[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits] [IPR]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 draft-ietf-detnet-architecture

DetNet                                                           N. Finn
Internet-Draft                                                P. Thubert
Intended status: Standards Track                                   Cisco
Expires: September 22, 2016                              M. Johas Teener
                                                                Broadcom
                                                          March 21, 2016


                 Deterministic Networking Architecture
                   draft-finn-detnet-architecture-04

Abstract

   Deterministic Networking (DetNet) provides a capability to carry
   specified unicast or multicast data flows for real-time applications
   with extremely low data loss rates and bounded latency.  Techniques
   used include: 1) reserving data plane resources for individual (or
   aggregated) DetNet flows in some or all of the relay systems (bridges
   or routers) along the path of the flow; 2) providing fixed paths for
   DetNet flows that do not rapidly change with the network topology;
   and 3) sequentializing, replicating, and eliminating duplicate
   packets at various points to ensure the availability of at least one
   path.  The capabilities can be managed by configuration, or by manual
   or automatic network management.

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 http://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 September 22, 2016.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.





Finn, et al.           Expires September 22, 2016               [Page 1]


Internet-Draft    Deterministic Networking Architecture       March 2016


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

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.1.  Terms used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.2.  IEEE 802 TSN to DetNet dictionary . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   3.  Providing the DetNet Quality of Service . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.1.  Zero Congestion Loss  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     3.2.  Pinned paths  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     3.3.  Packet replication and deletion . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   4.  DetNet Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     4.1.  Elements of DetNet Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     4.2.  Traffic Engineering for DetNet  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
       4.2.1.  The Application Plane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
       4.2.2.  The Controller Plane  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
       4.2.3.  The Network Plane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     4.3.  DetNet flows  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
       4.3.1.  Source guarantees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
       4.3.2.  Incomplete Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     4.4.  Queuing, Shaping, Scheduling, and Preemption  . . . . . .  16
     4.5.  Coexistence with normal traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     4.6.  Fault Mitigation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     4.7.  Protocol Stack Model  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     4.8.  Advertising resources, capabilities and adjacencies . . .  20
     4.9.  Provisioning model  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
       4.9.1.  Centralized Path Computation and Installation . . . .  20
       4.9.2.  Distributed Path Setup  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
     4.10. Scaling to larger networks  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
     4.11. Connected islands vs. networks  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
   5.  Compatibility with Layer-2  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
   6.  Open Questions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
     6.1.  Data plane shapers and schedulers . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
     6.2.  DetNet flow identification and sequencing . . . . . . . .  22
     6.3.  Flat vs. hierarchical control . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
     6.4.  Peer-to-peer reservation protocol . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
     6.5.  Wireless media interactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
   7.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
   8.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25



Finn, et al.           Expires September 22, 2016               [Page 2]


Internet-Draft    Deterministic Networking Architecture       March 2016


   9.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
   10. Access to IEEE 802.1 documents  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
   11. Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  29

1.  Introduction

   Deterministic Networking (DetNet) is a service that can be offered by
   a network to data flows (DetNet flows) that that are limited, at
   their source, to a maximum data rate specified by that source.
   DetNet provides these flows extremely low packet loss rates and
   assured maximum end-to-end delivery latency.  This is accomplished by
   dedicating network resources such as link bandwidth and buffer space
   to DetNet flows and/or classes of DetNet flows.  Unused reserved
   resources are available to non-DetNet packets.

   The Deterministic Networking Problem Statement
   [I-D.finn-detnet-problem-statement] introduces Deterministic
   Networking, and Deterministic Networking Use Cases
   [I-D.ietf-detnet-use-cases] summarizes the need for it.

   A goal of DetNet is a converged network in all respects.  That is,
   the presence of DetNet flows does not preclude non-DetNet flows, and
   the benefits offered DetNet flows should not, except in extreme
   cases, prevent existing QoS mechanisms from operating in a normal
   fashion, subject to the bandwidth required for the DetNet flows.  A
   single source-destination pair can trade both DetNet and non-DetNet
   flows.  End systems and applications need not instantiate special
   interfaces for DetNet flows.  Networks are not restricted to certain
   topologies; connectivity is not restricted.  Any application that
   generates a data flow that can be usefully characterized as having a
   maximum bandwidth should be able to take advantage of DetNet, as long
   as the necessary resources can be reserved.  Reservations can be made
   by the application itself, via network management, by an applications
   controller, or by other means.

   Many applications of interest to Deterministic Networking require the
   ability to synchronize the clocks in end systems to a sub-microsecond
   accuracy.  Some of the queue control techniques defined in
   Section 4.4 also require time synchronization among relay systems.
   The means used to achieve time synchronization are not addressed in
   this document.

   The present document is an individual contribution, intended by the
   authors for eventual adoption by the DetNet working group.  As such,
   it expresses the only the opinions of the authors.





Finn, et al.           Expires September 22, 2016               [Page 3]


Internet-Draft    Deterministic Networking Architecture       March 2016


2.  Terminology

2.1.  Terms used in this document

   The following special terms are used in this document in order to
   avoid the assumption that a given element in the architecture does or
   does not have Internet Protocol stack, functions as a router, bridge,
   firewall, or otherwise plays a particular role at Layer-2 or higher.

   destination
           An end system capable of sinking a DetNet flow.

   DetNet domain
           The portion of a network that is DetNet aware.  It includes
           end systems and other DetNet nodes.

   DetNet flow
           A DetNet flow is a sequence of packets from a single source,
           through some number of relay systems to one or more
           destinations, that is limited by the source in its maximum
           packet size and transmission rate, and can thus be ensured
           the DetNet Quality of Service (QoS) from the network.

   DetNet node
           A DetNet aware end system or relay system.  "DetNet" may be
           omitted in some text.

   end system
           Commonly called a "host" or "node" in IETF documents, and an
           "end station" is IEEE 802 documents.  End systems of interest
           to this document are either sources or destinations of L2
           and/or L3 DatNet streams.  Note that a system that takes non-
           DetNet aware traffic and transmits it via a DetNet flow is
           also an end system.  (For comparison, a Label Edge Router
           (LER) would be an MPLS "end system".)

   link
           A connection between two DetNet nodes.  It may be composed of
           a physical link or a sub-network technology that can provide
           appropriate traffic delivery for DetNet flows.

   relay system
           A router, transit node, bridge, Label Switch Router (LSR),
           firewall, or any other system that forwards packets from one
           interface to another.

   reservation




Finn, et al.           Expires September 22, 2016               [Page 4]


Internet-Draft    Deterministic Networking Architecture       March 2016


           A trail of configuration between source to destination(s)
           through relay systems associated with a DetNet flow, required
           to deliver the benefits of DetNet.

   source
           An end system capable of sourcing a DetNet flow.

2.2.  IEEE 802 TSN to DetNet dictionary

   This section also serves as a dictionary for translating from the
   terms used by the IEEE 802 Time-Sensitive Networking (TSN) Task Group
   to those of the DetNet WG.

   listener
           The IEEE 802 term for a destination of a DetNet flow.

   stream
           The IEEE 802 term for a DetNet flow.

   talker
           The IEEE 802 term for the source of a DetNet flow.

