packet Replication, Ordering and Elimination Function.
PSN Packet Switched Network.
PW Pseudowire.
QoS Quality of Service.
TE Traffic Engineering.
TSN Time-Sensitive Networking, TSN is a Task Group of the
IEEE 802.1 Working Group.
2.3. Requirements language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
3. DetNet IP Data Plane Overview
This document describes how IP is used by DetNet nodes, i.e., hosts
and routers, to identify DetNet flows and provide a DetNet service.
From a data plane perspective, an end-to-end IP model is followed.
As mentioned above, existing IP and higher layer protocol header
information is used to support flow identification and DetNet service
delivery.
DetNet uses "6-tuple" based flow identification, where "6-tuple"
refers to information carried in IP and higher layer protocol
Korhonen & Varga Expires April 24, 2019 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft DetNet IP Data Plane October 2018
headers. General background on the use of IP headers, and
"5-tuples", to identify flows and support Quality of Service (QoS)
can be found in [RFC3670]. [RFC7657] also provides useful background
on the delivery differentiated services (DiffServ) and "6-tuple"
based flow identification.
DetNet flow aggregation may be enabled via the use of wildcards,
masks, prefixes and ranges. IP tunnels may also be used to support
flow aggregation. In these cases, it is expected that DetNet aware
intermediate nodes will provide DetNet service assurance on the
aggregate through resource allocation and congestion control
mechanisms.
IP DetNet Relay Relay IP DetNet
End System Node Node End System
+---------+ +---------+
| Appl. |<--------------- End to End Service ---------->| Appl. |
+---------+ ........... ........... +---------+
| Service |<---: Service :-- DetNet flow ---: Service :-->| Service |
+---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+
|Transport| |Transport| |Transport| |Transport|
+-------.-+ +-.-----.-+ +-.-----.-+ +---.-----+
: Link : \ ,-----. / / ,-----. \
+........+ +-----[ Sub ]----+ +-[ Sub ]-+
[Network] [Network]
`-----' `-----'
|<--------------------- DetNet IP -------------------->|
Figure 1: A Simple DetNet (DN) Enabled IP Network
Figure 1 illustrates a DetNet enabled IP network. The DetNet enabled
end systems originate IP encapsulated traffic that is identified as
DetNet flows, relay nodes understand the transport requirements of
the DetNet flow and ensure that node, interface and sub-network
resources are allocated to ensure DetNet service requirements. The
dotted line around the Service component of the Relay Nodes indicates
that the transit routers are DetNet service aware but do not perform
any DetNet service layer function, e.g., PREOF. IEEE 802.1 TSN is an
example sub-network type which can provide support for DetNet flows
and service. The mapping of IP DetNet flows to TSN streams and TSN
protection mechanisms is covered in Section 7.
Note: The sub-network can represent a TSN, MPLS or IP network
segment.
Korhonen & Varga Expires April 24, 2019 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft DetNet IP Data Plane October 2018
IP DetNet Relay Transit Relay IP DetNet
End System Node Node Node End System
+---------+ +---------+
| Appl. |<--------------- End to End Service ---------->| Appl. |
+---------+ .....-----+ +-----..... +---------+
| Service |<---: Service |-- DetNet flow ---| Service :-->| Service |
| | : |<- DN MPLS flow ->| : | |
+---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+
|Transport| |Trp| |Trp| |Transport| |Trp| |Trp| |Transport|
+-------.-+ +-.-+ +-.-+ +---.---.-+ +-.-+ +-.-+ +---.-----+
: Link : / ,-----. \ : Link : / ,-----. \
+........+ +-[ Sub ]-+ +........+ +--[ Sub ]--+
[Network] [Network]
`-----' `-----'
|<---- DetNet MPLS ---->|
|<--------------------- DetNet IP -------------------->|
Figure 2: DetNet (DN) IP Over MPLS Network
Figure 2 illustrates a variant of Figure 1, with an MPLS based DetNet
network as a sub-network between the relay nodes. It shows a more
complex DetNet enabled IP network where an IP flow is mapped to one
or more PWs and MPLS (TE) LSPs. The end systems still originate IP
encapsulated traffic that is identified as DetNet flows. The relay
nodes follow procedures defined in [I-D.ietf-detnet-dp-sol-mpls] to
map each DetNet flow to MPLS LSPs. While not shown, relay nodes can
provide service layer functions such as PREOF over the MPLS transport
layer, and this is indicated by the solid line for the MPLS facing
portion of the Service component. Note that the Transit node is MPLS
(TE) LSP aware and performs switching based on MPLS labels, and need
not have any specific knowledge of the DetNet service or the
corresponding DetNet flow identification. See
[I-D.ietf-detnet-dp-sol-mpls] for details on the mapping of IP flows
to MPLS as well as general support for DetNet services using MPLS.
Korhonen & Varga Expires April 24, 2019 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft DetNet IP Data Plane October 2018
IP Edge Edge IP
End System Node Node End System
+---------+ +.........+ +.........+ +---------+
| Appl. |<---:Svc Proxy:-- E2E Service ---:Svc Proxy:-->| Appl. |
+---------+ +.........+ +.........+ +---------+
| IP |<---:IP : :Svc:----- IP flow ----:Svc: :IP :-->| IP |
+---------+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---------+
|Transport| |Trp| |Trp| |Trp| |Trp| |Transport|
+-------.-+ +-.-+ +-.-+ +-.-+ +-.-+ +---.-----+
: Link : \ ,-----. / / ,-----. \
+........+ +-----[ Sub ]----+ +--[ Sub ]--+
[Network] [Network]
`-----' `-----'
|<--- IP --->| |<------ DetNet IP ------->| |<--- IP --->|
Figure 3: Non-DetNet aware IP end systems with IP DetNet Domain
Figure 3 illustrates another variant of Figure 1 where the end
systems are not DetNet aware. In this case, edge nodes sit at the
boundary of the DetNet domain and provide DetNet service proxies for
the end applications by initiating and terminating DetNet service for
the application's IP flows. The existing header information or an
approach such as described in Section 4.7 can be used to support
DetNet flow identification.
