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

Versions: 00 01 02 draft-ietf-detnet-data-plane-framework

DetNet                                                  J. Korhonen, Ed.
Internet-Draft
Intended status: Standards Track                           B. Varga, Ed.
Expires: September 11, 2019                                     Ericsson
                                                          March 10, 2019


                   DetNet IP Data Plane Encapsulation
                     draft-ietf-detnet-dp-sol-ip-02

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 September 11, 2019.

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





Korhonen & Varga       Expires September 11, 2019               [Page 1]


Internet-Draft            DetNet IP Data Plane                March 2019


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.1.  Terms Used In This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.2.  Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.3.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  DetNet IP Data Plane Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   4.  DetNet IP Data Plane Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     4.1.  End-System Specific Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     4.2.  DetNet Domain-Specific Considerations . . . . . . . . . .   9
       4.2.1.  DetNet Routers  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     4.3.  Networks With Multiple Technology Segments  . . . . . . .  11
     4.4.  OAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     4.5.  Class of Service  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     4.6.  Quality of Service  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     4.7.  Cross-DetNet Flow Resource Aggregation  . . . . . . . . .  14
     4.8.  Time Synchronization  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   5.  Management and Control Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     5.1.  Flow Identification and Aggregation . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     5.2.  Explcit Routes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     5.3.  Contention Loss and Jitter Reduction  . . . . . . . . . .  16
     5.4.  Bidirectional Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     5.5.  DetNet Controller (Control and Management) Plane
           Requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   6.  DetNet IP Data Plane Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
     6.1.  DetNet IP Flow Identification Procedures  . . . . . . . .  19
       6.1.1.  IP Header Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
       6.1.2.  Other Protocol Header Information . . . . . . . . . .  21
       6.1.3.  Flow Identification Management and Control
               Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
     6.2.  Forwarding Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
     6.3.  DetNet IP Traffic Treatment Procedures  . . . . . . . . .  23
     6.4.  Aggregation Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
   7.  IP over DetNet MPLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
     7.1.  IP Over DetNet MPLS Data Plane Scenarios  . . . . . . . .  24
     7.2.  DetNet IP over DetNet MPLS Encapsulation  . . . . . . . .  27
     7.3.  DetNet IP over DetNet MPLS Flow Identification
           Procedures  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  29
     7.4.  DetNet IP over DetNet MPLS Traffic Treatment Procedures .  29
   8.  Mapping DetNet IP Flows to IEEE 802.1 TSN . . . . . . . . . .  29
     8.1.  TSN Stream ID Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  31
     8.2.  TSN Usage of FRER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  33
     8.3.  Procedures  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  34
     8.4.  Management and Control Implications . . . . . . . . . . .  34
   9.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  36
   10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  36
   11. Contributors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  36



Korhonen & Varga       Expires September 11, 2019               [Page 2]


Internet-Draft            DetNet IP Data Plane                March 2019


   12. Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  38
   13. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  38
     13.1.  Normative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  38
     13.2.  Informative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  40
   Appendix A.  Example of DetNet Data Plane Operation . . . . . . .  43
   Appendix B.  Example of Pinned Paths Using IPv6 . . . . . . . . .  43
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  43

1.  Introduction

   Deterministic Networking (DetNet) is a service that can be offered by
   a network to DetNet flows.  DetNet provides these flows extremely low
   packet loss rates and assured maximum end-to-end delivery latency.
   General background and concepts of DetNet can be found in the DetNet
   Architecture [I-D.ietf-detnet-architecture].

   This document specifies the DetNet data plane operation for IP hosts
   and routers that provide DetNet service to IP encapsulated data.  No
   DetNet specific encapsulation is defined to support IP flows, rather
   existing IP and higher layer protocol header information is used to
   support flow identification and DetNet service delivery.

   The DetNet Architecture decomposes the DetNet related data plane
   functions into two 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 reordering).  As 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 IEEE802.1 TSN.

   This document provides an overview of the DetNet IP data plane in
   Section 3, considerations that apply to providing DetNet services via
   the DetNet IP data plane in Section 4 and Section 5.  Section 6
   provides the procedures for hosts and routers that support IP-based
   DetNet services.  Finally, Section 8 provides rules for mapping IP-
   based DetNet flows to IEEE 802.1 TSN streams.

2.  Terminology

2.1.  Terms Used In This Document

   This document uses the terminology and concepts established in the
   DetNet architecture [I-D.ietf-detnet-architecture], and the reader is
   assumed to be familiar with that document and its terminology.




Korhonen & Varga       Expires September 11, 2019               [Page 3]


Internet-Draft            DetNet IP Data Plane                March 2019


2.2.  Abbreviations

   The following abbreviations used in this document:

   CE            Customer Edge equipment.

   CoS           Class of Service.

   DetNet        Deterministic Networking.

   DF            DetNet Flow.

   L2            Layer-2.

   L3            Layer-3.

   LSP           Label-switched path.

   MPLS          Multiprotocol Label Switching.

   OAM           Operations, Administration, and Maintenance.

   PE            Provider Edge.

   PREOF         Packet Replication, Ordering and Elimination Function.

   PSN           Packet Switched Network.

   PW            Pseudowire.

   QoS           Quality of Service.

   TE            Traffic Engineering.

   TSN           Time-Sensitive Networking, TSN is a Task Group of the
                 IEEE 802.1 Working Group.

2.3.  Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
   14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.







Korhonen & Varga       Expires September 11, 2019               [Page 4]


Internet-Draft            DetNet IP Data Plane                March 2019


3.  DetNet IP Data Plane Overview

   This document describes how IP is used by DetNet nodes, i.e., hosts
   and routers, to identify DetNet flows and provide a DetNet service.
   From a data plane perspective, an end-to-end IP model is followed.
   As mentioned above, existing IP and higher layer protocol header
   information is used to support flow identification and DetNet service
   delivery.

   DetNet uses "6-tuple" based flow identification, where "6-tuple"
   refers to information carried in IP and higher layer protocol
   headers.  General background on the use of IP headers, and
   "5-tuples", to identify flows and support Quality of Service (QoS)
   can be found in [RFC3670].  [RFC7657] also provides useful background
   on the delivery differentiated services (DiffServ) and "6-tuple"
   based flow identification.

   DetNet flow aggregation may be enabled via the use of wildcards,
   masks, prefixes and ranges.  IP tunnels may also be used to support
   flow aggregation.  In these cases, it is expected that DetNet aware
   intermediate nodes will provide DetNet service assurance on the
   aggregate through resource allocation and congestion control
   mechanisms.

    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



Korhonen & Varga       Expires September 11, 2019               [Page 5]


Internet-Draft            DetNet IP Data Plane                March 2019


   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.  The mapping of DetNet IP flows to TSN streams and
   TSN protection mechanisms is covered in Section 8.

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

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

  +----------+                                              +----------+
  |   Appl.  |<-------------- End to End Service ---------->|   Appl.  |
  +----------+   .....-----+                  +-----.....   +----------+
  | Service  |<--: Service |-- DetNet flow ---| Service :-->| Service  |
  |          |   :         |<- DN MPLS flow ->|         :   |          |
  +----------+   +---------+   +----------+   +---------+   +----------+
  |Forwarding|   |Fwd| |Fwd|   |Forwarding|   |Fwd| |Fwd|   |Forwarding|
  +--------.-+   +-.-+ +-.-+   +---.----.-+   +-.-+ +-.-+   +----.-----+
           :  Link :    /  ,-----.  \   :  Link :    /  ,-----.  \
           +.......+    +-[  Sub  ]-+   +.......+   +--[  Sub  ]--+
                          [Network]                    [Network]
                           `-----'                      `-----'

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

               Figure 2: DetNet IP Over DetNet MPLS Network

   Figure 2 illustrates a variant of Figure 1, with an MPLS based DetNet
   network as a sub-network between the relay nodes.  It shows a more
   complex DetNet enabled IP network where an IP flow is mapped to one
   or more PWs and MPLS (TE) LSPs.  The end systems still originate IP
   encapsulated traffic that is identified as DetNet flows.  The relay
   nodes follow procedures defined in Section 7 to map each DetNet flow
   to MPLS LSPs.  While not shown, relay nodes can provide service sub-
   layer functions such as PREOF using DetNet over MPLS, and this is
   indicated by the solid line for the MPLS facing portion of the
   Service component.  Note that the Transit node is MPLS (TE) LSP aware
   and performs switching based on MPLS labels, and need not have any
   specific knowledge of the DetNet service or the corresponding DetNet
   flow identification.  See Section 7 for details on the mapping of IP
   flows to MPLS, and [I-D.ietf-detnet-dp-sol-mpls] for general support
   of DetNet services using MPLS.