3.  Providing the DetNet Quality of Service

   DetNet Quality of Service is expressed in terms of:

   o  Minimum and maximum end-to-end latency from source to destination;

   o  Probability of loss of a packet, under various assumptions as to
      the operational states of the relay systems and links;

   It is a distinction of DetNet that it is concerned solely with worst-
   case values for the end-to-end latency.  Average, mean, or typical
   values are of no interest, because they do not affect the ability of
   a real-time system to perform its tasks.  In general, a trivial
   priority-based queuing scheme will give better average latency to a
   data flow than DetNet, but of course, the worst-case latency is
   essentially unbounded.

   Three techniques are employed by DetNet to achieve these QoS
   parameters:

   a.  Zero congestion loss (Section 3.1).  Network resources such as
       link bandwidth, buffers, queues, shapers, and scheduled input/
       output slots are assigned in each relay system to the use of a
       specific DetNet flow or class of DetNet flows.  Given a finite
       amount of buffer space, zero congestion loss necessarily ensures
       a bounded end-to-end latency.  Depending on the resources



Finn, et al.           Expires September 22, 2016               [Page 5]


Internet-Draft    Deterministic Networking Architecture       March 2016


       employed, a minimum latency, and thus bounded jitter, can also be
       achieved.

   b.  Pinned paths (Section 3.2).  Point-to-point paths or point-to-
       multipoint trees through the network from a source to one or more
       destinations can be established, and DetNet flows assigned to
       follow a particular path or tree.

   c.  Packet replication and deletion (Section 3.3).  End systems and/
       or relay systems can number packets sequentially, replicate them,
       and later eliminate all but one of the replicants, at multiple
       points in the network in order to ensure that one (or more)
       equipment failure events still leave at least one path intact for
       a DetNet flow.  This function is a "hitless" version of, e.g.,
       the 1+1 linear protection in [RFC6372].  That is, instead of
       switching from one flow to the other when a failure of a flow is
       detected, DetNet combines both flows, and performs a packet-by-
       packet selection of which to discard, based on sequence number.

   These techniques address both of the DetNet QoS requirements.  Given
   that relay nodes have a finite amount of buffer space, zero
   congestion loss (Section 3.1) necessarily results in a maximum end-
   to-end latency.  It also addresses the largest contribution to packet
   loss, which is buffer congestion.  Packet replication and deletion
   mitigates the other most important contributions to packet loss,
   namely random media errors and equipment failure.

   These three techniques can be applied independently, giving eight
   possible combinations, including none (no DetNet), although some
   combinations are of wider utility than others.  This separation keeps
   the protocol stack coherent and maximizes interoperability with
   existing and developing standards in this (IETF) and other Standards
   Development Organizations.  Some examples of typical expected
   combinations:

   o  Pinned paths (a) plus packet replication (b) are exactly the
      techniques employed by [HSR-PRP].  Pinned paths are achieved by
      limiting the physical topology of the network, and the
      sequentialization, replication, and duplicate elimination are
      facilitated by packet tags added at the front or the end of
      Ethernet frames.

   o  Zero congestion loss (a) alone is is offered by IEEE 802.1 Audio
      Video bridging [IEEE802.1BA-2011].  As long as the network suffers
      no failures, zero congestion loss can be achieved through the use
      of a reservation protocol (MSRP), shapers in every relay system
      (bridge), and a bit of network calculus.




Finn, et al.           Expires September 22, 2016               [Page 6]


Internet-Draft    Deterministic Networking Architecture       March 2016


   o  Using all three together gives maximum protection.

   There are, of course, simpler methods available (and employed, today)
   to achieve levels of latency and packet loss that are satisfactory
   for many applications.  Prioritization and over-provisioning is one
   such technique.  However, these methods generally work best in the
   absence of any significant amount of non-critical traffic in the
   network (if, indeed, such traffic is supported at all), or work only
   if the critical traffic constitutes only a small portion of the
   network's theoretical capacity, or work only if all systems are
   functioning properly, or in the absence of actions by end systems
   that disrupt the network's operations.

   There are any number of methods in use, defined, or in progress for
   accomplishing each of the above techniques.  It is expected that this
   DetNet Architecture will assist various vendors, users, and/or
   "vertical" Standards Development Organizations (dedicated to a single
   industry) to make selections among the available means of
   implementing DetNet networks.

3.1.  Zero Congestion Loss

   The primary means by which DetNet achieves its QoS assurances is to
   completely eliminate congestion at an output port as a cause of
   packet loss.  Given that a DetNet flow cannot be throttled, this can
   be achieved only by the provision of sufficient buffer storage at
   each hop through the network to ensure that no packets are dropped
   due to a lack of buffer storage.

   Ensuring adequate buffering requires, in turn, that the source, and
   every relay system along the path to the destination (or nearly every
   relay system -- see Section 4.3.2) be careful to regulate its output
   to not exceed the data rate for any DetNet flow, except for brief
   periods when making up for interfering traffic.  Any packet sent
   ahead of its time potentially adds to the number of buffers required
   by the next hop, and may thus exceed the resources allocated for a
   particular DetNet flow.

   The low-level mechanisms described in Section 4.4 provide the
   necessary regulation of transmissions by an edge system or relay
   system to ensure zero congestion loss.  The reservation of the
   bandwidth and buffers for a DetNet flow requires the provisioning
   described in Section 4.9.

   A DetNet node may have other resources requiring allocation and/or
   scheduling, that might otherwise be over-subscribed and trigger
   congestion loss.




Finn, et al.           Expires September 22, 2016               [Page 7]


Internet-Draft    Deterministic Networking Architecture       March 2016


3.2.  Pinned paths

   In networks controlled by typical peer-to-peer protocols such as IEEE
   802.1 ISIS bridged networks or IETF OSPF routed networks, a network
   topology event in one part of the network can impact, at least
   briefly, the delivery of data in parts of the network remote from the
   failure or recovery event.  Thus, even redundant paths through a
   network, if controlled by the typical peer-to-peer protocols, do not
   eliminate the chances of brief losses of contact.

   Many real-time networks rely on physical rings or chains of two-port
   devices, with a relatively simple ring control protocol.  This
   supports redundant paths with a minimum of wiring.  As an additional
   benefit, ring topologies can often utilize different topology
   management protocols than those used for a mesh network, with a
   consequent reduction in the response time to topology changes.  Of
   course, this comes at some cost in terms of increased hop count, and
   thus latency, for the typical path.

   In order to get the advantages of low hop count and still ensure
   against even very brief losses of connectivity, DetNet employs pinned
   paths, where the path taken by a given DetNet flow does not change,
   at least immediately, and likely not at all, in response to network
   topology events.  When combined with packet replication and deletion
   (Section 3.3), this results in a high likelihood of continuous
   connectivity.  Pinned paths are commonly used in MPLS TE LSPs.

3.3.  Packet replication and deletion

   After congestion loss has been eliminated, the most important causes
   of packet loss are random media and/or memory faults, and equipment
   failures.  Both causes of packet loss can be greatly reduced by
   sending the same packets over multiple paths.