Non-DetNet and DetNet IP packets are identical on the wire. From
data plane perspective, the only difference is that there is flow-
associated DetNet information on each DetNet node that defines the
flow related characteristics and required forwarding behavior. As
shown above, edge nodes provide a Service Proxy function that
"associates" one or more IP flows with the appropriate DetNet flow-
specific information and ensures that the receives the proper traffic
treatment within the domain.
Note: The operation of IEEE802.1 TSN end systems over DetNet enabled
IP networks is not described in this document. While TSN flows could
be encapsulated in IP packets by an IP End System or DetNet Edge Node
in order to produce DetNet IP flows, the details of such are out of
scope of this document.
4. DetNet IP Data Plane Considerations
This section provides informative considerations related to providing
DetNet service to flows which are identified based on their header
information. At a high level, the following are provided on a per
flow basis:
Korhonen & Varga Expires April 24, 2019 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft DetNet IP Data Plane October 2018
Congestion protection and latency control:
Usage of allocated resources (queuing, policing, shaping) to
ensure that the congestion-related loss and latency/jitter
requirements of a DetNet flow are met.
Explicit routes:
Use of a specific path for a flow. This limits miss-ordering and
can improve delivery of deterministic latency.
Service protection:
Which in the case of this document translates to changing the
explicit path after a failure is detected in order to restore
delivery of the required DetNet service characteristics. Path
changes, even in the case of failure recovery, can lead to the out
of order delivery of data.
Note: DetNet PREOF is not provided by the mechanisms defined in
this document.
Load sharing:
Generally, distributing packets of the same DetNet flow over
multiple paths is not recommended. Such load sharing, e.g., via
ECMP or UCMP, impacts ordering and end-to-end jitter.
Troubleshooting:
For example, to support identification of misbehaving flows.
Recognize flow(s) for analytics:
For example, increase counters.
Correlate events with flows:
For example, unexpected loss.
4.1. End-system specific considerations
Data-flows requiring DetNet service are generated and terminated on
end systems. This document deals only with IP end systems. The
protocols used by an IP end system are specific to an application and
end systems peer with end systems using the same application
encapsulation format. This said, DetNet's use of 6-tuple IP flow
identification means that DetNet must be aware of not only the format
Korhonen & Varga Expires April 24, 2019 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft DetNet IP Data Plane October 2018
of the IP header, but also of the next protocol carried within an IP
packet.
When IP end systems are DetNet aware, no application-level or
service-level proxy functions are needed inside the DetNet domain.
For DetNet unaware IP end systems service-level proxy functions are
needed inside the DetNet domain.
End systems need to ensure that DetNet service requirements are met
when processing packets associated with a DetNet flow. When
transporting packets, this means that packets are appropriately
shaped on transmission and received appropriate traffic treatment on
the connected sub-network, see Section 4.6 and Section 4.2.1 for more
details. When receiving packets, this means that there are
appropriate local node resources, e.g., buffers, to receive and
process a DetNet flow packets.
4.2. DetNet domain specific considerations
As a general rule, DetNet IP domains need to be able to forward any
DetNet flow identified by the IP 6-tuple. Doing otherwise would
limit end system encapsulation format. From a practical standpoint
this means that all nodes along the end-to-end path of a DetNet flows
need to agree on what fields are used for flow identification, and
the transport protocols (e.g., TCP/UDP/IPsec) which can be used to
identify 6-tuple protocol ports.
From a connection type perspective two scenarios are identified:
1. DN attached: end system is directly connected to an edge node or
end system is behind a sub-network. (See ES1 and ES2 in figure
below)
2. DN integrated: end system is part of the DetNet domain. (See ES3
in figure below)
L3 (IP) end systems may use any of these connection types. DetNet
domain MUST allow communication between any end-systems using the
same encapsulation format, independent of their connection type and
DetNet capability. DN attached end systems have no knowledge about
the DetNet domain and its encapsulation format. See Figure 4 for L3
end system connection scenarios.
Korhonen & Varga Expires April 24, 2019 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft DetNet IP Data Plane October 2018
____+----+
+----+ _____ / | ES3|
| ES1|____ / \__/ +----+___
+----+ \ / \
+ |
____ \ _/
+----+ __/ \ +__ DetNet domain /
| ES2|____/ L2/L3 |___/ \ __ __/
+----+ \_______/ \_______/ \___/
Figure 4: Connection types of L3 end systems
4.2.1. DetNet Routers
Within a DetNet domain, the DetNet enabled IP Routers interconnect
links and sub-networks to support end-to-end delivery of DetNet
flows. From a DetNet architecture perspective, these routers are
DetNet relays, as they must be DetNet service aware. Such routers
identify DetNet flows based on the IP 6-tuple, and ensure that the
DetNet service required traffic treatment is provided both on the
node and on any attached sub-network.
This solution provides DetNet functions end to end, but does so on a
per link and sub-network basis. Congestion protection and latency
control and the resource allocation (queuing, policing, shaping) are
supported using the underlying link / sub net specific mechanisms.
However, service protections (packet replication and packet
elimination functions) are not provided at the DetNet layer end to
end. But such service protection can be provided on a per underlying
L2 link and sub-network basis.
+------+ +------+
| X | | X |
+======+ +------+
End-system | IP | | IP |
-----+------+-------+======+--- --+======+--
DetNet |L2/SbN| |L2/SbN|
+------+ +------+
Figure 5: Encapsulation of DetNet Routing in simplified IP service L3
end-systems
The DetNet Service Flow MUST be mapped to the link / sub-network
specific resources using an underlying system specific means. This
implies each DetNet aware node on path MUST look into the transported
Korhonen & Varga Expires April 24, 2019 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft DetNet IP Data Plane October 2018
DetNet Service Flow packet and utilize e.g., a 5- (or 6-) tuple to
find out the required mapping within a node.
As noted earlier, the Service Protection is done within each link /
sub-network independently using the domain specific mechanisms (due
the lack of a unified end to end sequencing information that would be
available for intermediate nodes). Therefore, service protection (if
any) cannot be provided end-to-end, only within sub-networks. This
is shown for a three sub-network scenario in Figure 6, where each
sub-network can provide service protection between its borders.
