DetNet Data Plane: IP
draft-ietf-detnet-ip-01

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (detnet WG)
Last updated 2019-07-01
Replaces draft-ietf-detnet-dp-sol-ip
Stream IETF
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text xml pdf html bibtex
Stream WG state WG Document
Document shepherd No shepherd assigned
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
DetNet                                                     B. Varga, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                                 J. Farkas
Intended status: Standards Track                                Ericsson
Expires: January 2, 2020                                       L. Berger
                                                                D. Fedyk
                                                 LabN Consulting, L.L.C.
                                                                A. Malis
                                                               S. Bryant
                                                  Futurewei Technologies
                                                             J. Korhonen
                                                            July 1, 2019

                         DetNet Data Plane: IP
                        draft-ietf-detnet-ip-01

Abstract

   This document specifies the Deterministic Networking data plane when
   operating in an IP packet switched network.

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 January 2, 2020.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (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

Varga, et al.            Expires January 2, 2020                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft                  DetNet IP                      July 2019

   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   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 . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     4.1.  End-System Specific Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     4.2.  DetNet Domain-Specific Considerations . . . . . . . . . .   7
     4.3.  Forwarding Sub-Layer Considerations . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       4.3.1.  Class of Service  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       4.3.2.  Quality of Service  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     4.4.  DetNet Flow Aggregation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     4.5.  Bidirectional Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   5.  DetNet IP Data Plane Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     5.1.  DetNet IP Flow Identification Procedures  . . . . . . . .  12
       5.1.1.  IP Header Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
       5.1.2.  Other Protocol Header Information . . . . . . . . . .  13
     5.2.  Forwarding Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     5.3.  DetNet IP Traffic Treatment Procedures  . . . . . . . . .  15
   6.  Management and Control Information Summary  . . . . . . . . .  15
   7.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   8.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   9.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   10. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     10.1.  Normative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     10.2.  Informative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21

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, instead
   the existing IP and higher layer protocol header information is used

Varga, et al.            Expires January 2, 2020                [Page 2]
Internet-Draft                  DetNet IP                      July 2019

   to support flow identification and DetNet service delivery.  Common
   data plane procedures and control information for all DetNet data
   planes can be found in the [I-D.ietf-detnet-data-plane-framework].

   The DetNet Architecture models the DetNet related data plane
   functions decomposed into two sub-layers: functions into two sub-
   layers: a service sub-layer and a forwarding sub-layer.  The service
   sub-layer is used to provide DetNet service protection and
   reordering.  The forwarding sub-layer is used to provides congestion
   protection (low loss, assured latency, and limited out-of-order
   delivery).  Since no DetNet specific headers are added to support
   DetNet IP flows, only the forwarding sub-layer functions are
   supported using the DetNet IP 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 Ethernet as specified
   in the IEEE 802.1 TSN task group(referred to in this document simply
   as 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.  Section 5 provides the
   procedures for hosts and routers that support IP-based DetNet
   services.  Section 6 summarizes the set of information that is needed
   to identify an individual DetNet flow.

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], and the reader is
   assumed to be familiar with that document and its terminology.

2.2.  Abbreviations

   The following abbreviations used in this document:

   CoS           Class of Service.

   DetNet        Deterministic Networking.

   DN            DetNet.

   DiffServ      Differentiated Services

   DSCP          Differentiated Services Code Point

   L2            Layer-2.

Varga, et al.            Expires January 2, 2020                [Page 3]
Internet-Draft                  DetNet IP                      July 2019

   L3            Layer-3.

   LSP           Label-switched path.

   MPLS          Multiprotocol Label Switching.

   PREOF         Packet Replication, Ordering and Elimination Function.

   QoS           Quality of Service.

   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, identify DetNet flows and provide a DetNet service using
   an IP data plane.  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.  Common data plane procedures and
   control information for all DetNet data planes can be found in the
   [I-D.ietf-detnet-data-plane-framework].

   The DetNet IP data plane uses "6-tuple" based flow identification,
   where 6-tuple refers to information carried in IP and higher layer
   protocol headers.  The 6-tuple referred to in this document is the
   same as that defined in [RFC3290].  Specifically 6-tuple is
   (destination address, source address, IP protocol, source port,
   destination port, and differentiated services (DiffServ) code point
   (DSCP).  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 of DiffServ and "tuple" based flow identification.
   Referring to a 6-tuple allows DetNet nodes to forward packets with
   the 6-tuple as is or remap the DSCP where required by the DetNet
   service.