Korhonen & Varga       Expires September 11, 2019               [Page 6]


Internet-Draft            DetNet IP Data Plane                March 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 3: Non-DetNet aware IP end systems with DetNet IP Domain

   Figure 3 illustrates another variant of Figure 1 where the end
   systems are not DetNet aware.  In this case, edge nodes sit at the
   boundary of the DetNet domain and provide DetNet service proxies for
   the end applications by initiating and terminating DetNet service for
   the application's IP flows.  The existing header information or an
   approach such as described in Section 4.7 can be used to support
   DetNet flow identification.

   Non-DetNet and DetNet IP packets are identical on the wire.  From
   data plane perspective, the only difference is that there is flow-
   associated DetNet information on each DetNet node that defines the
   flow related characteristics and required forwarding behavior.  As
   shown above, edge nodes provide a Service Proxy function that
   "associates" one or more IP flows with the appropriate DetNet flow-
   specific information and ensures that the receives the proper traffic
   treatment within the domain.

   Note: The operation of IEEE802.1 TSN end systems over DetNet enabled
   IP networks is not described in this document.  While TSN flows could
   be encapsulated in IP packets by an IP End System or DetNet Edge Node
   in order to produce DetNet IP flows, the details of such are out of
   scope of this document.

4.  DetNet IP Data Plane Considerations

   This section provides informative considerations related to providing
   DetNet service to flows which are identified based on their header
   information.  At a high level, the following are provided on a per
   flow basis:



Korhonen & Varga       Expires September 11, 2019               [Page 7]


Internet-Draft            DetNet IP Data Plane                March 2019


   Congestion protection and latency control:

      Usage of allocated resources (queuing, policing, shaping) to
      ensure that the congestion-related loss and latency/jitter
      requirements of a DetNet flow are met.

   Explicit routes:

      Use of a specific path for a flow.  This limits misordering and
      can improve delivery of deterministic latency.

   Service protection:

      Which in the case of this document translates to changing the
      explicit path after a failure is detected in order to restore
      delivery of the required DetNet service characteristics.  Path
      changes, even in the case of failure recovery, can lead to the out
      of order delivery of data.

      Note: DetNet PREOF is not provided by the mechanisms defined in
      this document.

   Load sharing:

      Generally, distributing packets of the same DetNet flow over
      multiple paths is not recommended.  Such load sharing, e.g., via
      ECMP or UCMP, impacts ordering and end-to-end jitter.

   Troubleshooting:

      For example, to support identification of misbehaving flows.

   Recognize flow(s) for analytics:

      For example, increase counters.

   Correlate events with flows:

      For example, unexpected loss.

4.1.  End-System Specific Considerations

   Data-flows requiring DetNet service are generated and terminated on
   end systems.  This document deals only with IP end systems.  The
   protocols used by an IP end system are specific to an application and
   end systems peer with end systems using the same application
   encapsulation format.  This said, DetNet's use of 6-tuple IP flow
   identification means that DetNet must be aware of not only the format



Korhonen & Varga       Expires September 11, 2019               [Page 8]


Internet-Draft            DetNet IP Data Plane                March 2019


   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 4.6 and Section 4.2.1 for more
   details.  When receiving packets, this means that there are
   appropriate local node resources, e.g., buffers, to receive and
   process a DetNet flow packets.

4.2.  DetNet Domain-Specific Considerations

   As a general rule, DetNet IP domains need to be able to forward any
   DetNet flow identified by the IP 6-tuple.  Doing otherwise would
   limit end system encapsulation format.  From a practical standpoint
   this means that all nodes along the end-to-end path of a DetNet flows
   need to agree on what fields are used for flow identification, and
   the transport protocols (e.g., TCP/UDP/IPsec) which can be used to
   identify 6-tuple protocol ports.

   From a connection type perspective two scenarios are identified:

   1.  DN attached: end system is directly connected to an edge node or
       end system is behind a sub-network.  (See ES1 and ES2 in figure
       below)

   2.  DN integrated: end system is part of the DetNet domain.  (See ES3
       in figure below)

   L3 (IP) end systems may use any of these connection types.  DetNet
   domain 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
   DetNet domain and its encapsulation format.  See Figure 4 for L3 end
   system connection scenarios.









Korhonen & Varga       Expires September 11, 2019               [Page 9]


Internet-Draft            DetNet IP Data Plane                March 2019


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



               Figure 4: Connection types of L3 end systems

4.2.1.  DetNet Routers

   Within a DetNet domain, the DetNet enabled IP Routers interconnect
   links and sub-networks to support end-to-end delivery of DetNet
   flows.  From a DetNet architecture perspective, these routers are
   DetNet relays, as they must be DetNet service aware.  Such routers
   identify DetNet flows based on the IP 6-tuple, and ensure that the
   DetNet service required traffic treatment is provided both on the
   node and on any attached sub-network.

   This solution provides DetNet functions end to end, but does so on a
   per link and sub-network basis.  Congestion protection and latency
   control and the resource allocation (queuing, policing, shaping) are
   supported using the underlying link / sub net specific mechanisms.
   However, service protections (packet replication and packet
   elimination functions) are not provided at the DetNet layer end to
   end.  But such service protection can be provided on a per underlying
   L2 link and sub-network basis.

                     +------+                         +------+
                     |  X   |                         |  X   |
                     +======+                         +------+
          End-system |  IP  |                         |  IP  |
                -----+------+-------+======+---     --+======+--
          DetNet                    |L2/SbN|          |L2/SbN|
                                    +------+          +------+


   Figure 5: Encapsulation of DetNet Routing in simplified IP service L3
                                end-systems

   The DetNet Service Flow 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



Korhonen & Varga       Expires September 11, 2019              [Page 10]


Internet-Draft            DetNet IP Data Plane                March 2019


   Service Flow packet and utilize e.g., a 5- (or 6-) tuple to find out
   the required mapping within a node.

   As noted earlier, the Service Protection is done within each link /
   sub-network independently using the domain specific mechanisms (due
   the lack of a unified end to end sequencing information that would be
   available for intermediate nodes).  Therefore, service protection (if
   any) cannot be provided end-to-end, only within sub-networks.  This
   is shown for a three sub-network scenario in Figure 6, where each
   sub-network can provide service protection between its borders.


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


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


    Figure 6: Replication and elimination in sub-networks for DetNet IP
                                 networks

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

4.3.  Networks With Multiple Technology Segments

   There are network scenarios, where the DetNet domain contains
   multiple technology segments (IEEE 802.1 TSN, MPLS) and all those
   segments are under the same administrative control (see Figure 7).
   Furthermore, DetNet nodes may be interconnected via TSN segments.