______
____ / \__
____ / \__/ \___ ______
+----+ __/ +====+ +==+ \ +----+
|src |__/ SubN1 ) | | \ SubN3 \____| dst|
+----+ \_______/ \ Sub-Network2 | \______/ +----+
\_ _/
\ __ __/
\_______/ \___/
+---+ +---------E--------+ +-----+
+----+ | | | | | | | +----+
|src |----R E--------R +---+ E------R E------+ dst|
+----+ | | | | | | | +----+
+---+ +-----R------------+ +-----+
Figure 6: Replication and elimination in sub-networks for DetNet IP
networks
If end to end service protection is desired that can be implemented,
for example, by the DetNet end systems using Layer-4 (L4) transport
protocols or application protocols. However, these are out of scope
of this document.
4.3. Networks with multiple technology segments
There are network scenarios, where the DetNet domain contains
multiple technology segments (IEEE 802.1 TSN, MPLS) and all those
segments are under the same administrative control (see Figure 7).
Furthermore, DetNet nodes may be interconnected via TSN segments.
DetNet routers ensure that detnet service requirements are met per
hop by allocating local resources, both receive and transmit, and by
mapping the service requirements of each flow to appropriate sub-
Korhonen & Varga Expires April 24, 2019 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft DetNet IP Data Plane October 2018
network mechanisms. Such mapping is sub-network technology specific.
The mapping of IP DetNet Flows to MPLS is covered
[I-D.ietf-detnet-dp-sol-mpls]. The mapping of IP DetNet Flows to
IEEE 802.1 TSN is covered in Section 7.
______
_____ / \__
____ / \__/ \___ ______
+----+ __/ +======+ +==+ \ +----+
|src |__/ Seg1 ) | | \ Seg3 \__| dst|
+----+ \_______+ \ Segment-2 | \+_____/ +----+
\======+__ _+===/
\ __ __/
\_______/ \___/
Figure 7: DetNet domains and multiple technology segments
4.4. OAM
[Editor's note: This section is TBD. OAM may be dropped from this
document and left for future study.]
4.5. Class of Service
Class and quality of service, i.e., CoS and QoS, are terms that are
often used interchangeably and confused. In the context of DetNet,
CoS is used to refer to mechanisms that provide traffic forwarding
treatment based on aggregate group basis and QoS is used to refer to
mechanisms that provide traffic forwarding treatment based on a
specific DetNet flow basis. Examples of existing network level CoS
mechanisms include DiffServ which is enabled by IP header
differentiated services code point (DSCP) field [RFC2474] and MPLS
label traffic class field [RFC5462], and at Layer-2, by IEEE 802.1p
priority code point (PCP).
CoS for DetNet flows carried in IPv6 is provided using the standard
differentiated services code point (DSCP) field [RFC2474] and related
mechanisms. The 2-bit explicit congestion notification (ECN)
[RFC3168] field MAY also be used.
One additional consideration for DetNet nodes which support CoS
services is that they MUST ensure that the CoS service classes do not
impact the congestion protection and latency control mechanisms used
to provide DetNet QoS. This requirement is similar to requirement
for MPLS LSRs to that CoS LSPs do not impact the resources allocated
to TE LSPs via [RFC3473].
Korhonen & Varga Expires April 24, 2019 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft DetNet IP Data Plane October 2018
4.6. Quality of Service
Quality of Service (QoS) mechanisms for flow specific traffic
treatment typically includes a guarantee/agreement for the service,
and allocation of resources to support the service. Example QoS
mechanisms include discrete resource allocation, admission control,
flow identification and isolation, and sometimes path control,
traffic protection, shaping, policing and remarking. Example
protocols that support QoS control include Resource ReSerVation
Protocol (RSVP) [RFC2205] (RSVP) and RSVP-TE [RFC3209] and [RFC3473].
The existing MPLS mechanisms defined to support CoS [RFC3270] can
also be used to reserve resources for specific traffic classes.
In addition to explicit routes, and packet replication and
elimination, DetNet provides zero congestion loss and bounded latency
and jitter. As described in [I-D.ietf-detnet-architecture], there
are different mechanisms that maybe used separately or in combination
to deliver a zero congestion loss service. These mechanisms are
provided by the either the MPLS or IP layers, and may be combined
with the mechanisms defined by the underlying network layer such as
802.1TSN.
A baseline set of QoS capabilities for DetNet flows carried in PWs
and MPLS can provided by MPLS with Traffic Engineering (MPLS-TE)
[RFC3209] and [RFC3473]. TE LSPs can also support explicit routes
(path pinning). Current service definitions for packet TE LSPs can
be found in "Specification of the Controlled Load Quality of
Service", [RFC2211], "Specification of Guaranteed Quality of
Service", [RFC2212], and "Ethernet Traffic Parameters", [RFC6003].
Additional service definitions are expected in future documents to
support the full range of DetNet services. In all cases, the
existing label-based marking mechanisms defined for TE-LSPs and even
E-LSPs are use to support the identification of flows requiring
DetNet QoS.
QoS for DetNet service flows carried in IP MUST be provided locally
by the DetNet-aware hosts and routers supporting DetNet flows. Such
support will leverage the underlying network layer such as 802.1TSN.
The traffic control mechanisms used to deliver QoS for IP
encapsulated DetNet flows are expected to be defined in a future
document. From an encapsulation perspective, the combination of the
"6 tuple" i.e., the typical 5 tuple enhanced with the DSCP code,
uniquely identifies a DetNet service flow.
Packets that are marked with a DetNet Class of Service value, but
that have not been the subject of a completed reservation, can
disrupt the QoS offered to properly reserved DetNet flows by using
Korhonen & Varga Expires April 24, 2019 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft DetNet IP Data Plane October 2018
resources allocated to the reserved flows. Therefore, the network
nodes of a DetNet network must:
o Defend the DetNet QoS by discarding or remarking (to a non-DetNet
CoS) packets received that are not the subject of a completed
reservation.
o Not use a DetNet reserved resource, e.g. a queue or shaper
reserved for DetNet flows, for any packet that does not carry a
DetNet Class of Service marker.