   DetNet flow aggregation may be enabled via the use of wildcards,
   masks, prefixes and ranges.  IP tunnels may also be used to support

Varga, et al.            Expires January 2, 2020                [Page 4]
Internet-Draft                  DetNet IP                      July 2019

   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.

    DetNet IP       Relay                        Relay       DetNet IP
    End System      Node                         Node        End System

   +----------+                                             +----------+
   |   Appl.  |<------------ End to End Service ----------->|   Appl.  |
   +----------+  ............                 ...........   +----------+
   | Service  |<-: Service  :-- DetNet flow --: Service  :->| Service  |
   +----------+  +----------+                 +----------+  +----------+
   |Forwarding|  |Forwarding|                 |Forwarding|  |Forwarding|
   +--------.-+  +-.------.-+                 +-.---.----+  +-------.--+
            : 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 forwarding 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 sub-layer function, e.g., PREOF.  IEEE 802.1 TSN
   is an example sub-network type which can provide support for DetNet
   flows and service.

   Note: The sub-network can represent a TSN, MPLS or IP network
   segment.

Varga, et al.            Expires January 2, 2020                [Page 5]
Internet-Draft                  DetNet IP                      July 2019

    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    |
   +----------+   +---+ +---+                 +---+ +---+   +----------+
   |Forwarding|   |Fwd| |Fwd|                 |Fwd| |Fwd|   |Forwarding|
   +--------.-+   +-.-+ +-.-+                 +-.-+ +-.-+   +---.------+
            :  Link :      \      ,-----.      /     /  ,-----.  \
            +.......+       +----[  Sub  ]----+     +--[  Sub  ]--+
                                 [Network]             [Network]
                                  `-----'               `-----'

         |<--- IP --->| |<------ DetNet IP ------>| |<--- IP --->|

      Figure 2: Non-DetNet aware IP end systems with DetNet IP Domain

   Figure 2 illustrates a 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 4.4 can be used to support
   DetNet flow identification.

   Note, that Figure 1 and Figure 2 can be combined, so IP DetNet End
   Systems can communicate over DetNet IP network with IP End System.

   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.  TSN over MPLS is
   discribed in [I-D.ietf-detnet-tsn-vpn-over-mpls].

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.

Varga, et al.            Expires January 2, 2020                [Page 6]
Internet-Draft                  DetNet IP                      July 2019

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
   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
   forwarding packets, this means that packets are appropriately shaped
   on transmission and received appropriate traffic treatment on the
   connected sub-network, see Section 4.3.2 and Section 4.2 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 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.  A DetNet
   domain allows 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

Varga, et al.            Expires January 2, 2020                [Page 7]
Internet-Draft                  DetNet IP                      July 2019

   DetNet domain and its encapsulation format.  See Figure 3 for L3 end
   system connection examples.

                                               ____+----+
                       +----+        _____    /    | ES3|
                       | ES1|____   /     \__/     +----+___
                       +----+    \ /                        \
                                  +                          |
                          ____     \                        _/
            +----+     __/    \     +__  DetNet IP domain  /
            | ES2|____/  L2/L3 |___/   \         __     __/
            +----+    \_______/         \_______/  \___/

               Figure 3: Connection types of L3 end systems

   Within a DetNet domain, the DetNet enabled IP Routers are
   interconnected by 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.  Instead service protection can be provided on a per underlying
   L2 link and sub-network basis.

   The DetNet Service Flow is mapped to the link / sub-network specific
   resources using an underlying system specific means.  This implies
   each DetNet aware node on path looks into the forwarded DetNet
   Service Flow packet and utilize e.g., a 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
   enabled) cannot be provided end-to-end, only within sub-networks.
   This is shown for a three sub-network scenario in Figure 4, where
   each sub-network can provide service protection between its borders.

Varga, et al.            Expires January 2, 2020                [Page 8]
Internet-Draft                  DetNet IP                      July 2019

   "R" and "E" denotes replication and elimination points within the
   sub-network.

        <-------------------- DenNet IP ------------------------>
                                         ______
                          ____     /      \__
               ____      /     \__/          \___   ______
   +----+   __/    +====+                       +==+      \     +----+
   |src |__/ SubN1  )   |                       |  \ SubN3 \____| dst|
   +----+  \_______/    \       Sub-Network2    |   \______/    +----+
                         \_                    _/
                           \         __     __/
                            \_______/  \___/

             +---+        +---------E--------+      +-----+
   +----+    |   |        |         |        |      |     |      +----+
   |src |----R   E--------R     +---+        E------R     E------+ dst|
   +----+    |   |        |     |            |      |     |      +----+
             +---+        +-----R------------+      +-----+

    Figure 4: Replication and elimination in sub-networks for DetNet IP
                                 networks

   If end to end service protection is desired, it can be implemented,
   for example, by the DetNet end systems using Layer-4 (L4) transport
   protocols or application protocols.  However, these protocols are out
   of scope of this document.