   DetNet routers ensure that detnet service requirements are met per
   hop by allocating local resources, both receive and transmit, and by
   mapping the service requirements of each flow to appropriate sub-



Korhonen & Varga       Expires September 11, 2019              [Page 11]


Internet-Draft            DetNet IP Data Plane                March 2019


   network mechanisms.  Such mapping is sub-network technology specific.
   The mapping of DetNet IP Flows to MPLS is covered Section 7.  The
   mapping of IP DetNet Flows to IEEE 802.1 TSN is covered in Section 8.

                                      ______
                            _____    /      \__
               ____        /     \__/          \___    ______
   +----+   __/    +======+                        +==+      \   +----+
   |src |__/  Seg1  )     |                        |  \  Seg3 \__| dst|
   +----+  \_______+      \        Segment-2       |   \+_____/  +----+
                    \======+__                    _+===/
                              \         __     __/
                               \_______/  \___/


         Figure 7: DetNet domains and multiple technology segments

4.4.  OAM

   [Editor's note: This section is TBD.  OAM may be dropped from this
   document and left for future study.]

4.5.  Class of Service

   Class and quality of service, i.e., CoS and QoS, are terms that are
   often used interchangeably and confused.  In the context of DetNet,
   CoS is used to refer to mechanisms that provide traffic forwarding
   treatment based on aggregate group basis and QoS is used to refer to
   mechanisms that provide traffic forwarding treatment based on a
   specific DetNet flow basis.  Examples of existing network level CoS
   mechanisms include DiffServ which is enabled by IP header
   differentiated services code point (DSCP) field [RFC2474] and MPLS
   label traffic class field [RFC5462], and at Layer-2, by IEEE 802.1p
   priority code point (PCP).

   CoS for DetNet flows carried in IPv6 is provided using the standard
   differentiated services code point (DSCP) field [RFC2474] and related
   mechanisms.  The 2-bit explicit congestion notification (ECN)
   [RFC3168] field MAY also be used.

   One additional consideration for DetNet nodes which support CoS
   services is that they MUST ensure that the CoS service classes do not
   impact the congestion protection and latency control mechanisms used
   to provide DetNet QoS.  This requirement is similar to requirement
   for MPLS LSRs to that CoS LSPs do not impact the resources allocated
   to TE LSPs via [RFC3473].





Korhonen & Varga       Expires September 11, 2019              [Page 12]


Internet-Draft            DetNet IP Data Plane                March 2019


4.6.  Quality of Service

   Quality of Service (QoS) mechanisms for flow-specific traffic
   treatment typically includes a guarantee/agreement for the service,
   and allocation of resources to support the service.  Example QoS
   mechanisms include discrete resource allocation, admission control,
   flow identification and isolation, and sometimes path control,
   traffic protection, shaping, policing and remarking.  Example
   protocols that support QoS control include Resource ReSerVation
   Protocol (RSVP) [RFC2205] (RSVP) and RSVP-TE [RFC3209] and [RFC3473].
   The existing MPLS mechanisms defined to support CoS [RFC3270] can
   also be used to reserve resources for specific traffic classes.

   In addition to explicit routes, and packet replication and
   elimination, DetNet provides zero congestion loss and bounded latency
   and jitter.  As described in [I-D.ietf-detnet-architecture], there
   are different mechanisms that maybe used separately or in combination
   to deliver a zero congestion loss service.  These mechanisms are
   provided by the either the MPLS or IP layers, and may be combined
   with the mechanisms defined by the underlying network layer such as
   802.1TSN.

   A baseline set of QoS capabilities for DetNet flows carried in PWs
   and MPLS can provided by MPLS with Traffic Engineering (MPLS-TE)
   [RFC3209] and [RFC3473].  TE LSPs can also support explicit routes
   (path pinning).  Current service definitions for packet TE LSPs can
   be found in "Specification of the Controlled Load Quality of
   Service", [RFC2211], "Specification of Guaranteed Quality of
   Service", [RFC2212], and "Ethernet Traffic Parameters", [RFC6003].
   Additional service definitions are expected in future documents to
   support the full range of DetNet services.  In all cases, the
   existing label-based marking mechanisms defined for TE-LSPs and even
   E-LSPs are use to support the identification of flows requiring
   DetNet QoS.

   QoS for DetNet service flows carried in IP MUST be provided locally
   by the DetNet-aware hosts and routers supporting DetNet flows.  Such
   support will leverage the underlying network layer such as 802.1TSN.
   The traffic control mechanisms used to deliver QoS for IP
   encapsulated DetNet flows are expected to be defined in a future
   document.  From an encapsulation perspective, the combination of the
   "6 tuple" i.e., the typical 5 tuple enhanced with the DSCP code,
   uniquely identifies a DetNet service flow.

   Packets that are marked with a DetNet Class of Service value, but
   that have not been the subject of a completed reservation, can
   disrupt the QoS offered to properly reserved DetNet flows by using




Korhonen & Varga       Expires September 11, 2019              [Page 13]


Internet-Draft            DetNet IP Data Plane                March 2019


   resources allocated to the reserved flows.  Therefore, the network
   nodes of a DetNet network must:

   o  Defend the DetNet QoS by discarding or remarking (to a non-DetNet
      CoS) packets received that are not the subject of a completed
      reservation.

   o  Not use a DetNet reserved resource, e.g. a queue or shaper
      reserved for DetNet flows, for any packet that does not carry a
      DetNet Class of Service marker.

4.7.  Cross-DetNet Flow Resource Aggregation

   The ability to aggregate individual flows, and their associated
   resource control, into a larger aggregate is an important technique
   for improving scaling of control in the data, management and control
   planes.  This document identifies the traffic identification related
   aspects of aggregation of DetNet flows.  The resource control and
   management aspects of aggregation (including the queuing/shaping/
   policing implications) will be covered in other documents.  The data
   plane implications of aggregation are independent for PW/MPLS and IP
   encapsulated DetNet flows.

   DetNet flows forwarded via IP have more limited aggregation options,
   due to the available traffic flow identification fields of the IP
   solution.  One available approach is to manage the resources
   associated with a DSCP identified traffic class and to map (remark)
   individually controlled DetNet flows onto that traffic class.  This
   approach also requires that nodes support aggregation ensure that
   traffic from aggregated LSPs are placed (shaped/policed/enqueued) in
   a fashion that ensures the required DetNet service is preserved.

   In both the MPLS and IP cases, additional details of the traffic
   control capabilities needed at a DetNet-aware node may be covered in
   the new service descriptions mentioned above or in separate future
   documents.  Management and control plane mechanisms will also need to
   ensure that the service required on the aggregate flow (H-LSP or
   DSCP) are provided, which may include the discarding or remarking
   mentioned in the previous sections.

4.8.  Time Synchronization

   While time synchronization can be important both from the perspective
   of operating the DetNet network itself and from the perspective of
   DetNet-based applications, time synchronization is outside the scope
   of this document.  This said, a DetNet node can also support time
   synchronization or distribution mechanisms.




Korhonen & Varga       Expires September 11, 2019              [Page 14]


Internet-Draft            DetNet IP Data Plane                March 2019


   For example, [RFC8169] describes a method of recording the packet
   queuing time in an MPLS LSR on a packet by per packet basis and
   forwarding this information to the egress edge system.  This allows
   compensation for any variable packet queuing delay to be applied at
   the packet receiver.  Other mechanisms for IP networks are defined
   based on IEEE Standard 1588 [IEEE1588], such as ITU-T [G.8275.1] and
   [G.8275.2].

   A more detailed discussion of time synchronization is outside the
   scope of this document.

5.  Management and Control Considerations

   While management plane and control planes are traditionally
   considered separately, from the Data Plane perspective there is no
   practical difference based on the origin of flow provisioning
   information, and the DetNet architecture
   [I-D.ietf-detnet-architecture] refers to these collectively as the
   'Controller Plane'.  This document therefore does not distinguish
   between information provided by distributed control plane protocols,
   e.g., IGP routing protocols, or by centralized network management
   mechanisms, e.g., RestConf [RFC8040], YANG [RFC7950], and the Path
   Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) [RFC8283]
   [I-D.ietf-teas-pce-native-ip] or any combination thereof.  Specific
   considerations and requirements for the DetNet Controller Plane are
   discussed in Section 5.5.