4.7. Cross-DetNet flow resource aggregation
The ability to aggregate individual flows, and their associated
resource control, into a larger aggregate is an important technique
for improving scaling of control in the data, management and control
planes. This document identifies the traffic identification related
aspects of aggregation of DetNet flows. The resource control and
management aspects of aggregation (including the queuing/shaping/
policing implications) will be covered in other documents. The data
plane implications of aggregation are independent for PW/MPLS and IP
encapsulated DetNet flows.
DetNet flows transported via IP have more limited aggregation
options, due to the available traffic flow identification fields of
the IP solution. One available approach is to manage the resources
associated with a DSCP identified traffic class and to map (remark)
individually controlled DetNet flows onto that traffic class. This
approach also requires that nodes support aggregation ensure that
traffic from aggregated LSPs are placed (shaped/policed/enqueued) in
a fashion that ensures the required DetNet service is preserved.
In both the MPLS and IP cases, additional details of the traffic
control capabilities needed at a DetNet-aware node may be covered in
the new service descriptions mentioned above or in separate future
documents. Management and control plane mechanisms will also need to
ensure that the service required on the aggregate flow (H-LSP or
DSCP) are provided, which may include the discarding or remarking
mentioned in the previous sections.
4.8. Time synchronization
While time synchronization can be important both from the perspective
of operating the DetNet network itself and from the perspective of
DetNet-based applications, time synchronization is outside the scope
of this document. This said, a DetNet node can also support time
synchronization or distribution mechanisms.
Korhonen & Varga Expires April 24, 2019 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft DetNet IP Data Plane October 2018
For example, [RFC8169] describes a method of recording the packet
queuing time in an MPLS LSR on a packet by per packet basis and
forwarding this information to the egress edge system. This allows
compensation for any variable packet queuing delay to be applied at
the packet receiver. Other mechanisms for IP networks are defined
based on IEEE Standard 1588 [IEEE1588], such as ITU-T [G.8275.1] and
[G.8275.2].
A more detailed discussion of time synchronization is outside the
scope of this document.
5. Management and control plane considerations
[Editor's note: This section needs to be different for MPLS and IP
solutions. Most solutions are technology dependent.]
While management plane and control plane are traditionally considered
separately, from the Data Plane perspective there is no practical
difference based on the origin of flow provisioning information.
This document therefore does not distinguish between information
provided by a control plane protocol, e.g., RSVP-TE [RFC3209] and
[RFC3473], or by a network management mechanisms, e.g., RestConf
[RFC8040] and YANG [RFC7950].
[Editor's note: This section is a work in progress. discuss here
what kind of enhancements are needed for DetNet and specifically for
PREOF and DetNet zero congest loss and latency control. Need to
cover both traffic control (queuing) and connection control (control
plane).]
5.1. Explicit routes
[Editor's note: this is TBD.]
5.2. Service protection
[Editor's note: this is TBD.]
5.3. Congestion protection and latency control
[Editor's note: this is TBD.]
5.4. Flow aggregation control
[Editor's note: this is TBD.]
Korhonen & Varga Expires April 24, 2019 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft DetNet IP Data Plane October 2018
5.5. Bidirectional traffic
[Editor's note: This is managed at the management plane or controller
level.]
Some DetNet applications generate bidirectional traffic. While the
DetNet data plane must support bidirectional DetNet flows, there are
no special bidirectional features with respect to the data plane
other than need for the two directions take the same paths. That is
to say that bidirectional DetNet flows are solely represented at the
management and control plane levels, without specific support or
knowledge within the DetNet data plane. Fate sharing and associated
vs co-routed bidirectional flows can be managed at the control level.
Note, that there is no stated requirement for bidirectional DetNet
flows to be supported using the same 6-tuple in each direction.
Control mechanisms will need to support such bidirectional flows but
such mechanisms are out of scope of this document. An example
control plane solution for MPLS can be found in [RFC7551].
6. DetNet IP Data Plane Procedures
This section provides DetNet IP data plane procedures. These
procedures have been divided into the following areas: flow
identification, forwarding and traffic treatment. Flow
identification includes those procedures related to matching IP and
higher layer protocol header information to DetNet flow (state)
information and service requirements. Flow identification is also
sometimes called Traffic classification, for example see [RFC5777].
Forwarding includes those procedures related to next hop selection
and delivery. Traffic treatment includes those procedures related to
providing an identified flow with the required DetNet service.
DetNet IP data plane procedures also have implications on the control
and management of DetNet flows and these are also covered in this
section. Specifically this section identifies a number of
information elements that will require support via the management and
control interfaces supported by a DetNet node. The specific
mechanism used for such support is out of the scope of this document.
A summary of the management and control related information
requirements is included. Conformance language is not used in the
summary as it applies to future mechanisms such as those that may be
provided in YANG models [YANG-REF-TBD].
6.1. DetNet IP Flow Identification Procedures
IP and higher layer protocol header information is used to identify
DetNet flows. All DetNet implementations that support this document
MUST identify individual DetNet flows based on the set of information
Korhonen & Varga Expires April 24, 2019 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft DetNet IP Data Plane October 2018
identified in this section. Note, that additional flow
identification requirements, e.g., to support other higher layer
protocols, may be defined in future.
The configuration and control information used to identify an
individual DetNet flow MUST be ordered by an implementation.
Implementations MUST support a fixed order when identifying flows,
and MUST identify a DetNet flow by the first set of matching flow
information.
Implementations of this document MUST support DetNet flow
identification when the implementation is acting as a DetNet end
systems, a relay node or as an edge node.
6.1.1. IP Header Information
Implementations of this document MUST support DetNet flow
identification based on IP header information. The IPv4 header is
defined in [RFC0791] and the IPv6 is defined in [RFC8200].
6.1.1.1. Source Address Field
Implementations of this document MUST support DetNet flow
identification based on the Source Address field of an IP packet.
Implementations SHOULD support longest prefix matching for this
field, see [RFC1812] and [RFC7608]. Note that a prefix length of
zero (0) effectively means that the field is ignored.