4.3.  Forwarding Sub-Layer Considerations

4.3.1.  Class of Service

   Class of Service (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].

Varga, et al.            Expires January 2, 2020                [Page 9]
Internet-Draft                  DetNet IP                      July 2019

4.3.2.  Quality of Service

   Quality of Service (QoS) for DetNet service flows carried in IP MUST
   be provided locally by the DetNet-aware hosts and routers supporting
   DetNet flows.  Such support leverages the underlying network layer
   such as 802.1 TSN.  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
   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.

4.4.  DetNet Flow Aggregation

   As described in [I-D.ietf-detnet-data-plane-framework], the ability
   to aggregate individual flows, and their associated resource control,
   into a larger aggregate is an important technique for improving
   scaling by reducing the state per hop.  DetNet IP data plane
   aggregation can take place within a single node, when that node
   maintains state about both the aggregated and individual 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 individual flows.  As
   DetNet is concerned about latency and jitter, more than just
   bandwidth needs to be considered.

   From a single node perspective, the aggregation of IP flows impacts
   DetNet IP data plane flow identification and resource allocation.  As
   discussed above, IP flow identification uses the IP "6-tuple" for
   flow identification.  DetNet IP flows can be aggregated using any of
   the 6-tuple fields defined in Section 5.1.  The use of prefixes,
   wildcards, bitmasks, and value ranges allows a DetNet node to

Varga, et al.            Expires January 2, 2020               [Page 10]
Internet-Draft                  DetNet IP                      July 2019

   identify aggregate DetNet flows.  From a resource allocation
   perspective, DetNet nodes must provide service to a aggregate and not
   on a component flow basis.

   It is the responsibility of the DetNet controller plane to properly
   provision the use of these aggregation mechanisms.  This includes
   ensuring that aggregated flows have compatible e.g., the same or very
   similar QoS and/or CoS characteristics, see Section 4.3.2.  It also
   includes ensuring that per component-flow service requirements are
   satisfied by the aggregate, see Section 5.3.

4.5.  Bidirectional Traffic

   While the DetNet IP data plane must support bidirectional DetNet
   flows, there are no special bidirectional features with respect to
   the data plane other than the need for the two directions of a co-
   routed bidirectional flow to take the same path.  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 or co-
   routed bidirectional flows can be managed at the control level.

   Control and management mechanisms need to support bidirectional
   flows, but the specification of such mechanisms are out of scope of
   this document.  An example control plane solution for MPLS can be
   found in [RFC7551].

5.  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 establishment and operational procedures also
   have requirements on the control and management systems for DetNet
   flows and these are referred in this section.  Specifically this
   section identifies a number of information elements that 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 requirements for
   management and control related information is included.  Conformance

Varga, et al.            Expires January 2, 2020               [Page 11]
Internet-Draft                  DetNet IP                      July 2019

   language is not used in the summary since applies to future
   mechanisms such as those that may be provided in YANG models
   [I-D.ietf-detnet-yang].

5.1.  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
   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.

5.1.1.  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].

5.1.1.1.  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.

5.1.1.2.  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: any IP address value is allowed, including an IP multicast
   destination address.

Varga, et al.            Expires January 2, 2020               [Page 12]
Internet-Draft                  DetNet IP                      July 2019

5.1.1.3.  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 5.1.2.  Other, non-zero
   values, MUST be used for flow identification.  Implementations SHOULD
   allow for these fields to be ignored for a specific DetNet flow.

5.1.1.4.  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 bitmask based matching, where bits set to one (1) in the
   bitmask indicate which subset of the bits in the field are to be used
   in determining a match.  Note that all bits set to zero (0) value as
   a bitmask effectively means that these fields are ignored.

5.1.1.5.  IPv6 Flow Label Field

   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 field
   to be ignored for a specific DetNet flow.  When this field 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.

5.1.2.  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 is defined.  Future
   documents are expected to define support for other protocols.

5.1.2.1.  TCP and UDP

   DetNet flow identification for TCP [RFC0793] and UDP [RFC0768] is
   achieved 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.

Varga, et al.            Expires January 2, 2020               [Page 13]
Internet-Draft                  DetNet IP                      July 2019

5.1.2.1.1.  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
   particular value carried in the field, i.e., an exact value.
   Implementations SHOULD support range-based port matching.
   Implementation MUST also allow for the field to be ignored for a
   specific DetNet flow.