5.1.  Flow Identification and Aggregation

   Section 3 introduces the use of the IP "6-tuple" for flow
   identification, and Section 4.6 goes on to discuss how identified
   flows use specific QoS mechanisms for flow-specific traffic
   treatment, including path control and resource allocation.
   Section 6.1 contains detailed DetNet IP flow identification
   procedures.  Flow identification will play an important role for the
   DetNet controller plane.

   Section 4.7 and Section 6.4 discuss the use of flow aggregation in
   DetNet.  Flow aggregation can be accomplished using any of the
   6-tuple fields defined in Section 6.1, using a DSCP identified
   traffic class or other field.  It will be the responsibility of the
   DetNet controller plane to be able to properly provision the use of
   these aggregation mechanisms.  These requirements are included in
   Section 5.5.







Korhonen & Varga       Expires September 11, 2019              [Page 15]


Internet-Draft            DetNet IP Data Plane                March 2019


5.2.  Explcit Routes

   Explicit routes are used to ensure that packets are routed through
   the resources that have been reserved for them, and hence provide the
   DetNet application with the required service.  A requirement for the
   DetNet Controller Plane will be the ability to assign a particular
   identified DetNet IP flow to a path through the DetNet domain that
   has been assigned the required nodal resources to provide the
   appropriate traffic treatment for the flow, and also to include
   particular links as a part of the path that are able to support the
   DetNet flow, for example by using IEEE 802.1 TSN links (as discussed
   in Section 8).  Further considerations and requirements for the
   DetNet Controller Plane are discussed in Section 5.5.

   Whether configuring, calculating and instantiating these routes is a
   single-stage or multi-stage process, or in a centralized or
   distributed manner, is out of scope of this document.

   There are several of approaches that could be used to provide
   explicit routes and resource allocation in the DetNet layer.  For
   example:

   o  The path could be explicitly set up by a controller which
      calculates the path and explicitly configures each node along that
      path with the appropriate forwarding and resource allocation
      information.

   o  The path could be used a distributed control plane such as RSVP
      [RFC2205] or RSVP-TE [RFC3473] extended to support DetNet IP
      flows.

   o  The path could be implemented using IPv6-based segment routing
      when extended to support resource allocation.

   See Section 5.5 for further discussion of these alternatives.  In
   addition, [RFC2386] contains useful background information on QoS-
   based routing, and [RFC5575] discusses a specific mechanism used by
   BGP for traffic flow specification and policy-based routing.

5.3.  Contention Loss and Jitter Reduction

   As discussed in Section 1, this document does not specify the
   mechanisms needed to eliminate contention loss or reduce jitter for
   DetNet flows at the DetNet forwarding sub-layer.  The ability to
   manage node and link resources to be able to provide these functions
   will be a necessary part of the DetNet controller plane.  It will
   also be necessary to be able to control the required queuing
   mechanisms used to provide these functions along a flow's path



Korhonen & Varga       Expires September 11, 2019              [Page 16]


Internet-Draft            DetNet IP Data Plane                March 2019


   through the network.  See Section 6.3 and Section 5.5 for further
   discussion of these requirements.

5.4.  Bidirectional Traffic

   Some DetNet applications generate bidirectional traffic.  Although
   this document discusses the DetNet IP data plane, MPLS definitions
   [RFC5654] are useful to illustrate terms such as associated
   bidirectional flows and co-routed bidirectional flows.  MPLS defines
   a point-to-point associated bidirectional LSP as consisting of two
   unidirectional point-to-point LSPs, one from A to B and the other
   from B to A, which are regarded as providing a single logical
   bidirectional forwarding path.  This is analogous to standard IP
   routing.  MPLS defines a point-to-point co-routed bidirectional LSP
   as an associated bidirectional LSP which satisfies the additional
   constraint that its two unidirectional component LSPs follow the same
   path (in terms of both nodes and links) in both directions.  An
   important property of co-routed bidirectional LSPs is that their
   unidirectional component LSPs share fate.  In both types of
   bidirectional LSPs, resource reservations may differ in each
   direction.  The concepts of associated bidirectional flows and co-
   routed bidirectional flows can also be applied to DetNet IP flows.

   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 vs. co-
   routed bidirectional flows can be managed at the control level.

   Control and management mechanisms will 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].

   This is further discussed in Section 5.5.

5.5.  DetNet Controller (Control and Management) Plane Requirements

   While the definition of controller plane for DetNet is out of the
   scope of this document, there are particular considerations and
   requirements for such that result from the unique characteristics of
   the DetNet architecture [I-D.ietf-detnet-architecture] and data plane
   as defined herein.





Korhonen & Varga       Expires September 11, 2019              [Page 17]


Internet-Draft            DetNet IP Data Plane                March 2019


   The primary requirements of the DetNet controller plane are that it
   must be able to:

   o  Instantiate DetNet flows in a DetNet domain (which may include
      some or all of explicit path determination, link bandwidth
      reservations, restricting flows to IEEE 802.1 TSN links, node
      buffer and other resource reservations, specification of required
      queuing disciplines along the path, ability to manage
      bidirectional flows, etc.) as needed for a flow.

   o  The ability to support DetNet flow aggregation

   o  Advertise static and dynamic node and link resources such as
      capabilities and adjacencies to other network nodes (for dynamic
      signaling approaches) or to network controllers (for centralized
      approaches)

   o  Scale to handle the number of DetNet flows expected in a domain
      (which may require per-flow signaling or provisioning)

   o  Provision flow identification information at each of the nodes
      along the path, and it may differ depending on the location in the
      network and the DetNet functionality.

   These requirements, as stated earlier, could be satisfied using
   distributed control protocol signaling, centralized network
   management provisioning mechanisms, or hybrid combinations of the
   two, and could also make use of IPv6-based segment routing.

   In the abstract, the results of either distributed signaling or
   centralized provisioning are equivalent from a DetNet data plane
   perspective - flows are instantiated, explicit routes are determined,
   resources are reserved, and packets are forwarded through the domain
   using the IP data plane.

   However, from a practical and implementation standpoint, they are not
   equivalent at all.  Some approaches are more scalable than others in
   terms of signaling load on the network.  Some can take advantage of
   global tracking of resources in the DetNet domain for better overall
   network resource optimization.  Some are more resilient than others
   if link, node, or management equipment failures occur.  While a
   detailed analysis of the control plane alternatives is out of the
   scope of this document, the requirements from this document can be
   used as the basis of a later analysis of the alternatives.







Korhonen & Varga       Expires September 11, 2019              [Page 18]


Internet-Draft            DetNet IP Data Plane                March 2019


6.  DetNet IP Data Plane Procedures

   This section provides DetNet IP data plane procedures.  These
   procedures have been divided into the following areas: flow
   identification, forwarding and traffic treatment.  Flow
   identification includes those procedures related to matching IP and
   higher layer protocol header information to DetNet flow (state)
   information and service requirements.  Flow identification is also
   sometimes called Traffic classification, for example see [RFC5777].
   Forwarding includes those procedures related to next hop selection
   and delivery.  Traffic treatment includes those procedures related to
   providing an identified flow with the required DetNet service.

   DetNet IP data plane procedures also have implications on the control
   and management of DetNet flows and these are also covered in this
   section.  Specifically this section identifies a number of
   information elements that will require support via the management and
   control interfaces supported by a DetNet node.  The specific
   mechanism used for such support is out of the scope of this document.
   A summary of the management and control related information
   requirements is included.  Conformance language is not used in the
   summary as it applies to future mechanisms such as those that may be
   provided in YANG models [YANG-REF-TBD].