6.1.1.2. Destination Address Field
Implementations of this document MUST support DetNet flow
identification based on the Destination Address field of an IP
packet. Implementations SHOULD support longest prefix matching for
this field, see [RFC1812] and [RFC7608]. Note that a prefix length
of zero (0) effectively means that the field is ignored.
Note: using IP multicast destination address is also allowed.
6.1.1.3. IPv4 Protocol and IPv6 Next Header Fields
Implementations of this document MUST support DetNet flow
identification based on the IPv4 Protocol field when processing IPv4
packets, and the IPv6 Next Header Field when processing IPv6 packets.
An implementation MUST support flow identification based based the
next protocol values defined in Section 6.1.2. Other, non-zero
values, SHOULD be used for flow identification. Implementations
SHOULD allow for these fields to be ignored for a specific DetNet
flow.
Korhonen & Varga Expires April 24, 2019 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft DetNet IP Data Plane October 2018
6.1.1.4. IPv4 Type of Service and IPv6 Traffic Class Fields
These fields are used to support Differentiated Services [RFC2474]
and Explicit Congestion Notification [RFC3168]. Implementations of
this document MUST support DetNet flow identification based on the
IPv4 Type of Service field when processing IPv4 packets, and the IPv6
Traffic Class Field when processing IPv6 packets. Implementations
MUST support bimask based matching, where one (1) values in the
bitmask indicate which subset of the bits in the field are to be used
in determining a match. Note that a zero (0) value as a bitmask
effectively means that these fields are ignored.
6.1.1.5. IPv6 Flow Label Field
[Authors note: the use of the IPv6 flow label is TBD this section
requires discussion. Flow label based mapping requires src/dst
adress mapping as well.]
Implementations of this document SHOULD support identification of
DetNet flows based on the IPv6 Flow Label field. Implementations
that support matching based on this field MUST allow for this fields
to be ignored for a specific DetNet flow. When this fields is used
to identify a specific DetNet flow, implementations MAY exclude the
IPv6 Next Header field and next header information as part of DetNet
flow identification.
6.1.2. Other Protocol Header Information
Implementations of this document MUST support DetNet flow
identification based on header information identified in this
section. Support for TCP, UDP and IPsec flows are defined. Future
documents are expected to define support for other protocols.
[Authors note: Other candidate protocols include IP in IP, GRE, DCCP
- should and of these be required supported?]
6.1.2.1. TCP and UDP
DetNet flow identification for TCP [RFC0793] and UDP [RFC0768] is
done based on the Source and Destination Port fields carried in each
protocol's header. These fields share a common format and common
DetNet flow identification procedures.
6.1.2.1.1. Source Port Field
Implementations of this document MUST support DetNet flow
identification based on the Source Port field of a TCP or UDP packet.
Implementations MUST support flow identification based on a
Korhonen & Varga Expires April 24, 2019 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft DetNet IP Data Plane October 2018
particular value carried in the field, i.e., an exact.
Implementations SHOULD support range-based port matching.
Implementation MUST also allow for the field to be ignored for a
specific DetNet flow.
6.1.2.1.2. Destination Port Field
Implementations of this document MUST support DetNet flow
identification based on the Destination Port field of a TCP or UDP
packet. Implementations MUST support flow identification based on a
particular value carried in the field, i.e., an exact.
Implementations SHOULD support range-based port matching.
Implementation MUST also allow for the field to be ignored for a
specific DetNet flow.
6.1.2.2. IPsec AH and ESP
IPsec Authentication Header (AH) [RFC4302] and Encapsulating Security
Payload (ESP) [RFC4303] share a common format for the Security
Parameters Index (SPI) field. Implementations MUST support flow
identification based on a particular value carried in the field,
i.e., an exact. Implementation SHOULD also allow for the field to be
ignored for a specific DetNet flow.
6.1.3. Flow Identification Management and Control Information
The following summarizes the set of information that is needed to
identify an individual DetNet flow:
o IPv4 and IPv6 source address field.
o IPv4 and IPv6 source address prefix length, where a zero (0) value
effectively means that the address field is ignored.
o IPv4 and IPv6 destination address field.
o IPv4 and IPv6 destination address prefix length, where a zero (0)
effectively means that the address field is ignored.
o IPv4 protocol field. A limited set of values is allowed, and the
ability to ignore this field, e.g., via configuration of the value
zero (0), is desirable.
o IPv6 next header field. A limited set of values is allowed, and
the ability to ignore this field, e.g., via configuration of the
value zero (0), is desirable.
o IPv4 Type of Service and IPv6 Traffic Class Fields.
Korhonen & Varga Expires April 24, 2019 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft DetNet IP Data Plane October 2018
o IPv4 Type of Service and IPv6 Traffic Class Field Bitmask, where a
zero (0) effectively means that theses fields are ignored.
o IPv6 flow label field. This field can be optionally used for
matching. When used, can be exclusive of matching against the
next header field.
o TCP and UDP Source Port. Exact and wildcard matching is required.
Port ranges can optionally be used.
o TCP and UDP Destination Port. Exact and wildcard matching is
required. Port ranges can optionally be used.
Information identifying a DetNet flow is ordered and implementations
use the first match. This can, for example, be used to provide a
DetNet service for a specific UDP flow, with unique Source and
Destination Port field values, while providing a different service
for all other flows with that same UDP Destination Port value.
6.2. Forwarding Procedures
General requirements for IP nodes are defined in [RFC1122], [RFC1812]
and [RFC6434], and are not modified by this document. The typical
next-hop selection process is impacted by DetNet. Specifically,
implementations of this document SHALL use management and control
information to select the one or more outgoing interfaces and next
hops to be used for a packet belonging to a DetNet flow.
The use of multiple paths or links, e.g., ECMP, to support a single
DetNet flow will generally be avoided in order to meet DetNet service
requirements.
The above implies that management and control functions will be
defined to support this requirement, e.g., see [YANG-REF-TBD].
6.3. DetNet IP Traffic Treatment Procedures
Implementations if this document MUST ensure that a DetNet flow
receives the traffic treatment that is provisioned for it via
management and control functions, e.g., via [YANG-REF-TBD]. General
information on DetNet service can be found in
[I-D.ietf-detnet-flow-information-model]. Typical mechanisms used to
provide different treatment to different flows includes the
allocation of system resources (such as queues and buffers) and
provisioning or related parameters (such as shaping, and policing).