   Packet replication and deletion, also known as seamless redundancy
   [HSR-PRP], or 1+1 hitless protection, involves three capabilities:

   o  Providing sequencing information, once, to the packets of a DetNet
      flow.  This may be done by adding a sequence number or time stamp
      as part of DetNet, or may be inherent in the packet, e.g. in a
      transport protocol.

   o  Replicating these packets and, typically, sending them along at
      least two different paths to the destination(s).  (Often, the
      pinned paths of Section 3.2.)

   o  Discarding duplicated packets.




Finn, et al.           Expires September 22, 2016               [Page 8]


Internet-Draft    Deterministic Networking Architecture       March 2016


   In the simplest case, this amounts to replicating each packet in a
   source that has two interfaces, and conveying them through the
   network, along separate paths, to the similarly dual-homed
   destinations, that discard the extras.  This ensures that one path
   (with zero congestion loss) remains, even if some relay system fails.
   The sequence numbers can also be used for loss detection and for re-
   ordering.

   Alternatively, relay systems in the network can provide replication
   and elimination facilities at various points in the network, so that
   multiple failures can be accommodated.

   This is shown in the following figure, where the two relay systems
   each replicate (R) the DetNet flow on input, sending the DetNet flow
   to both the other relay system and to the end system, and eliminate
   duplicates (E) on the output interface to the right-hand end system.
   Any one link in the network can fail, and the Detnet flow can still
   get through.  Furthermore, two links can fail, as long as they are in
   different segments of the network.

                > > > > > > > >   relay    > > > > > > > >
               > /------------+ R system E +------------\ >
              > /                  v + ^                 \ >
      end    R +                   v | ^                  + E end
      system   +                   v | ^                  +   system
              > \                  v + ^                 / >
               > \------------+ R relay  E +------------/ >
                > > > > > > > >   system   > > > > > > > >

                                 Figure 1

   Note that packet replication and deletion does not react to and
   correct failures; it is entirely passive.  Thus, intermittent
   failures, mistakenly created access control lists, or misrouted data
   is handled just the same as the equipment failures that are detected
   handled by typical routing and bridging protocols.

4.  DetNet Architecture

4.1.  Elements of DetNet Architecture

   The DetNet architecture has a number of elements, discussed in the
   following sections.  Note that not every application requires all of
   these elements.

   a.  A model for the definition, identification, and operation of
       DetNet flows (Section 4.3), for use by relay systems to classify
       and process individual packets following per-flow rules.



Finn, et al.           Expires September 22, 2016               [Page 9]


Internet-Draft    Deterministic Networking Architecture       March 2016


   b.  A model for the flow of data out of an end system or through a
       relay system that can be used to predict the bounds for that
       system's impact on the QoS of a DetNet flow, for use by the
       Controllers to configure policing and shaping engines in Network
       Systems over the Southbound interface.  The model includes:

       1.  A model for queuing, transmission selection, shaping,
           preemption, and timing resources that can be used by an end
           system or relay system to control the selection of packets
           output on an interface.  These models must have sufficiently
           well-defined characteristics, both individually and in the
           aggregate, to give predictable results for the QoS for DetNet
           packets (Section 4.4).

       2.  A model for identifying misbehaving DetNet flows and
           mitigating their impact on properly functioning DetNet flows
           (Section 4.6).

   c.  A model for the relay system to inform the controller(s) of the
       information it needs for adequate path computations (Section 4.2)
       including:

       1.  Systems' individual capabilities (e.g. can do replication,
           can do precise time).

       2.  Link capabilities and resources (e.g. bandwidth, transmission
           delay, hardware deterministic support to the physical layer,
           ...)

       3.  Physical resources (total and available buffers, timers,
           queues, etc)

       4.  Network Adjacencies (neighbors)

   d.  A model for the provision of a service, by end systems or relay
       systems, to replicate and forward a DetNet flow over redundant
       paths.  The model includes:

       1.  A model for specifying multiple stable paths across a network
           that can perform packet forwarding at both Layer 3 and at
           lower layers, to which specific DetNet flows can be assigned
           (Section 4.2).

       2.  A model and data plane format(s) for sequencing and
           replicating the packets of a DetNet flow, typically at or
           near the source, sending the replicated DetNet flows over
           different stable paths, merging and/or re-replicating those
           packets at other points in the network, and finally



Finn, et al.           Expires September 22, 2016              [Page 10]


Internet-Draft    Deterministic Networking Architecture       March 2016


           eliminating the duplicates, typically at or near the
           destination(s), in order to provide high availability
           (Section 3.3).

   e.  The protocol stack model for an end system and/or a relay system
       should support the above elements in a manner that maximizes the
       applicability of existing standards and protocols to the DetNet
       problem, and allows for the creation of new protocols only where
       needed, thus making DetNet an add-on feature to existing
       networks, rather than a new way to do networking.  In particular
       this protocol stack supports networks in which the path from
       source to destination(s) includes bridges and/or routers in any
       order (Section 4.7).

   f.  A variety of models for the provisioning of DetNet flows can be
       envisioned, including orchestration by a central controller or by
       a federation of controllers, via control plane protocols running
       on relay systems and end systems, by off-line configuration, or
       by a combination of these methods.  The provisioning models are
       similar to existing Layer-2 and Layer-3 models, in order to
       minimize the amount of innovation required in this area
       (Section 4.9).

4.2.  Traffic Engineering for DetNet

   Traffic Engineering Architecture and Signaling (TEAS) [TEAS] defines
   traffic-engineering architectures for generic applicability across
   packet and non-packet networks.  From TEAS perspective, Traffic
   Engineering (TE) refers to techniques that enable operators to
   control how specific traffic flows are treated within their networks.

   Because if its very nature of establishing pinned optimized paths,
   Deterministic Networking can be seen as a new, specialized branch of
   Traffic Engineering, and inherits its architecture with a separation
   into planes.

   The Deterministic Networking architecture is thus composed of three
   planes, a (User) Application Plane, a Controller Plane, and a Network
   Plane, which echoes that of Software-Defined Networking (SDN): Layers
   and Architecture Terminology [RFC7426] which is represented below:











Finn, et al.           Expires September 22, 2016              [Page 11]


Internet-Draft    Deterministic Networking Architecture       March 2016


           SDN Layers and Architecture Terminology per RFC 7426

                     o--------------------------------o
                     |                                |
                     | +-------------+   +----------+ |
                     | | Application |   |  Service | |
                     | +-------------+   +----------+ |
                     |       Application Plane        |
                     o---------------Y----------------o
                                     |
       *-----------------------------Y---------------------------------*
       |           Network Services Abstraction Layer (NSAL)           |
       *------Y------------------------------------------------Y-------*
              |                                                |
              |               Service Interface                |
              |                                                |
       o------Y------------------o       o---------------------Y------o
       |      |    Control Plane |       | Management Plane    |      |
       | +----Y----+   +-----+   |       |  +-----+       +----Y----+ |
       | | Service |   | App |   |       |  | App |       | Service | |
       | +----Y----+   +--Y--+   |       |  +--Y--+       +----Y----+ |
       |      |           |      |       |     |               |      |
       | *----Y-----------Y----* |       | *---Y---------------Y----* |
       | | Control Abstraction | |       | | Management Abstraction | |
       | |     Layer (CAL)     | |       | |      Layer (MAL)       | |
       | *----------Y----------* |       | *----------Y-------------* |
       |            |            |       |            |               |
       o------------|------------o       o------------|---------------o
                    |                                 |
                    | CP                              | MP
                    | Southbound                      | Southbound
                    | Interface                       | Interface
                    |                                 |
       *------------Y---------------------------------Y----------------*
       |         Device and resource Abstraction Layer (DAL)           |
       *------------Y---------------------------------Y----------------*
       |            |                                 |                |
       |    o-------Y----------o   +-----+   o--------Y----------o     |
       |    | Forwarding Plane |   | App |   | Operational Plane |     |
       |    o------------------o   +-----+   o-------------------o     |
       |                       Network Device                          |
       +---------------------------------------------------------------+