6.1.  DetNet IP Flow Identification Procedures

   IP and higher layer protocol header information is used to identify
   DetNet flows.  All DetNet implementations that support this document
   MUST identify individual DetNet flows based on the set of information
   identified in this section.  Note, that additional flow
   identification requirements, e.g., to support other higher layer
   protocols, may be defined in future.

   The configuration and control information used to identify an
   individual DetNet flow MUST be ordered by an implementation.
   Implementations MUST support a fixed order when identifying flows,
   and MUST identify a DetNet flow by the first set of matching flow
   information.

   Implementations of this document MUST support DetNet flow
   identification when the implementation is acting as a DetNet end
   systems, a relay node or as an edge node.

6.1.1.  IP Header Information

   Implementations of this document MUST support DetNet flow
   identification based on IP header information.  The IPv4 header is
   defined in [RFC0791] and the IPv6 is defined in [RFC8200].



Korhonen & Varga       Expires September 11, 2019              [Page 19]


Internet-Draft            DetNet IP Data Plane                March 2019


6.1.1.1.  Source Address Field

   Implementations of this document MUST support DetNet flow
   identification based on the Source Address field of an IP packet.
   Implementations SHOULD support longest prefix matching for this
   field, see [RFC1812] and [RFC7608].  Note that a prefix length of
   zero (0) effectively means that the field is ignored.

6.1.1.2.  Destination Address Field

   Implementations of this document MUST support DetNet flow
   identification based on the Destination Address field of an IP
   packet.  Implementations SHOULD support longest prefix matching for
   this field, see [RFC1812] and [RFC7608].  Note that a prefix length
   of zero (0) effectively means that the field is ignored.

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

6.1.1.3.  IPv4 Protocol and IPv6 Next Header Fields

   Implementations of this document MUST support DetNet flow
   identification based on the IPv4 Protocol field when processing IPv4
   packets, and the IPv6 Next Header Field when processing IPv6 packets.
   An implementation MUST support flow identification based based the
   next protocol values defined in Section 6.1.2.  Other, non-zero
   values, MUST be used for flow identification.  Implementations SHOULD
   allow for these fields to be ignored for a specific DetNet flow.

6.1.1.4.  IPv4 Type of Service and IPv6 Traffic Class Fields

   These fields are used to support Differentiated Services [RFC2474]
   and Explicit Congestion Notification [RFC3168].  Implementations of
   this document MUST support DetNet flow identification based on the
   IPv4 Type of Service field when processing IPv4 packets, and the IPv6
   Traffic Class Field when processing IPv6 packets.  Implementations
   MUST support bimask based matching, where one (1) values in the
   bitmask indicate which subset of the bits in the field are to be used
   in determining a match.  Note that a zero (0) value as a bitmask
   effectively means that these fields are ignored.

6.1.1.5.  IPv6 Flow Label Field

   Implementations of this document SHOULD support identification of
   DetNet flows based on the IPv6 Flow Label field.  Implementations
   that support matching based on this field MUST allow for this fields
   to be ignored for a specific DetNet flow.  When this fields is used
   to identify a specific DetNet flow, implementations MAY exclude the



Korhonen & Varga       Expires September 11, 2019              [Page 20]


Internet-Draft            DetNet IP Data Plane                March 2019


   IPv6 Next Header field and next header information as part of DetNet
   flow identification.

6.1.2.  Other Protocol Header Information

   Implementations of this document MUST support DetNet flow
   identification based on header information identified in this
   section.  Support for TCP, UDP and IPsec flows are defined.  Future
   documents are expected to define support for other protocols.

6.1.2.1.  TCP and UDP

   DetNet flow identification for TCP [RFC0793] and UDP [RFC0768] is
   done based on the Source and Destination Port fields carried in each
   protocol's header.  These fields share a common format and common
   DetNet flow identification procedures.

6.1.2.1.1.  Source Port Field

   Implementations of this document MUST support DetNet flow
   identification based on the Source Port field of a TCP or UDP packet.
   Implementations MUST support flow identification based on a
   particular value carried in the field, i.e., an exact.
   Implementations SHOULD support range-based port matching.
   Implementation MUST also allow for the field to be ignored for a
   specific DetNet flow.

6.1.2.1.2.  Destination Port Field

   Implementations of this document MUST support DetNet flow
   identification based on the Destination Port field of a TCP or UDP
   packet.  Implementations MUST support flow identification based on a
   particular value carried in the field, i.e., an exact.
   Implementations SHOULD support range-based port matching.
   Implementation MUST also allow for the field to be ignored for a
   specific DetNet flow.

6.1.2.2.  IPsec AH and ESP

   IPsec Authentication Header (AH) [RFC4302] and Encapsulating Security
   Payload (ESP) [RFC4303] share a common format for the Security
   Parameters Index (SPI) field.  Implementations MUST support flow
   identification based on a particular value carried in the field,
   i.e., an exact.  Implementation SHOULD also allow for the field to be
   ignored for a specific DetNet flow.






Korhonen & Varga       Expires September 11, 2019              [Page 21]


Internet-Draft            DetNet IP Data Plane                March 2019


6.1.3.  Flow Identification Management and Control Information

   The following summarizes the set of information that is needed to
   identify an individual DetNet flow:

   o  IPv4 and IPv6 source address field.

   o  IPv4 and IPv6 source address prefix length, where a zero (0) value
      effectively means that the address field is ignored.

   o  IPv4 and IPv6 destination address field.

   o  IPv4 and IPv6 destination address prefix length, where a zero (0)
      effectively means that the address field is ignored.

   o  IPv4 protocol field.  A limited set of values is allowed, and the
      ability to ignore this field, e.g., via configuration of the value
      zero (0), is desirable.

   o  IPv6 next header field.  A limited set of values is allowed, and
      the ability to ignore this field, e.g., via configuration of the
      value zero (0), is desirable.

   o  IPv4 Type of Service and IPv6 Traffic Class Fields.

   o  IPv4 Type of Service and IPv6 Traffic Class Field Bitmask, where a
      zero (0) effectively means that theses fields are ignored.

   o  IPv6 flow label field.  This field can be optionally used for
      matching.  When used, can be exclusive of matching against the
      next header field.

   o  TCP and UDP Source Port.  Exact and wildcard matching is required.
      Port ranges can optionally be used.

   o  TCP and UDP Destination Port.  Exact and wildcard matching is
      required.  Port ranges can optionally be used.

   This information MUST be provisioned per DetNet flow via
   configuration, e.g., via the controller plane described in Section 5.

   Information identifying a DetNet flow is ordered and implementations
   use the first match.  This can, for example, be used to provide a
   DetNet service for a specific UDP flow, with unique Source and
   Destination Port field values, while providing a different service
   for all other flows with that same UDP Destination Port value.





Korhonen & Varga       Expires September 11, 2019              [Page 22]


Internet-Draft            DetNet IP Data Plane                March 2019


6.2.  Forwarding Procedures

   General requirements for IP nodes are defined in [RFC1122], [RFC1812]
   and [RFC6434], and are not modified by this document.  The typical
   next-hop selection process is impacted by DetNet.  Specifically,
   implementations of this document SHALL use management and control
   information to select the one or more outgoing interfaces and next
   hops to be used for a packet belonging to a DetNet flow.

   The use of multiple paths or links, e.g., ECMP, to support a single
   DetNet flow 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 [YANG-REF-TBD].