Support can also be provided via an underlying network technology
such as MPLS [I-D.ietf-detnet-dp-sol-mpls] and IEEE802.1 TSN
Section 7. Other than in the TSN case, the specific mechanisms used
Korhonen & Varga Expires April 24, 2019 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft DetNet IP Data Plane October 2018
by a DetNet node to ensure DetNet service delivery requirements are
met for supported DetNet flows is outside the scope of this document.
6.4. Aggregation Considerations
The use of prefixes, wildcards, bimasks, and port ranges allows a
DetNet node to aggregate DetNet flows. This aggregation can take
place within a single node, when that node maintains state about both
the aggregated and component flows. It can also take place between
nodes, where one node maintains state about only flow aggregates
while the other node maintains state on all or a portion of the
component flows. In either case, the management or control function
that provisions the aggregate flows must ensure that adequate
resources are allocated and configured to provide combined service
requirements of the component flows. As DetNet is concerned about
latency and jitter, more than just bandwidth needs to be considered.
7. Mapping IP DetNet Flows to IEEE 802.1 TSN
[Editor's note: This section is TBD - it covers how IP DetNet flows
operate over an IEEE 802.1 TSN sub-network. BV to take a pass at
filling in this section]
This section covers how IP DetNet flows operate over an IEEE 802.1
TSN sub-network. Figure 8 illustrates such a scenario, where two IP
(DetNet) nodes are interconnected by a TSN sub-network. Node-1 is
single homed and Node-2 is dual-homed. IP nodes can be (1) IP DetNet
End System, (2) IP DetNet Edge or Relay node or (3) IP End System.
IP (DetNet) IP (DetNet)
Node-1 Node-2
........... ...........
<--: Service :-- DetNet flow ---: Service :-->
+---------+ +---------+
|Transport| |Transport|
+-------.-+ <-TSN Str-> +-.-----.-+
\ ,-------. / /
+----[ TSN-Sub ]---+ /
[ Network ]--------+
`-------'
<----------------- DetNet IP ---------------->
Figure 8: DetNet (DN) Enabled IP Network over a TSN sub-network
The Time-Sensitive Networking (TSN) Task Group of the IEEE 802.1
Working Group have defined (and are defining) a number of amendments
to IEEE 802.1Q [IEEE8021Q] that provide zero congestion loss and
Korhonen & Varga Expires April 24, 2019 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft DetNet IP Data Plane October 2018
bounded latency in bridged networks. Furthermore IEEE 802.1CB
[IEEE8021CB] defines frame replication and elimination functions for
reliability that should prove both compatible with and useful to,
DetNet networks. All these functions have to identify flows those
require TSN treatment.
As is the case for DetNet, a Layer 2 network node such as a bridge
may need to identify the specific DetNet flow to which a packet
belongs in order to provide the TSN/DetNet QoS for that packet. It
also may need additional marking, such as the priority field of an
IEEE Std 802.1Q VLAN tag, to give the packet proper service.
TSN capabilities of the TSN sub-network are made available for IP
(DetNet) flows via the protocol interworking function defined in IEEE
802.1CB [IEEE8021CB]. For example, applied on the TSN edge port
connected to the IP (DetNet) node it can convert an ingress unicast
IP (DetNet) flow to use a specific multicast destination MAC address
and VLAN, in order to direct the packet through a specific path
inside the bridged network. A similar interworking pair at the other
end of the TSN sub-network would restore the packet to its original
destination MAC address and VLAN.
Placement of TSN functions depends on the TSN capabilities of nodes.
IP (DetNet) Nodes may or may not support TSN functions. For a given
TSN Stream (i.e., DetNet flow) an IP (DetNet) node is treated as a
Talker or a Listener inside the TSN sub-network.
7.1. TSN Stream ID Mapping
IP DetNet Flow and TSN Stream mapping is based on the active Stream
Identification function, that operates at the frame level. IEEE
802.1CB [IEEE8021CB] defines an Active Destination MAC and VLAN
Stream identification function, what can replace some Ethernet header
fields namely (1) the destination MAC-address, (2) the VLAN-ID and
(3) priority parameters with alternate values. Replacement is
provided for the frame passed down the stack from the upper layers or
up the stack from the lower layers.
Active Destination MAC and VLAN Stream identification can be used
within a Talker to set flow identity or a Listener to recover the
original addressing information. It can be used also in a TSN bridge
that is providing translation as a proxy service for an End System.
As a result IP (DetNet) flows can be mapped to use a particular {MAC-
address, VLAN} pair to match the Stream in the TSN sub-network.
From the TSN sub-network perspective IP DetNet nodes without any TSN
functions can be treated as TSN-unaware Talker or Listener. In such
cases relay nodes in the TSN sub-network MUST modify the Ethernet
Korhonen & Varga Expires April 24, 2019 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft DetNet IP Data Plane October 2018
encapsulation of the IP DetNet flow (e.g., MAC translation, VLAN-ID
setting, Sequence number addition, etc.) to allow proper TSN specific
handling of the flow inside the sub-network. This is illustrated in
Figure 9.
IP (DetNet)
Node-1
<--------->
...........
<--: Service :-- DetNet flow ------------------
+---------+
|Transport|
+---------+ +---------------+
| L2 | | L2 Relay with |<--- TSN ----
| | | TSN function | Stream
+----.----+ +--.---------.--+
\__________/ \______
TSN-unaware
Talker / TSN-Bridge
Listener Relay
<-------- TSN sub-network -------
Figure 9: IP (DetNet) node without TSN functions
IP (DetNet) nodes being TSN-aware can be treated as a combination of
a TSN-unaware Talker/Listener and a TSN-Relay, as shown in Figure 10.