5.1.2.1.2.  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 value.
   Implementations SHOULD support range-based port matching.
   Implementation MUST also allow for the field to be ignored for a
   specific DetNet flow.

5.1.2.2.  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 value.  Implementation SHOULD also allow for the field
   to be ignored for a specific DetNet flow.

5.2.  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 is NOT RECOMMENDED.  ECMP MAY be used for non-DetNet
   flows within a DetNet domain.

   The above implies that management and control functions will be
   defined to support this requirement, e.g., see
   [I-D.ietf-detnet-yang].

Varga, et al.            Expires January 2, 2020               [Page 14]
Internet-Draft                  DetNet IP                      July 2019

5.3.  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
   configuration or the controller plane, e.g., via
   [I-D.ietf-detnet-yang].  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-ip-over-mpls].  and
   IEEE802.1 TSN [I-D.ietf-detnet-ip-over-tsn].  Other than in the TSN
   case, the specific mechanisms used by a DetNet node to ensure DetNet
   service delivery requirements are met for supported DetNet flows is
   outside the scope of this document.

6.  Management and Control Information Summary

   The following summarizes the set of information that is needed to
   identify individual and aggregated DetNet flows:

   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.

   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.

Varga, et al.            Expires January 2, 2020               [Page 15]
Internet-Draft                  DetNet IP                      July 2019

   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.

   o  IPsec Header SPI field.  Exact matching is required.

   This information MUST be provisioned per DetNet flow via
   configuration, e.g., via the controller or management plane.

   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 the aggregate of all other flows with that same UDP Destination
   Port value.

   It is the responsibility of the DetNet controller plane to properly
   provision both flow identification information and the flow specific
   resources needed to provided the traffic treatment needed to meet
   each flow's service requirements.  This applies for aggregated and
   individual flows.

7.  Security Considerations

   Security considerations for DetNet are described in detail in
   [I-D.ietf-detnet-security].  General security considerations are
   described in [I-D.ietf-detnet-architecture].  This section considers
   exclusively security considerations which are specific to the DetNet
   IP data plane.

   Security aspects which are unique to DetNet are those whose aim is to
   provide the specific quality of service aspects of DetNet, which are
   primarily to deliver data flows with extremely low packet loss rates
   and bounded end-to-end delivery latency.

   The primary considerations for the data plane is to maintain
   integrity of data and delivery of the associated DetNet service
   traversing the DetNet network.  Application flows can be protected
   through whatever means is provided by the underlying technology.  For
   example, encryption may be used, such as that provided by IPSec
   [RFC4301] for IP flows and/or by an underlying sub-net using MACSec
   [IEEE802.1AE-2018] for IP over Ethernet (Layer-2) flows.

   From a data plane perspective this document does not add or modify
   any header information.

Varga, et al.            Expires January 2, 2020               [Page 16]
Internet-Draft                  DetNet IP                      July 2019

   At the management and control level DetNet flows are identified on a
   per-flow basis, which may provide controller plane attackers with
   additional information about the data flows (when compared to
   controller planes that do not include per-flow identification).  This
   is an inherent property of DetNet which has security implications
   that should be considered when determining if DetNet is a suitable
   technology for any given use case.

   To provide uninterrupted availability of the DetNet service,
   provisions can be made against DOS attacks and delay attacks.  To
   protect against DOS attacks, excess traffic due to malicious or
   malfunctioning devices can be prevented or mitigated, for example
   through the use of existing mechanism such as policing and shaping
   applied at the input of a DetNet domain.  To prevent DetNet packets
   from being delayed by an entity external to a DetNet domain, DetNet
   technology definition can allow for the mitigation of Man-In-The-
   Middle attacks, for example through use of authentication and
   authorization of devices within the DetNet domain.

8.  IANA Considerations

   This document does not require an action from IANA.

9.  Acknowledgements

   The authors wish to thank Pat Thaler, Norman Finn, Loa Anderson,
   David Black, Rodney Cummings, Ethan Grossman, Tal Mizrahi, David
   Mozes, Craig Gunther, George Swallow, Yuanlong Jiang and Carlos J.
   Bernardos for their various contributions to this work.

10.  References

10.1.  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>.

Varga, et al.            Expires January 2, 2020               [Page 17]
Internet-Draft                  DetNet IP                      July 2019

   [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>.

   [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>.

   [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>.

   [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>.