6.3.  DetNet IP Traffic Treatment Procedures

   Implementations if this document MUST ensure that a DetNet flow
   receives the traffic treatment that is provisioned for it via
   configuration or the controller plane, e.g., via [YANG-REF-TBD].
   General information on DetNet service can be found in
   [I-D.ietf-detnet-flow-information-model].  Typical mechanisms used to
   provide different treatment to different flows includes the
   allocation of system resources (such as queues and buffers) and
   provisioning or related parameters (such as shaping, and policing).
   Support can also be provided via an underlying network technology
   such as MPLS Section 7 and IEEE802.1 TSN Section 8.  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.

6.4.  Aggregation Considerations

   The use of prefixes, wildcards, bitmasks, and port ranges allows a
   DetNet node to aggregate DetNet flows.  This aggregation can take
   place within a single node, when that node maintains state about both
   the aggregated and component flows.  It can also take place between
   nodes, where one node maintains state about only flow aggregates
   while the other node maintains state on all or a portion of the
   component flows.  In either case, the management or control function
   that provisions the aggregate flows must ensure that adequate
   resources are allocated and configured to provide combined service
   requirements of the component flows.  As DetNet is concerned about
   latency and jitter, more than just bandwidth needs to be considered.






Korhonen & Varga       Expires September 11, 2019              [Page 23]


Internet-Draft            DetNet IP Data Plane                March 2019


7.  IP over DetNet MPLS

   This section defines how IP encapsulated flows are carried over a
   DetNet MPLS data plane as defined in [I-D.ietf-detnet-dp-sol-mpls].
   As Non-DetNet and DetNet IP packets are identical on the wire, this
   section is applicable to any node that supports IP over DetNet MPLS,
   and this section refers to both cases as DetNet IP over DetNet MPLS.

7.1.  IP Over DetNet MPLS Data Plane Scenarios

   This section provides example uses of IP over DetNet MPLS for
   illustrative purposes.

   IP  DetNet        Relay       Transit         Relay       IP DetNet
   End System        Node         Node           Node        End System
                     (T-PE)       (LSR)          (T-PE)
   +----------+                                             +----------+
   |   Appl.  |<------------ End to End Service ----------->|   Appl.  |
   +----------+   .....-----+                 +-----.....   +----------+
   | Service  |<--: Service |-- DetNet flow --| Service :-->| Service  |
   +----------+   +---------+  +----------+   +---------+   +----------+
   |Forwarding|   |Fwd| |Fwd|  |Forwarding|   |Fwd| |Fwd|   |Forwarding|
   +-------.--+   +-.-+ +-.-+  +----.---.-+   +-.-+ +-.-+   +---.------+
           :  Link  :    /  ,-----.  \   : Link :    /  ,-----.  \
           +........+    +-[  Sub  ]-+   +......+    +-[  Sub  ]-+
                           [Network]                   [Network]
                            `-----'                     `-----'

           |<- DN IP->| |<---- DetNet MPLS ---->| |< -DN IP ->|

                   Figure 8: DetNet IP Over MPLS Network

   Figure 8 illustrates DetNet enabled End Systems (hosts), connected to
   DetNet (DN) enabled IP networks, operating over a DetNet aware MPLS
   network.  In this figure, Relay nodes sit at the boundary of the MPLS
   domain since the non-MPLS domain is DetNet aware.  This figure is
   very similar to the DetNet MPLS Network figure in
   [I-D.ietf-detnet-dp-sol-mpls].  The primary difference is that the
   Relay nodes are at the edges of the MPLS domain and therefore
   function as T-PEs, and that service sub-layer functions are not
   provided over the DetNet IP network.  The transit node functions show
   above are identical to those described in
   [I-D.ietf-detnet-dp-sol-mpls].

   Figure 9 illustrates how relay nodes can provide service protection
   over an MPLS domain.  In this case, CE1 and CE2 are IP DetNet end
   systems which are interconnected via a MPLS domain such as described
   in [I-D.ietf-detnet-dp-sol-mpls].  Note that R1 and R3 sit at the



Korhonen & Varga       Expires September 11, 2019              [Page 24]


Internet-Draft            DetNet IP Data Plane                March 2019


   edges of an MPLS domain and therefore are similar to T-PEs, while R2
   sits in the middle of the domain and is therefore similar to an S-PE.

         DetNet                                         DetNet
   IP    Service         Transit          Transit       Service  IP
   DetNet               |<-Tnl->|        |<-Tnl->|               DetNet
   End     |            V   1   V        V   2   V            |  End
   System  |   +--------+       +--------+       +--------+   |  System
   +---+   |   |   R1   |=======|   R2   |=======|   R3   |   |   +---+
   |   |-------|._X_....|..DF1..|.__ ___.|..DF3..|...._X_.|-------|   |
   |CE1|   |   |    \   |       |   X    |       |   /    |   |   |CE2|
   |   |   |   |     \_.|..DF2..|._/ \__.|..DF4..|._/     |   |   |   |
   +---+       |        |=======|        |=======|        |       +---+
       ^       +--------+       +--------+       +--------+       ^
       |        Relay Node       Relay Node       Relay Node      |
       |          (T-PE)           (S-PE)          (T-PE)         |
       |                                                          |
       |<-DN IP-> <-------- DetNet MPLS ---------------> <-DN IP->|
       |                                                          |
       |<-------------- End to End DetNet Service --------------->|

      -------------------------- Data Flow ------------------------->

       X   = Service protection (PRF, PREOF, PEF/POF)
       DFx = DetNet member flow x over a TE LSP

               Figure 9: DetNet IP Over DetNet MPLS Network

   [Editor's note: Text below in this sub-section is rather DetNet MPLS
   related, therefore candidate to be deleted in future versions.]





















Korhonen & Varga       Expires September 11, 2019              [Page 25]


Internet-Draft            DetNet IP Data Plane                March 2019


    IP               Edge                        Edge        IP
    End System       Node                        Node        End System
                    (T-PE)       (LSR)          (T-PE)
   +----------+   +....-----+                 +-----....+   +----------+
   |   Appl.  |<--:Svc Proxy|-- E2E Service --|Svc Proxy:-->|   Appl.  |
   +----------+   +.....+---+                 +---+.....+   +----------+
   |    IP    |<--:IP : |Svc|-- IP/DN Flow ---|Svc| :IP :-->|    IP    |
   +----------+   +---+ +---+  +----------+   +---+ +---+   +----------+
   |Forwarding|   |Fwd| |Fwd|  |Forwarding|   |Fwd| |Fwd|   |Forwarding|
   +-------.--+   +-.-+ +-.-+  +----.---.-+   +-.-+ +-.-+   +---.------+
           :  Link  :    /  ,-----.  \   : Link :    /  ,-----.  \
           +........+    +-[  Sub  ]-+   +......+    +-[  Sub  ]-+
                           [Network]                   [Network]
                            `-----'                     `-----'

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

          Figure 10: Non-DetNet Aware IP Over DetNet MPLS Network

   Figure 10 illustrates non-DetNet enabled End Systems (hosts),
   connected to DetNet (DN) enabled MPLS network.  It differs from
   Figure 8 in that the hosts and edge IP networks are not DetNet aware.
   In this case, edge nodes sit at the boundary of the MPLS domain since
   it is also a DetNet domain boundary.  The edge nodes provide DetNet
   service proxies for the end applications by initiating and
   terminating DetNet service for the application's IP flows.  While the
   node types differ, there is essentially no difference in data plane
   processing between relay and edges.  There are likely to be
   differences in controller plane operation, particularly when
   distributed control plane protocols are used.

   Figure 11 illustrates how it is still possible to provided DetNet
   service protection for non-DetNet aware end systems.  This figures is
   basically the same as Figure 9, with the exception that CE1 and CE2
   are non-DetNet aware end systems and E1 and E3 are edge nodes that
   replace the relay nodes R1 and R3.