                                 Figure 2







Finn, et al.           Expires September 22, 2016              [Page 12]


Internet-Draft    Deterministic Networking Architecture       March 2016


4.2.1.  The Application Plane

   Per [RFC7426], the Application Plane includes both applications and
   services.  In particular, the Application Plane incorporates the User
   Agent, a specialized application that interacts with the end user /
   operator and performs requests for Deterministic Networking services
   via an abstract Flow Management Entity, (FME) which may or may not be
   collocated with (one of) the end systems.

   At the Application Plane, a management interface enables the
   negotiation of flows between end systems.  An abstraction of the flow
   called a Traffic Specification (TSpec) provides the representation.
   This abstraction is used to place a reservation over the (Northbound)
   Service Interface and within the Application plane.  It is associated
   with an abstraction of location, such as IP addresses and DNS names,
   to identify the end systems and eventually specify intermediate relay
   systems.

4.2.2.  The Controller Plane

   The Controller Plane corresponds to the aggregation of the Control
   and Management Planes in [RFC7426], though Common Control and
   Measurement Plane (CCAMP) [CCAMP] makes an additional distinction
   between management and measurement.  When the logical separation of
   the Control, Measurement and other Management entities is not
   relevant, the term Controller Plane is used for simplicity to
   represent them all, and the term controller refers to any device
   operating in that plane, whether is it a Path Computation entity or a
   Network Management entity (NME).  The Path Computation Element (PCE)
   [PCE] is a core element of a controller, in charge of computing
   Deterministic paths to be applied in the Network Plane.

   A (Northbound) Service Interface enables applications in the
   Application Plane to communicate with the entities in the Controller
   Plane.

   One or more PCE(s) collaborate to implement the requests from the FME
   as Per-fFlow Per-Hop Behaviors installed in the relay systems for
   each individual flow.  The PCEs place each flow along a deterministic
   sequence of relay systems so as to respect per-flow constraints such
   as security and latency, and optimize the overall result for metrics
   such as an abstract aggregated cost.  The deterministic sequence can
   typically be more complex than a direct sequence and include
   redundancy path, with one or more packet replication and elimination
   points.






Finn, et al.           Expires September 22, 2016              [Page 13]


Internet-Draft    Deterministic Networking Architecture       March 2016


4.2.3.  The Network Plane

   The Network Plane represents the network devices and protocols as a
   whole, regardless of the Layer at which the network devices operate.
   It includes Forwarding Plane (data plane), Application, and
   Operational Plane (control plane) aspects.

   The network Plane comprises the Network Interface Cards (NIC) in the
   end systems, which are typically IP hosts, and relay systems, which
   are typically IP routers and switches.  Network-to-Network Interfaces
   such as used for Traffic Engineering path reservation in [RFC5921],
   as well as User-to-Network Interfaces (UNI) such as provided by the
   Local Management Interface (LMI) between network and end systems, are
   both part of the Network Plane, both in the control plane and the
   data plane.

   A Southbound (Network) Interface enables the entities in the
   Controller Plane to communicate with devices in the Network Plane.
   This interface leverages and extends TEAS to describe the physical
   topology and resources in the Network Plane.

                          Flow Management Entity

       End                                                     End
       System                                               System

      -+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Northbound -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-

                PCE         PCE              PCE              PCE

      -+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Southbound -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-

                  Relay      Relay      Relay      Relay
                  System     System     System     System
       NIC                                                     NIC
                  Relay      Relay      Relay      Relay
                  System     System     System     System

                                 Figure 3

   The relay systems (and eventually the end systems NIC) expose their
   capabilities and physical resources to the controller (the PCE), and
   update the PCE with their dynamic perception of the topology, across
   the Southbound Interface.  In return, the PCE(s) set the per-flow
   paths up, providing a Flow Characterization that is more tightly
   coupled to the relay system Operation than a TSpec.





Finn, et al.           Expires September 22, 2016              [Page 14]


Internet-Draft    Deterministic Networking Architecture       March 2016


   At the Network plane, relay systems may exchange information
   regarding the state of the paths, between adjacent systems and
   eventually with the end systems, and forward packets within
   constraints associated to each flow, or, when unable to do so,
   perform a last resort operation such as drop or declassify.

   This specification focuses on the Southbound interface and the
   operation of the Network Plane.

4.3.  DetNet flows

4.3.1.  Source guarantees

   DetNet flows can by synchronous or asynchronous.  In synchronous
   DetNet flows, at least the relay systems (and possibly the end
   systems) are closely time synchronized, typically to better than 1
   microsecond.  By transmitting packets from different DetNet flows or
   classes of DetNet flows at different times, using repeating schedules
   synchronized among the relay systems, resources such as buffers and
   link bandwidth can be shared over the time domain among different
   DetNet flows.  There is a tradeoff among techniques for synchronous
   DetNet flows between the burden of fine-grained scheduling and the
   benefit of reducing the required resources, especially buffer space.

   In contrast, asynchronous DetNet flows are not coordinated with a
   fine-grained schedule, so relay and end systems must assume worst-
   case interference among DetNet flows contending for buffer resources.
   Asynchronous DetNet flows are characterized by:

   o  A maximum packet size;

   o  An observation interval; and

   o  A maximum number of transmissions during that observation
      interval.

   These parameters, together with knowledge of the protocol stack used
   (and thus the size of the various headers added to a packet), limit
   the number of bit times per observation interval that the DetNet flow
   can occupy the physical medium.

   The source promises that these limits will not be exceeded.  If the
   source transmits less data than this limit allows, the unused
   resources such as link bandwidth can be made available by the system
   to non-DetNet packets.  However, making those resources available to
   DetNet packets in other DetNet flows would serve no purpose.  Those
   other DetNet flows have their own dedicated resources, on the




Finn, et al.           Expires September 22, 2016              [Page 15]


Internet-Draft    Deterministic Networking Architecture       March 2016


   assumption that all DetNet flows can use all of their resources over
   a long period of time.

   Note that there is no provision in DetNet for throttling DetNet flows
   (reducing the transmission rate via feedback); the assumption is that
   a DetNet flow, to be useful, must be delivered in its entirety.  That
   is, while any useful application is written to expect a certain
   number of lost packets, the real-time applications of interest to
   DetNet demand that the loss of data due to the network is
   extraordinarily infrequent.