In such cases the IP (DetNet) node MUST provide the TSN sub-network
specific Ethernet encapsulation over the link(s) towards the sub-
network. An TSN-aware IP (DetNet) node MUST support the following
TSN components:
1. For recognizing flows:
* Stream Identification
2. For FRER used inside the TSN domain, additionally:
* Sequencing function
* Sequence encode/decode function
3. For FRER when the node is a replication or elimination point,
additionally:
* Stream splitting function
Korhonen & Varga Expires April 24, 2019 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft DetNet IP Data Plane October 2018
* Individual recovery function
[Editor's note: Should we added here requirements regarding IEEE
802.1Q C-VLAN component?]
IP (DetNet)
Node-2
<---------------------------------->
...........
<--: Service :-- DetNet flow ------------------
+---------+
|Transport|
+---------+ +---------------+
| L2 | | L2 Relay with |<--- TSN ---
| | | TSN function | Stream
+----.----+ +--.------.---.-+
\__________/ \ \______
\_________
TSN-unaware
Talker / TSN-Bridge
Listener Relay
<----- TSN Sub-network -----
<------ TSN-aware Tlk/Lstn ------->
Figure 10: IP (DetNet) node with TSN functions
A Stream identification component MUST be able to instantiate the
following functions (1) Active Destination MAC and VLAN Stream
identification function, (2) IP Stream identification function and
(3) the related managed objects in Clause 9 of IEEE 802.1CB
[IEEE8021CB]. IP Stream identification function provides a 6-tuple
match.
The Sequence encode/decode function MUST support the Redundancy tag
(R-TAG) format as per Clause 7.8 of IEEE 802.1CB [IEEE8021CB].
7.2. TSN Usage of FRER
TSN Streams supporting DetNet flows may use Frame Replication and
Elimination for Redundancy (FRER) [802.1CB] based on the loss service
requirements of the TSN Stream, which is derived from the DetNet
service requirements of the DetNet mapped flow. The specific
operation of FRER is not modified by the use of DetNet and follows
IEEE 802.1CB [IEEE8021CB].
Korhonen & Varga Expires April 24, 2019 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft DetNet IP Data Plane October 2018
FRER function and the provided service recovery is available only
within the TSN sub-network (as shown in Figure 6) as the Stream-ID
and the TSN sequence number are not valid outside the sub-network.
An IP (DetNet) node represents a L3 border and as such it terminates
all related information elements encoded in the L2 frames.
7.3. Procedures
[Editor's note: This section is TBD - covers required behavior of
DetNet node using a TSN underlay.]
7.4. Management and Control Implications
[Editor's note: This section is TBD Covers Creation, mapping, removal
of TSN Stream IDs, related parameters and,when needed, configuration
of FRER. Supported by management/control plane.]
8. Security considerations
The security considerations of DetNet in general are discussed in
[I-D.ietf-detnet-architecture] and [I-D.ietf-detnet-security]. Other
security considerations will be added in a future version of this
draft.
9. IANA considerations
TBD.
10. Contributors
RFC7322 limits the number of authors listed on the front page of a
draft to a maximum of 5, far fewer than the 20 individuals below who
made important contributions to this draft. The editor wishes to
thank and acknowledge each of the following authors for contributing
text to this draft. See also Section 11.
Korhonen & Varga Expires April 24, 2019 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft DetNet IP Data Plane October 2018
Loa Andersson
Huawei
Email: loa@pi.nu
Yuanlong Jiang
Huawei
Email: jiangyuanlong@huawei.com
Norman Finn
Huawei
3101 Rio Way
Spring Valley, CA 91977
USA
Email: norman.finn@mail01.huawei.com
Janos Farkas
Ericsson
Magyar Tudosok krt. 11
Budapest 1117
Hungary
Email: janos.farkas@ericsson.com
Carlos J. Bernardos
Universidad Carlos III de Madrid
Av. Universidad, 30
Leganes, Madrid 28911
Spain
Email: cjbc@it.uc3m.es
Tal Mizrahi
Marvell
6 Hamada st.
Yokneam
Israel
Email: talmi@marvell.com
Lou Berger
LabN Consulting, L.L.C.
Email: lberger@labn.net
11. Acknowledgements
The author(s) ACK and NACK.
The following people were part of the DetNet Data Plane Solution
Design Team:
Jouni Korhonen
Korhonen & Varga Expires April 24, 2019 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft DetNet IP Data Plane October 2018
Janos Farkas
Norman Finn
Balazs Varga
Loa Andersson
Tal Mizrahi
David Mozes
Yuanlong Jiang
Carlos J. Bernardos
The DetNet chairs serving during the DetNet Data Plane Solution
Design Team:
Lou Berger
Pat Thaler
Thanks for Stewart Bryant for his extensive review of the previous
versions of the document.
12. References
12.1. Normative references
[RFC0768] Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768,
DOI 10.17487/RFC0768, August 1980,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc768>.
[RFC0791] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791,
DOI 10.17487/RFC0791, September 1981,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc791>.
[RFC0793] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7,
RFC 793, DOI 10.17487/RFC0793, September 1981,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc793>.
[RFC1812] Baker, F., Ed., "Requirements for IP Version 4 Routers",
RFC 1812, DOI 10.17487/RFC1812, June 1995,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1812>.
Korhonen & Varga Expires April 24, 2019 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft DetNet IP Data Plane October 2018
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC2211] Wroclawski, J., "Specification of the Controlled-Load
Network Element Service", RFC 2211, DOI 10.17487/RFC2211,
September 1997, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2211>.
[RFC2212] Shenker, S., Partridge, C., and R. Guerin, "Specification
of Guaranteed Quality of Service", RFC 2212,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2212, September 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2212>.
[RFC2474] Nichols, K., Blake, S., Baker, F., and D. Black,
"Definition of the Differentiated Services Field (DS
Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers", RFC 2474,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2474, December 1998,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2474>.
[RFC3168] Ramakrishnan, K., Floyd, S., and D. Black, "The Addition
of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP",
RFC 3168, DOI 10.17487/RFC3168, September 2001,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3168>.
[RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
Tunnels", RFC 3209, DOI 10.17487/RFC3209, December 2001,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3209>.
[RFC3270] Le Faucheur, F., Wu, L., Davie, B., Davari, S., Vaananen,
P., Krishnan, R., Cheval, P., and J. Heinanen, "Multi-
Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Support of Differentiated
Services", RFC 3270, DOI 10.17487/RFC3270, May 2002,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3270>.