Korhonen & Varga       Expires September 11, 2019              [Page 26]


Internet-Draft            DetNet IP Data Plane                March 2019


         IP                                              IP
   Non   Service          Transit          Transit       Service Non
   DetNet                |<-Tnl->|        |<-Tnl->|              DetNet
   End     |             V   1   V        V   2   V            | End
   System  |    +--------+       +--------+       +--------+   | System
   +---+   |    |   E1   |=======|   R2   |=======|   E3   |   |  +---+
   |   |--------|._X_....|..DF1..|.__ ___.|..DF3..|...._X_.|------|   |
   |CE1|   |    |    \   |       |   X    |       |   /    |   |  |CE2|
   |   |   |    |     \_.|..DF2..|._/ \__.|..DF4..|._/     |   |  |   |
   +---+        |        |=======|        |=======|        |      +---+
                +--------+       +--------+       +--------+
                ^ Edge Node      Relay Node       Edge Node^
                | (T-PE)           (S-PE)          (T-PE)  |
                |                                          |
        <--IP-->| <-------- IP Over DetNet MPLS ---------> |<--IP-->
                |                                          |
                |<------ End to End DetNet Service ------->|

       X   = Optional service protection (none, PRF, PREOF, PEF/POF)
       DFx = DetNet member flow x over a TE LSP

            Figure 11: MPLS-Based DetNet (non-MPLS End System)

   [Editor's note: End of text being rather DetNet MPLS related.]

7.2.  DetNet IP over DetNet MPLS Encapsulation

   The basic encapsulation approach is to treat a DetNet IP flow as an
   app-flow from the DetNet MPLS app perspective.  The corresponding
   example DetNet Sub-Network format is shown in Figure 12.





















Korhonen & Varga       Expires September 11, 2019              [Page 27]


Internet-Draft            DetNet IP Data Plane                March 2019


                /->     +------+  +------+  +------+              ^
                |       |  X   |  |  X   |  |  X   | IP App-Flow  :
                |       +------+  +------+  +------+              :
     MPLS     <-+       |NProto|  |NProto|  |NProto|              :(1)
      App-Flow  |       +------+  +------+  +------+              :
                |       |  IP  |  |  IP  |  |  IP  |              v
                \-> +---+======+--+======+--+======+-----+
     DetNet-MPLS        | d-CW |  | d-CW |  | d-CW |              ^
                        +------+  +------+  +------+              :(2)
                        |Labels|  |Labels|  |Labels|              v
                    +---+======+--+======+--+======+-----+
     Sub-Network        |  L2  |  | TSN  |  | UDP  |
                        +------+  +------+  +------+
                                            |  IP  |
                                            +------+
                                            |  L2  |
                                            +------+
         (1) DetNet IP Flow
         (2) DetNet MPLS Flow


        Figure 12: Example DetNet IP over MPLS Sub-Network Formats

   In the figure, "IP App-Flow" indicates the payload carried by the
   DetNet IP data plane.  "IP" and "NProto" indicate the fields
   described in Section 6.1.1 and Section 6.1.2, respectively.  "MPLS
   App-Flow" indicates that an individual DetNet IP flow is the payload
   from the perspective of the DetNet MPLS data plane defined in
   [I-D.ietf-detnet-dp-sol-mpls].

   Per [I-D.ietf-detnet-dp-sol-mpls], the DetNet MPLS data plane uses a
   single S-Label to support a single app flow.  Section 6.1 states that
   a single DetNet flow is identified based on IP, and next level
   protocol, header information.  It also defines that aggregation is
   supported (Section 6.4) through the use of prefixes, wildcards,
   bimasks, and port ranges.  Collectively, this results in the fairly
   straight forward procedures defined in this section.

   As shown in Figure 2, DetNet relay nodes are responsible for the
   mapping of a DetNet flow, at the service sub-layer, from the IP to
   MPLS DetNet data planes and back again.  Their related DetNet IP over
   DetNet MPLS data plane operation is comprised of two sets of
   procedures: the mapping of flow identifiers; and ensuring proper
   traffic treatment.







Korhonen & Varga       Expires September 11, 2019              [Page 28]


Internet-Draft            DetNet IP Data Plane                March 2019


7.3.  DetNet IP over DetNet MPLS Flow Identification Procedures

   A relay node that sends a DetNet IP flows over a DetNet MPLS network
   MUST map a single DetNet IP flow into a single app-flow and MUST
   process that app-flow in accordance to the procedures defined in
   [I-D.ietf-detnet-dp-sol-mpls] Section 6.2.  PRF MAY be supported for
   DetNet IP flows sent over an DetNet MPLS network.  Aggregation as
   defined in Section 6.4 MAY be used to identify an individual DetNet
   IP flow.  The provisioning of the mapping of DetNet IP flows to
   DetNet MPLS app-flow information MUST be supported via configuration,
   e.g., via the controller plane described in Section 5.

   A relay node MAY be provisioned to handle packets received via the
   DetNet MPLS data plane as DetNet IP flows.  A single incoming MPLS
   app-flow MAY be treated as a single DetNet IP flow, without
   examination of IP headers.  Alternatively, packets received via the
   DetNet MPLS data plane MAY follow the normal DetNet IP flow
   identification procedures defined in Section 6.1.  An implementation
   MUST support the provisioning of handling of received DetNet MPLS
   data plane as DetNet IP flows via configuration.  Note that such
   configuration MAY include support from PEOF on the incoming DetNet
   MPLS flow.

7.4.  DetNet IP over DetNet MPLS Traffic Treatment Procedures

   The traffic treatment required for a particular DetNet IP flow is
   provisioned via configuration or the controller plane.  When an
   DetNet IP flow is sent over DetNet MPLS a relay node MUST ensure that
   the provisioned DetNet IP traffic treatment is provided at the
   forwarding sub-layer as described in [I-D.ietf-detnet-dp-sol-mpls]
   Section 6.2.  Note that the PRF function can also be used when
   sending over MPLS.

   Traffic treatment for DetNet IP flows received over the DetNet MPLS
   data plane MUST follow Section 6.3.

8.  Mapping DetNet IP Flows to IEEE 802.1 TSN

   [Authors note: how do we handle control protocols such as ICMP,
   IPsec, etc.]

   This section covers how DetNet IP flows operate over an IEEE 802.1
   TSN sub-network.  Figure 13 illustrates such a scenario, where two IP
   (DetNet) nodes are interconnected by a TSN sub-network.  Node-1 is
   single homed and Node-2 is dual-homed.  IP nodes can be (1) DetNet IP
   End System, (2) DetNet IP Edge or Relay node or (3) IP End System.





Korhonen & Varga       Expires September 11, 2019              [Page 29]


Internet-Draft            DetNet IP Data Plane                March 2019


       IP (DetNet)                   IP (DetNet)
         Node-1                        Node-2

      ............                  ............
   <--: Service  :-- DetNet flow ---: Service  :-->
      +----------+                  +----------+
      |Forwarding|                  |Forwarding|
      +--------.-+    <-TSN Str->   +-.-----.--+
                \      ,-------.     /     /
                 +----[ TSN-Sub ]---+     /
                      [ Network ]--------+
                       `-------'
   <----------------- DetNet IP ----------------->

     Figure 13: DetNet (DN) Enabled IP Network over a TSN sub-network

   The Time-Sensitive Networking (TSN) Task Group of the IEEE 802.1
   Working Group have defined (and are defining) a number of amendments
   to IEEE 802.1Q [IEEE8021Q] that provide zero congestion loss and
   bounded latency in bridged networks.  Furthermore IEEE 802.1CB
   [IEEE8021CB] defines frame replication and elimination functions for
   reliability that should prove both compatible with and useful to,
   DetNet networks.  All these functions have to identify flows those
   require TSN treatment.