   Although DetNet strives to minimize the changes required of an
   application to allow it to shift from a special-purpose digital
   network to an Internet Protocol network, one fundamental shift in the
   behavior of network applications is impossible to avoid--the
   reservation of resources before the application starts.  In the first
   place, a network cannot deliver finite latency and practically zero
   packet loss to an arbitrarily high offered load.  Secondly, achieving
   practically zero packet loss for unthrottled (though bandwidth
   limited) DetNet flows means that bridges and routers have to dedicate
   buffer resources to specific DetNet flows or to classes of DetNet
   flows.  The requirements of each reservation have to be translated
   into the parameters that control each system's queuing, shaping, and
   scheduling functions and delivered to the hosts, bridges, and
   routers.

4.3.2.  Incomplete Networks

   The presence in the network of relay systems that are not fully
   capable of offering DetNet services complicates the ability of the
   relay systems and/or controller to allocate resources, as extra
   buffering, and thus extra latency, must be allocated at points
   downstream from the non-DetNet relay system for a DetNet flow.

4.4.  Queuing, Shaping, Scheduling, and Preemption

   As described above, DetNet achieves its aims by reserving bandwidth
   and buffer resources at every hop along the path of the DetNet flow.
   The reservation itself is not sufficient, however.  Implementors and
   users of a number of proprietary and standard real-time networks have
   found that standards for specific data plane techniques are required
   to enable these assurances to be made in a multi-vendor network.  The
   fundamental reason is that latency variation in one system results in
   the need for extra buffer space in the next-hop system(s), which in
   turn, increases the worst-case per-hop latency.

   Standard queuing and transmission selection algorithms allow a
   central controller to compute the latency contribution of each relay



Finn, et al.           Expires September 22, 2016              [Page 16]


Internet-Draft    Deterministic Networking Architecture       March 2016


   node to the end-to-end latency, to compute the amount of buffer space
   required in each relay system for each incremental DetNet flow, and
   most importantly, to translate from a flow specification to a set of
   values for the managed objects that control each relay or end system.
   The IEEE 802 has specified (and is specifying) a set of queuing,
   shaping, and scheduling algorithms that enable each relay system
   (bridge or router), and/or a central controller, to compute these
   values.  These algorithms include:

   o  A credit-based shaper [IEEE802.1Q-2014] Clause 34.

   o  Time-gated queues governed by a rotating time schedule,
      synchronized among all relay nodes [IEEE802.1Qbv].

   o  Synchronized double (or triple) buffers driven by synchronized
      time ticks.  [IEEE802.1Qch].

   o  Pre-emption of an Ethernet packet in transmission by a packet with
      a more stringent latency requirement, followed by the resumption
      of the preempted packet [IEEE802.1Qbu], [IEEE802.3br].

   While these techniques are currently embedded in Ethernet and
   bridging standards, we can note that they are all, except perhaps for
   packet preemption, equally applicable to other media than Ethernet,
   and to routers as well as bridges.

4.5.  Coexistence with normal traffic

   A DetNet network supports the dedication of a high proportion (e.g.
   75%) of the network bandwidth to DetNet flows.  But, no matter how
   much is dedicated for DetNet flows, it is a goal of DetNet to coexist
   with with existing Class of Service schemes (e.g., DiffServ).  It is
   also important that non-DetNet traffic not disrupt the DetNet flow,
   of course (see Section 4.6 and Section 7).  For these reasons:

   o  Bandwidth (transmission opportunities) not utilized by a DetNet
      flow are available to non-DetNet packets (though not to other
      DetNet flows).

   o  DetNet flows can be shaped or scheduled, in order to ensure that
      the highest-priority non-DetNet packet also is ensured a worst-
      case latency (at any given hop).

   o  When transmission opportunities for DetNet flows are scheduled in
      detail, then the algorithm constructing the schedule should leave
      sufficient opportunities for non-DetNet packets to satisfy the
      needs of the users of the network.  Detailed scheduling can also




Finn, et al.           Expires September 22, 2016              [Page 17]


Internet-Draft    Deterministic Networking Architecture       March 2016


      permit the time-shared use of buffer resources by different DetNet
      flows.

   Ideally, the net effect of the presence of DetNet flows in a network
   on the non-DetNet packets is primarily a reduction in the available
   bandwidth.

4.6.  Fault Mitigation

   One key to building robust real-time systems is to reduce the
   infinite variety of possible failures to a number that can be
   analyzed with reasonable confidence.  DetNet aids in the process by
   providing filters and policers to detect DetNet packets received on
   the wrong interface, or at the wrong time, or in too great a volume,
   and to then take actions such as discarding the offending packet,
   shutting down the offending DetNet flow, or shutting down the
   offending interface.

   It is also essential that filters and service remarking be employed
   at the network edge to prevent non-DetNet packets from being mistaken
   for DetNet packets, and thus impinging on the resources allocated to
   DetNet packets.

   There exist techniques, at present and/or in various stages of
   standardization, that can perform these fault mitigation tasks that
   deliver a high probability that misbehaving systems will have zero
   impact on well-behaved DetNet flows, except of course, for the
   receiving interface(s) immediately downstream of the misbehaving
   device.

4.7.  Protocol Stack Model

   [IEEE802.1CB], Annex C, offers a description of the TSN protocol
   stack.  It may serve as the foundation for the DetNet model which
   will be defined by the working group.  While this standard is a work
   in progress, a consensus around the basic architecture has formed.
   This stack is summarized in Figure 4.














Finn, et al.           Expires September 22, 2016              [Page 18]


Internet-Draft    Deterministic Networking Architecture       March 2016


                           DetNet Protocol Stack

                    +--------------------------------+
                    |          Upper Layers          |
                    +--------------------------------+
                    |  Sequence generation/recovery  |
                    +--------------------------------+
                    | DetNet flow splitting/merging  |
                    +--------------------------------+
                    |     Sequence encode/decode     |
                    +--------------------------------+
                    |   DetNet flow encode/decode    |
                    +--------------------------------+
                    |          Lower layers          |
                    +--------------------------------+

                                 Figure 4

   Not all layers are required for any given application, or even for
   any given network.  The layers are, from top to bottom:

   Sequence generation/recovery
           Supplies the sequence number for packet replication and
           deletion (Section 3.3) for packets going down the stack (if
           not already present), and discards duplicate packets coming
           up the stack.

   DetNet flow splitting/merging
           Replicates packets going down the stack into two DetNet
           flows, and merges DetNet flows together for packets coming up
           the stack, based on the packet's DetNet flow identifier.
           Needed for packet replication and deletion (Section 3.3).

   Sequence encode/decode
           Encodes the sequence number into packets going down the
           stack, and extracts the sequence number from packets coming
           up the stack.  This function may or may not be a null
           transformation of the packet, and for some protocols, is not
           explicitly present, being included in the DetNet flow encode/
           decode layer, below.

   DetNet flow encode/decode
           Encapsulates packets going down the stack, based on the
           packet's locally-significant DetNet flow identifier, in order
           to identify to which DetNet flow the packet belongs, and
           extracts a locally-significant DetNet flow identifier from
           packets coming up the stack.  This may be a null
           transformation (e.g., for DetNet flows identified by IP



Finn, et al.           Expires September 22, 2016              [Page 19]


Internet-Draft    Deterministic Networking Architecture       March 2016


           5-tuple) or might be an explicit encapsulation (e.g., for
           DetNet flows identified with an MPLS label).  DetNet flow
           identification is the basis for packet replication and
           deletion, for assigning per-flow resources (if any) to
           packets and for defense against misbehaving systems
           (Section 4.6).  When DetNet flows are assigned to pinned
           paths, this layer can be indistinguishable from the data
           forwarding layer(s).