[RFC3473] Berger, L., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-
Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3473, January 2003,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3473>.
[RFC4302] Kent, S., "IP Authentication Header", RFC 4302,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4302, December 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4302>.
Korhonen & Varga Expires April 24, 2019 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft DetNet IP Data Plane October 2018
[RFC4303] Kent, S., "IP Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP)",
RFC 4303, DOI 10.17487/RFC4303, December 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4303>.
[RFC5462] Andersson, L. and R. Asati, "Multiprotocol Label Switching
(MPLS) Label Stack Entry: "EXP" Field Renamed to "Traffic
Class" Field", RFC 5462, DOI 10.17487/RFC5462, February
2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5462>.
[RFC6003] Papadimitriou, D., "Ethernet Traffic Parameters",
RFC 6003, DOI 10.17487/RFC6003, October 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6003>.
[RFC7608] Boucadair, M., Petrescu, A., and F. Baker, "IPv6 Prefix
Length Recommendation for Forwarding", BCP 198, RFC 7608,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7608, July 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7608>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8200] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8200>.
12.2. Informative references
[G.8275.1]
International Telecommunication Union, "Precision time
protocol telecom profile for phase/time synchronization
with full timing support from the network", ITU-T
G.8275.1/Y.1369.1 G.8275.1, June 2016,
<https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-G.8275.1/en>.
[G.8275.2]
International Telecommunication Union, "Precision time
protocol telecom profile for phase/time synchronization
with partial timing support from the network", ITU-T
G.8275.2/Y.1369.2 G.8275.2, June 2016,
<https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-G.8275.2/en>.
[I-D.ietf-detnet-architecture]
Finn, N., Thubert, P., Varga, B., and J. Farkas,
"Deterministic Networking Architecture", draft-ietf-
detnet-architecture-08 (work in progress), September 2018.
Korhonen & Varga Expires April 24, 2019 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft DetNet IP Data Plane October 2018
[I-D.ietf-detnet-dp-sol-mpls]
Korhonen, J. and B. Varga, "DetNet MPLS Data Plane
Encapsulation", draft-ietf-detnet-dp-sol-mpls-00 (work in
progress), July 2018.
[I-D.ietf-detnet-flow-information-model]
Farkas, J., Varga, B., rodney.cummings@ni.com, r., Jiang,
Y., and Y. Zha, "DetNet Flow Information Model", draft-
ietf-detnet-flow-information-model-01 (work in progress),
March 2018.
[I-D.ietf-detnet-security]
Mizrahi, T., Grossman, E., Hacker, A., Das, S., Dowdell,
J., Austad, H., Stanton, K., and N. Finn, "Deterministic
Networking (DetNet) Security Considerations", draft-ietf-
detnet-security-03 (work in progress), October 2018.
[IEEE1588]
IEEE, "IEEE 1588 Standard for a Precision Clock
Synchronization Protocol for Networked Measurement and
Control Systems Version 2", 2008.
[IEEE8021CB]
Finn, N., "Draft Standard for Local and metropolitan area
networks - Seamless Redundancy", IEEE P802.1CB
/D2.1 P802.1CB, December 2015,
<http://www.ieee802.org/1/files/private/cb-drafts/
d2/802-1CB-d2-1.pdf>.
[IEEE8021Q]
IEEE 802.1, "Standard for Local and metropolitan area
networks--Bridges and Bridged Networks (IEEE Std 802.1Q-
2014)", 2014, <http://standards.ieee.org/about/get/>.
[RFC1122] 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>.
[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>.
[RFC3670] Moore, B., Durham, D., Strassner, J., Westerinen, A., and
W. Weiss, "Information Model for Describing Network Device
QoS Datapath Mechanisms", RFC 3670, DOI 10.17487/RFC3670,
January 2004, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3670>.
Korhonen & Varga Expires April 24, 2019 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft DetNet IP Data Plane October 2018
[RFC5777] Korhonen, J., Tschofenig, H., Arumaithurai, M., Jones, M.,
Ed., and A. Lior, "Traffic Classification and Quality of
Service (QoS) Attributes for Diameter", RFC 5777,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5777, February 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5777>.
[RFC6434] Jankiewicz, E., Loughney, J., and T. Narten, "IPv6 Node
Requirements", RFC 6434, DOI 10.17487/RFC6434, December
2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6434>.
[RFC7551] Zhang, F., Ed., Jing, R., and R. Gandhi, Ed., "RSVP-TE
Extensions for Associated Bidirectional Label Switched
Paths (LSPs)", RFC 7551, DOI 10.17487/RFC7551, May 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7551>.
[RFC7657] Black, D., Ed. and P. Jones, "Differentiated Services
(Diffserv) and Real-Time Communication", RFC 7657,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7657, November 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7657>.
[RFC7950] Bjorklund, M., Ed., "The YANG 1.1 Data Modeling Language",
RFC 7950, DOI 10.17487/RFC7950, August 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7950>.
[RFC8040] Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and K. Watsen, "RESTCONF
Protocol", RFC 8040, DOI 10.17487/RFC8040, January 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8040>.
[RFC8169] Mirsky, G., Ruffini, S., Gray, E., Drake, J., Bryant, S.,
and A. Vainshtein, "Residence Time Measurement in MPLS
Networks", RFC 8169, DOI 10.17487/RFC8169, May 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8169>.
Appendix A. Example of DetNet data plane operation
[Editor's note: Add a simplified example of DetNet data plane and how
labels etc work in the case of MPLS-based PSN and utilizing PREOF.
The figure is subject to change depending on the further DT decisions
on the label handling..]
Appendix B. Example of pinned paths using IPv6
TBD.
Korhonen & Varga Expires April 24, 2019 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft DetNet IP Data Plane October 2018
Authors' Addresses
Jouni Korhonen (editor)
Email: jouni.nospam@gmail.com
Balazs Varga (editor)
Ericsson
Magyar Tudosok krt. 11.
Budapest 1117
Hungary
Email: balazs.a.varga@ericsson.com
Korhonen & Varga Expires April 24, 2019 [Page 32]