   [RFC4301]  Kent, S. and K. Seo, "Security Architecture for the
              Internet Protocol", RFC 4301, DOI 10.17487/RFC4301,
              December 2005, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4301>.

   [RFC4302]  Kent, S., "IP Authentication Header", RFC 4302,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4302, December 2005,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4302>.

   [RFC4303]  Kent, S., "IP Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP)",
              RFC 4303, DOI 10.17487/RFC4303, December 2005,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4303>.

   [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>.

Varga, et al.            Expires January 2, 2020               [Page 18]
Internet-Draft                  DetNet IP                      July 2019

   [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>.

10.2.  Informative references

   [I-D.ietf-detnet-architecture]
              Finn, N., Thubert, P., Varga, B., and J. Farkas,
              "Deterministic Networking Architecture", draft-ietf-
              detnet-architecture-13 (work in progress), May 2019.

   [I-D.ietf-detnet-data-plane-framework]
              Varga, B., Farkas, J., Berger, L., Fedyk, D., Malis, A.,
              Bryant, S., and J. Korhonen, "DetNet Data Plane
              Framework", draft-ietf-detnet-data-plane-framework-00
              (work in progress), May 2019.

   [I-D.ietf-detnet-dp-sol-mpls]
              Korhonen, J. and B. Varga, "DetNet MPLS Data Plane
              Encapsulation", draft-ietf-detnet-dp-sol-mpls-02 (work in
              progress), March 2019.

   [I-D.ietf-detnet-flow-information-model]
              Farkas, J., Varga, B., Cummings, R., and Y. Jiang, "DetNet
              Flow Information Model", draft-ietf-detnet-flow-
              information-model-03 (work in progress), March 2019.

   [I-D.ietf-detnet-ip-over-mpls]
              Varga, B., Farkas, J., Berger, L., Malis, A., Bryant, S.,
              and J. Korhonen, "DetNet Data Plane: IP over MPLS", draft-
              ietf-detnet-ip-over-mpls-00 (work in progress), May 2019.

   [I-D.ietf-detnet-ip-over-tsn]
              Varga, B., Farkas, J., Malis, A., Bryant, S., and J.
              Korhonen, "DetNet Data Plane: IP over IEEE 802.1 Time
              Sensitive Networking (TSN)", draft-ietf-detnet-ip-over-
              tsn-00 (work in progress), May 2019.

   [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-04 (work in progress), March 2019.

Varga, et al.            Expires January 2, 2020               [Page 19]
Internet-Draft                  DetNet IP                      July 2019

   [I-D.ietf-detnet-tsn-vpn-over-mpls]
              Varga, B., Farkas, J., Malis, A., Bryant, S., and J.
              Korhonen, "DetNet Data Plane: IEEE 802.1 Time Sensitive
              Networking over MPLS", draft-ietf-detnet-tsn-vpn-over-
              mpls-00 (work in progress), May 2019.

   [I-D.ietf-detnet-yang]
              Geng, X., Chen, M., Li, Z., and R. Rahman, "Deterministic
              Networking (DetNet) Configuration YANG Model", draft-ietf-
              detnet-yang-02 (work in progress), March 2019.

   [IEEE802.1AE-2018]
              IEEE Standards Association, "IEEE Std 802.1AE-2018 MAC
              Security (MACsec)", 2018,
              <https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8585421>.

   [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>.

   [RFC3290]  Bernet, Y., Blake, S., Grossman, D., and A. Smith, "An
              Informal Management Model for Diffserv Routers", RFC 3290,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3290, May 2002,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3290>.

   [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>.

   [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>.

Varga, et al.            Expires January 2, 2020               [Page 20]
Internet-Draft                  DetNet IP                      July 2019

   [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>.

Authors' Addresses

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

   Email: balazs.a.varga@ericsson.com

   Janos Farkas
   Ericsson
   Magyar Tudosok krt. 11.
   Budapest  1117
   Hungary

   Email: janos.farkas@ericsson.com

   Lou Berger
   LabN Consulting, L.L.C.

   Email: lberger@labn.net

   Don Fedyk
   LabN Consulting, L.L.C.

   Email: dfedyk@labn.net

   Andrew G. Malis
   Futurewei Technologies

   Email: agmalis@gmail.com

   Stewart Bryant
   Futurewei Technologies

   Email: stewart.bryant@gmail.com

Varga, et al.            Expires January 2, 2020               [Page 21]
Internet-Draft                  DetNet IP                      July 2019

   Jouni Korhonen

   Email: jouni.nospam@gmail.com

Varga, et al.            Expires January 2, 2020               [Page 22]