   The reader is likely to notice that Figure 4 does not specify the
   relationship between the DetNet layers, the IP layers, and the link
   layers.  This is intentional, because they can usefully be placed
   different places in the stack, and even in mulitple places, depending
   on where their peers are placed.

4.8.  Advertising resources, capabilities and adjacencies

   There are three classes of information that a central controller or
   decentralized control plane needs to know that can only be obtained
   from the end systems and/or relay systems in the network.  When using
   a peer-to-peer control plane, some of this information may be
   required by a system's neighbors in the network.

   o  Details of the system's capabilities that are required in order to
      accurately allocate that system's resources, as well as other
      systems' resources.  This includes, for example, which specific
      queuing and shaping algorithms are implemented (Section 4.4), the
      number of buffers dedicated for DetNet allocation, and the worst-
      case forwarding delay.

   o  The dynamic state of an end or relay system's DetNet resources.

   o  The identity of the system's neighbors, and the characteristics of
      the link(s) between the systems, including the length (in
      nanoseconds) of the link(s).

4.9.  Provisioning model

4.9.1.  Centralized Path Computation and Installation

   A centralized routing model, such as provided with a PCE (RFC 4655
   [RFC4655]), enables global and per-flow optimizations.  (See
   Section 4.2.)  The model is attractive but a number of issues are
   left to be solved.  In particular:

   o  Whether and how the path computation can be installed by 1) an end
      device or 2) a Network Management entity,




Finn, et al.           Expires September 22, 2016              [Page 20]


Internet-Draft    Deterministic Networking Architecture       March 2016


   o  And how the path is set up, either by installing state at each hop
      with a direct interaction between the forwarding device and the
      PCE, or along a path by injecting a source-routed request at one
      end of the path.

4.9.2.  Distributed Path Setup

   Whether a distributed alternative without a PCE can be valuable
   should be studied as well.  Such an alternative could for instance
   inherit from the Resource ReSerVation Protocol [RFC3209] (RSVP-TE)
   flows.

   In a Layer-2 only environment, or as part of a layered approach to a
   mixed environment, IEEE 802.1 also has work, either completed or in
   progress.  [IEEE802.1Q-2014] Clause 35 describes SRP, a peer-to-peer
   protocol for Layer-2 roughly analogous to RSVP.  Almost complete is
   [IEEE802.1Qca], which defines how ISIS can provide multiple disjoint
   paths or distribution trees.  Also in progress is [IEEE802.1Qcc],
   which expands the capabilities of SRP.

   The integration/interaction of the DetNet control layer an underlying
   IEEE 802.1 sub-network control layer will need to be defined.

4.10.  Scaling to larger networks

   Reservations for individual DetNet flows require considerable state
   information in each relay system, especially when adequate fault
   mitigation (Section 4.6) is required.  The DetNet data plane, in
   order to support larger numbers of DetNet flows, must support the
   aggregation of DetNet flows into tunnels, which themselves can be
   viewed by the relay systems' data planes largely as individual DetNet
   flows.  Without such aggregation, the per-relay system may limit the
   scale of DetNet networks.

4.11.  Connected islands vs. networks

   Given that users have deployed examples of the IEEE 802.1 TSN TG
   standards, which provide capabilities similar to DetNet, it is
   obvious to ask whether the IETF DetNet effort can be limited to
   providing Layer-2 connections (VPNs) between islands of bridged TSN
   networks.  While this capability is certainly useful to some
   applications, and must not be precluded by DetNet, tunneling alone is
   not a sufficient goal for the DetNet WG.  As shown in the
   Deterministic Networking Use Cases draft [I-D.ietf-detnet-use-cases],
   there are already deployments of Layer-2 TSN networks that are
   encountering the well-known problems of over-large broadcast domains.
   Routed solutions, and combinations routed/bridged solutions, are both
   required.



Finn, et al.           Expires September 22, 2016              [Page 21]


Internet-Draft    Deterministic Networking Architecture       March 2016


5.  Compatibility with Layer-2

   Standards providing similar capabilities for bridged networks (only)
   have been and are being generated in the IEEE 802 LAN/MAN Standards
   Committee.  The present architecture describes an abstract model that
   can be applicable both at Layer-2 and Layer-3, and over links not
   defined by IEEE 802.  It is the intention of the authors (and
   hopefully, as this draft progresses, of the DetNet Working Group)
   that IETF and IEEE 802 will coordinate their work, via the
   participation of common individuals, liaisons, and other means, to
   maximize the compatibility of their outputs.

   DetNet enabled systems and nodes can be interconnected by sub-
   networks, i.e., Layer 2 technologies.  These sub-networks will
   provide DetNet compatible service for support of DetNet traffic.
   Examples of sub-networks include 802.1TSN and a point-to-point OTN
   link.  Of course, multi-layer DetNet systems may be possible too,
   where one DetNet appears as a sub-network, and provides service to, a
   higher layer DetNet system.

6.  Open Questions

   There are a number of architectural questions that will have to be
   resolved before this document can be submitted for publication.
   Aside from the obvious fact that this present draft is subject to
   change, there are specific questions to which the authors wish to
   direct the readers' attention.

6.1.  Data plane shapers and schedulers

   A number of techniques have been defined and are being defined by
   IEEE 802 for queuing, shaping, and scheduling transmissions on
   EtherNet media, most of which are directly applicable to any other
   medium.  Specific selections of supported techniques are required,
   because minimizing, and even eliminating, congestion losses depends
   strongly on the details of the per-hop behavior of sources and relay
   systems.

   The present authors expect that, at least, the IEEE 802 mechanisms
   will be supported.

6.2.  DetNet flow identification and sequencing

   The techniques to be used for DetNet flow identification must be
   settled.  The following paragraphs provide a snapshot of the authors'
   opinions at the time of writing.  These authors anticipate the
   submission of drafts in the near future on this subject.




Finn, et al.           Expires September 22, 2016              [Page 22]


Internet-Draft    Deterministic Networking Architecture       March 2016


   IEEE 802.1 TSN streams are identified by giving each stream (DetNet
   flow) a {VLAN identifier, destination MAC address} pair that is
   unique in the bridged network, and that the MAC address must be a
   multicast address.  If a source is generating, for example, two
   unicast UDP flows to the same destination, one DetNet and one not,
   the DetNet flow's packets must be transformed at some point to have a
   multicast destination MAC address, and perhaps, a different VLAN than
   the non-DetNet flow's packets.

   A similar provision would apply to DetNet packets that are identified
   by MPLS labels; any bridges between the LSRs need a {VLAN identifier,
   destination MAC address} pair uniquely identifying the DetNet flow in
   the bridged network.

   Provision is made in current draft of [IEEE802.1CB] to make these
   transformations either in a Layer-2 shim in the source end system, on
   the output side of a router or LSR, or in a proxy function in the
   first-hop bridge.  It remains to be seen whether this provision is
   adequate and/or acceptable to the IETF DetNet WG.

   There are also questions regarding the sequentialization of packets
   for use with packet replication and deletion (Section 3.3).
   [IEEE802.1CB] defines an EtherNet tag carrying a sequence number.  If
   MPLS Pseudowires are used with a control word containing a sequence
   number, the relationship and interworking between these two formats
   must be defined.

6.3.  Flat vs. hierarchical control

   Boxes that are solely routers or solely bridges are rare in today's
   market.  In a multi-tenant data center, multiple users' virtual
   Layer-2/Layer-3 topologies exist simultaneously, implemented on a
   network whose physical topology bears only accidental resemblance to
   the virtual topologies.

   While the forwarding topology (the bridges and routers) are an
   important consideration for a DetNet Flow Management Entity
   (Section 4.2.1), so is the purely physical topology.  Ultimately, the
   model used by the management entities is based on boxes, queues, and
   links.  The authors hope that the work of the TEAS WG will help to
   clarify exactly what model parameters need to be traded between the
   relay systems and the controller(s).

6.4.  Peer-to-peer reservation protocol

   As described in Section 4.9.2, the DetNet WG needs to decide whether
   to support a peer-to-peer protocol for a source and a destination to
   reserve resources for a DetNet stream.  Assuming that enabling the



Finn, et al.           Expires September 22, 2016              [Page 23]


Internet-Draft    Deterministic Networking Architecture       March 2016


   involvement of the source and/or destination is desirable (see
   Deterministic Networking Use Cases [I-D.ietf-detnet-use-cases]), it
   remains to decide whether the DetNet WG will make it possible to
   deploy at least some DetNet capabilities in a network using only a
   peer-to-peer protocol, without a central controller.

   (Note that a UNI (see Section 4.2.3) between an end system and an
   edge relay system, for sources and/or listeners to request DetNet
   services, can be either the first hop of a per-to-peer reservation
   protocol, or can be deflected by the edge relay system to a central
   controller for resolution.  Similarly, a decision by a central
   controller can be effected by the controller instructing the end
   system or edge relay system to initiate a per-to-peer protocol
   activity.)

6.5.  Wireless media interactions

   Deterministic Networking Use Cases [I-D.ietf-detnet-use-cases]
   illustrates cases where wireless media are needed in a DetNet
   network.  Some wireless media in general use, such as IEEE 802.11
   [IEEE802.1Q-2014], have significantly higher packet loss rates than
   typical wired media, such as Ethernet [IEEE802.3-2012].  IEEE 802.11
   includes support for such features as MAC-layer acknowledgements and
   retransmissions.

   The techniques described in Section 3 are likely to improve the
   ability of a mixed wired/wireless network to offer the DetNet QoS
   features.  The interaction of these techniques with the features of
   specific wireless media, although they may be significant, cannot be
   addressed in this document.  It remains to be decided to what extent
   the DetNet WG will address them, and to what extent other WGs, e.g.
   6TiSCH, will do so.

7.  Security Considerations

   Security in the context of Deterministic Networking has an added
   dimension; the time of delivery of a packet can be just as important
   as the contents of the packet, itself.  A man-in-the-middle attack,
   for example, can impose, and then systematically adjust, additional
   delays into a link, and thus disrupt or subvert a real-time
   application without having to crack any encryption methods employed.
   See [RFC7384] for an exploration of this issue in a related context.

   Furthermore, in a control system where millions of dollars of
   equipment, or even human lives, can be lost if the DetNet QoS is not
   delivered, one must consider not only simple equipment failures,
   where the box or wire instantly becomes perfectly silent, but bizarre
   errors such as can be caused by software failures.  Because there is



Finn, et al.           Expires September 22, 2016              [Page 24]


Internet-Draft    Deterministic Networking Architecture       March 2016


   essential no limit to the kinds of failures that can occur,
   protecting against realistic equipment failures is indistinguishable,
   in most cases, from protecting against malicious behavior, whether
   accidental or intentional.  See also Section 4.6.

   Security must cover:

   o  the protection of the signaling protocol

   o  the authentication and authorization of the controlling systems

   o  the identification and shaping of the DetNet flows

8.  IANA Considerations

   This document does not require an action from IANA.

9.  Acknowledgements

   The authors wish to thank Jouni Korhonen, Erik Nordmark, George
   Swallow, Rudy Klecka, Anca Zamfir, David Black, Thomas Watteyne,
   Shitanshu Shah, Craig Gunther, Rodney Cummings, Wilfried Steiner,
   Marcel Kiessling, Karl Weber, Ethan Grossman, Pat Thaler, and Lou
   Berger for their various contribution with this work.

10.  Access to IEEE 802.1 documents

   To access password protected IEEE 802.1 drafts, see the IETF IEEE
   802.1 information page at https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/52/slides/
   bridge-0/tsld003.htm.

11.  Informative References

   [AVnu]     http://www.avnu.org/, "The AVnu Alliance tests and
              certifies devices for interoperability, providing a simple
              and reliable networking solution for AV network
              implementation based on the Audio Video Bridging (AVB)
              standards.".

   [CCAMP]    IETF, "Common Control and Measurement Plane",
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-ccamp/>.

   [HART]     www.hartcomm.org, "Highway Addressable Remote Transducer,
              a group of specifications for industrial process and
              control devices administered by the HART Foundation".






Finn, et al.           Expires September 22, 2016              [Page 25]


Internet-Draft    Deterministic Networking Architecture       March 2016


   [HSR-PRP]  IEC, "High availability seamless redundancy (HSR) is a
              further development of the PRP approach, although HSR
              functions primarily as a protocol for creating media
              redundancy while PRP, as described in the previous
              section, creates network redundancy.  PRP and HSR are both
              described in the IEC 62439 3 standard.",
              <http://webstore.iec.ch/webstore/webstore.nsf/
              artnum/046615!opendocument>.

   [I-D.finn-detnet-problem-statement]
              Finn, N. and P. Thubert, "Deterministic Networking Problem
              Statement", draft-finn-detnet-problem-statement-05 (work
              in progress), March 2016.

   [I-D.ietf-6tisch-architecture]
              Thubert, P., "An Architecture for IPv6 over the TSCH mode
              of IEEE 802.15.4", draft-ietf-6tisch-architecture-09 (work
              in progress), November 2015.

   [I-D.ietf-6tisch-tsch]
              Watteyne, T., Palattella, M., and L. Grieco, "Using
              IEEE802.15.4e TSCH in an IoT context: Overview, Problem
              Statement and Goals", draft-ietf-6tisch-tsch-06 (work in
              progress), March 2015.

   [I-D.ietf-detnet-use-cases]
              Grossman, E., Gunther, C., Thubert, P., Wetterwald, P.,
              Raymond, J., Korhonen, J., Kaneko, Y., Das, S., Zha, Y.,
              Varga, B., Farkas, J., Goetz, F., and J. Schmitt,
              "Deterministic Networking Use Cases", draft-ietf-detnet-
              use-cases-08 (work in progress), March 2016.

   [I-D.ietf-roll-rpl-industrial-applicability]
              Phinney, T., Thubert, P., and R. Assimiti, "RPL
              applicability in industrial networks", draft-ietf-roll-
              rpl-industrial-applicability-02 (work in progress),
              October 2013.

   [I-D.svshah-tsvwg-deterministic-forwarding]
              Shah, S. and P. Thubert, "Deterministic Forwarding PHB",
              draft-svshah-tsvwg-deterministic-forwarding-04 (work in
              progress), August 2015.

   [IEEE802.11-2012]
              IEEE, "Wireless LAN Medium Access Control (MAC) and
              Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications", 2012,
              <http://standards.ieee.org/getieee802/
              download/802.11-2012.pdf>.



Finn, et al.           Expires September 22, 2016              [Page 26]


Internet-Draft    Deterministic Networking Architecture       March 2016


   [IEEE802.1AS-2011]
              IEEE, "Timing and Synchronizations (IEEE 802.1AS-2011)",
              2011, <http://standards.ieee.org/getIEEE802/
              download/802.1AS-2011.pdf>.

   [IEEE802.1BA-2011]
              IEEE, "AVB Systems (IEEE 802.1BA-2011)", 2011,
              <http://standards.ieee.org/getIEEE802/
              download/802.1BA-2011.pdf>.

   [IEEE802.1CB]
              IEEE, "Frame Replication and Elimination for Reliability
              (IEEE Draft P802.1CB)", 2016,
              <http://www.ieee802.org/1/files/private/cb-drafts/>.

   [IEEE802.1Q-2014]
              IEEE, "MAC Bridges and VLANs (IEEE 802.1Q-2014", 2014,
              <http://standards.ieee.org/getieee802/
              download/802-1Q-2014.pdf>.

   [IEEE802.1Qbu]
              IEEE, "Frame Preemption", 2016,
              <http://www.ieee802.org/1/files/private/bu-drafts/>.

   [IEEE802.1Qbv]
              IEEE, "Enhancements for Scheduled Traffic", 2016,
              <http://www.ieee802.org/1/files/private/bv-drafts/>.

   [IEEE802.1Qca]
              IEEE, "Path Control and Reservation", 2015,
              <http://www.ieee802.org/1/files/private/ca-drafts/>.

   [IEEE802.1Qcc]
              IEEE, "Stream Reservation Protocol (SRP) Enhancements and
              Performance Improvements", 2016,
              <http://www.ieee802.org/1/files/private/cc-drafts/>.

   [IEEE802.1Qch]
              IEEE, "Cyclic Queuing and Forwarding", 2016,
              <http://www.ieee802.org/1/files/private/ch-drafts/>.

   [IEEE802.1TSNTG]
              IEEE Standards Association, "IEEE 802.1 Time-Sensitive
              Networks Task Group", 2013,
              <http://www.IEEE802.org/1/pages/avbridges.html>.






Finn, et al.           Expires September 22, 2016              [Page 27]


Internet-Draft    Deterministic Networking Architecture       March 2016


   [IEEE802.3-2012]
              IEEE, "IEEE Stabdard for Ethernet", 2012,
              <http://standards.ieee.org/getieee802/
              download/802.3-2012.pdf>.

   [IEEE802.3br]
              IEEE, "Interspersed Express Traffic", 2016,
              <http://www.ieee802.org/3/br/>.

   [IEEE802154]
              IEEE standard for Information Technology, "IEEE std.
              802.15.4, Part. 15.4: Wireless Medium Access Control (MAC)
              and Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications for Low-Rate
              Wireless Personal Area Networks", June 2011.

   [IEEE802154e]
              IEEE standard for Information Technology, "IEEE std.
              802.15.4e, Part. 15.4: Low-Rate Wireless Personal Area
              Networks (LR-WPANs) Amendment 1: MAC sublayer", April
              2012.

   [ISA100.11a]
              ISA/IEC, "ISA100.11a, Wireless Systems for Automation,
              also IEC 62734", 2011, < http://www.isa100wci.org/en-
              US/Documents/PDF/3405-ISA100-WirelessSystems-Future-broch-
              WEB-ETSI.aspx>.

   [ISA95]    ANSI/ISA, "Enterprise-Control System Integration Part 1:
              Models and Terminology", 2000, <https://www.isa.org/
              isa95/>.

   [ODVA]     http://www.odva.org/, "The organization that supports
              network technologies built on the Common Industrial
              Protocol (CIP) including EtherNet/IP.".

   [PCE]      IETF, "Path Computation Element",
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-pce/>.

   [Profinet]
              http://us.profinet.com/technology/profinet/, "PROFINET is
              a standard for industrial networking in automation.",
              <http://us.profinet.com/technology/profinet/>.

   [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, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2205>.




Finn, et al.           Expires September 22, 2016              [Page 28]


Internet-Draft    Deterministic Networking Architecture       March 2016


   [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,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3209>.

   [RFC4655]  Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and J. Ash, "A Path Computation
              Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4655, August 2006,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4655>.

   [RFC5673]  Pister, K., Ed., Thubert, P., Ed., Dwars, S., and T.
              Phinney, "Industrial Routing Requirements in Low-Power and
              Lossy Networks", RFC 5673, DOI 10.17487/RFC5673, October
              2009, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5673>.

   [RFC5921]  Bocci, M., Ed., Bryant, S., Ed., Frost, D., Ed., Levrau,
              L., and L. Berger, "A Framework for MPLS in Transport
              Networks", RFC 5921, DOI 10.17487/RFC5921, July 2010,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5921>.

   [RFC6372]  Sprecher, N., Ed. and A. Farrel, Ed., "MPLS Transport
              Profile (MPLS-TP) Survivability Framework", RFC 6372,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6372, September 2011,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6372>.

   [RFC7384]  Mizrahi, T., "Security Requirements of Time Protocols in
              Packet Switched Networks", RFC 7384, DOI 10.17487/RFC7384,
              October 2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7384>.

   [RFC7426]  Haleplidis, E., Ed., Pentikousis, K., Ed., Denazis, S.,
              Hadi Salim, J., Meyer, D., and O. Koufopavlou, "Software-
              Defined Networking (SDN): Layers and Architecture
              Terminology", RFC 7426, DOI 10.17487/RFC7426, January
              2015, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7426>.

   [TEAS]     IETF, "Traffic Engineering Architecture and Signaling",
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-teas/>.

   [WirelessHART]
              www.hartcomm.org, "Industrial Communication Networks -
              Wireless Communication Network and Communication Profiles
              - WirelessHART - IEC 62591", 2010.

Authors' Addresses







Finn, et al.           Expires September 22, 2016              [Page 29]


Internet-Draft    Deterministic Networking Architecture       March 2016


   Norman Finn
   Cisco Systems
   170 W Tasman Dr.
   San Jose, California  95134
   USA

   Phone: +1 408 526 4495
   Email: nfinn@cisco.com


   Pascal Thubert
   Cisco Systems
   Village d'Entreprises Green Side
   400, Avenue de Roumanille
   Batiment T3
   Biot - Sophia Antipolis  06410
   FRANCE

   Phone: +33 4 97 23 26 34
   Email: pthubert@cisco.com


   Michael Johas Teener
   Broadcom Corp.
   3151 Zanker Rd.
   San Jose, California  95134
   USA

   Phone: +1 831 824 4228
   Email: MikeJT@broadcom.com





















Finn, et al.           Expires September 22, 2016              [Page 30]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129d, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/