   As is the case for DetNet, a Layer 2 network node such as a bridge
   may need to identify the specific DetNet flow to which a packet
   belongs in order to provide the TSN/DetNet QoS for that packet.  It
   also may need additional marking, such as the priority field of an
   IEEE Std 802.1Q VLAN tag, to give the packet proper service.

   TSN capabilities of the TSN sub-network are made available for IP
   (DetNet) flows via the protocol interworking function defined in IEEE
   802.1CB [IEEE8021CB].  For example, applied on the TSN edge port
   connected to the IP (DetNet) node it can convert an ingress unicast
   IP (DetNet) flow to use a specific multicast destination MAC address
   and VLAN, in order to direct the packet through a specific path
   inside the bridged network.  A similar interworking pair at the other
   end of the TSN sub-network would restore the packet to its original
   destination MAC address and VLAN.

   Placement of TSN functions depends on the TSN capabilities of nodes.
   IP (DetNet) Nodes may or may not support TSN functions.  For a given
   TSN Stream (i.e., DetNet flow) an IP (DetNet) node is treated as a
   Talker or a Listener inside the TSN sub-network.






Korhonen & Varga       Expires September 11, 2019              [Page 30]


Internet-Draft            DetNet IP Data Plane                March 2019


8.1.  TSN Stream ID Mapping

   DetNet IP Flow and TSN Stream mapping is based on the active Stream
   Identification function, that operates at the frame level.  IEEE
   802.1CB [IEEE8021CB] defines an Active Destination MAC and VLAN
   Stream identification function, what can replace some Ethernet header
   fields namely (1) the destination MAC-address, (2) the VLAN-ID and
   (3) priority parameters with alternate values.  Replacement is
   provided for the frame passed down the stack from the upper layers or
   up the stack from the lower layers.

   Active Destination MAC and VLAN Stream identification can be used
   within a Talker to set flow identity or a Listener to recover the
   original addressing information.  It can be used also in a TSN bridge
   that is providing translation as a proxy service for an End System.
   As a result IP (DetNet) flows can be mapped to use a particular {MAC-
   address, VLAN} pair to match the Stream in the TSN sub-network.

   [Editor's note: there are no requirement on IP DetNet nodes in case
   of "IP (DetNet) node without TSN functions" scenarios.  Paragraph and
   figure beow are candidates to be deleted in future versions.]

   From the TSN sub-network perspective DetNet IP nodes without any TSN
   functions can be treated as TSN-unaware Talker or Listener.  In such
   cases relay nodes in the TSN sub-network MUST modify the Ethernet
   encapsulation of the DetNet IP flow (e.g., MAC translation, VLAN-ID
   setting, Sequence number addition, etc.) to allow proper TSN specific
   handling of the flow inside the sub-network.  This is illustrated in
   Figure 14.






















Korhonen & Varga       Expires September 11, 2019              [Page 31]


Internet-Draft            DetNet IP Data Plane                March 2019


        IP (DetNet)
          Node-1
      <---------->

      ............
   <--: Service  :-- DetNet flow ------------------
      +----------+
      |Forwarding|
      +----------+    +---------------+
      |    L2    |    | L2 Relay with |<--- TSN ----
      |          |    | TSN function  |    Stream
      +-----.----+    +--.---------.--+
             \__________/           \______

       TSN-unaware
        Talker /          TSN-Bridge
        Listener             Relay
                    <-------- TSN sub-network -------

             Figure 14: IP (DetNet) node without TSN functions

   IP (DetNet) nodes being TSN-aware can be treated as a combination of
   a TSN-unaware Talker/Listener and a TSN-Relay, as shown in Figure 15.
   In such cases the IP (DetNet) node MUST provide the TSN sub-network
   specific Ethernet encapsulation over the link(s) towards the sub-
   network.  An TSN-aware IP (DetNet) node MUST support the following
   TSN components:

   1.  For recognizing flows:

       *  Stream Identification

   2.  For FRER used inside the TSN domain, additionally:

       *  Sequencing function

       *  Sequence encode/decode function

   3.  For FRER when the node is a replication or elimination point,
       additionally:

       *  Stream splitting function

       *  Individual recovery function

   [Editor's note: Should we added here requirements regarding IEEE
   802.1Q C-VLAN component?]




Korhonen & Varga       Expires September 11, 2019              [Page 32]


Internet-Draft            DetNet IP Data Plane                March 2019


                  IP (DetNet)
                     Node-2
      <---------------------------------->

      ............
   <--: Service  :-- DetNet flow ------------------
      +----------+
      |Forwarding|
      +----------+    +---------------+
      |    L2    |    | L2 Relay with |<--- TSN ---
      |          |    | TSN function  |    Stream
      +-----.----+    +--.------.---.-+
             \__________/        \   \______
                                  \_________
       TSN-unaware
        Talker /          TSN-Bridge
        Listener             Relay
                                          <----- TSN Sub-network -----
      <------- TSN-aware Tlk/Lstn ------->

              Figure 15: IP (DetNet) node with TSN functions

   A Stream identification component MUST be able to instantiate the
   following functions (1) Active Destination MAC and VLAN Stream
   identification function, (2) IP Stream identification function and
   (3) the related managed objects in Clause 9 of IEEE 802.1CB
   [IEEE8021CB].  IP Stream identification function provides a 6-tuple
   match.

   The Sequence encode/decode function MUST support the Redundancy tag
   (R-TAG) format as per Clause 7.8 of IEEE 802.1CB [IEEE8021CB].

8.2.  TSN Usage of FRER

   TSN Streams supporting DetNet flows may use Frame Replication and
   Elimination for Redundancy (FRER) [802.1CB] based on the loss service
   requirements of the TSN Stream, which is derived from the DetNet
   service requirements of the DetNet mapped flow.  The specific
   operation of FRER is not modified by the use of DetNet and follows
   IEEE 802.1CB [IEEE8021CB].

   FRER function and the provided service recovery is available only
   within the TSN sub-network (as shown in Figure 6) as the Stream-ID
   and the TSN sequence number are not valid outside the sub-network.
   An IP (DetNet) node represents a L3 border and as such it terminates
   all related information elements encoded in the L2 frames.





Korhonen & Varga       Expires September 11, 2019              [Page 33]


Internet-Draft            DetNet IP Data Plane                March 2019


8.3.  Procedures

   [Editor's note: This section is TBD - covers required behavior of a
   TSN-aware DetNet node using a TSN underlay.]

   This section provides DetNet IP data plane procedures to interwork
   with a TSN underlay sub-network when the IP (DetNet) node acts as a
   TSN-aware Talker or Listener (see Figure 15).  These procedures have
   been divided into the following areas: flow identification, mapping
   of a DetNet flow to a TSN Stream and ensure proper TSN encapsulation.

   Flow identification procedures are described in Section 6.1.  A TSN-
   aware IP (DetNet) node SHALL support the Stream Identification TSN
   components as per IEEE 802.1CB [IEEE8021CB].

   Implementations of this document SHALL use management and control
   information to map a DetNet flow to a TSN Stream.  N:1 mapping
   (aggregating DetNet flows in a single TSN Stream) SHALL be supported.
   The management or control function that provisions flow mapping SHALL
   ensure that adequate resources are allocated and configured to
   provide proper service requirements of the mapped flows.

   For proper TSN encapsulation implementations of this document SHALL
   support active Stream Identification function as defined in chapter
   6.6 in IEEE 802.1CB [IEEE8021CB].

   A TSN-aware IP (DetNet) node SHALL support Ethernet encapsulation
   with Redundancy tag (R-TAG) as per chapter 7.8 in IEEE 802.1CB
   [IEEE8021CB].

   Depending whether FRER functions are used in the TSN sub-network to
   serve the mapped TSN Stream, a TSN-aware IP (DetNet) node SHALL
   support Sequencing function and Sequence encode/decode function as
   per chapter 7.4 and 7.6 in IEEE 802.1CB [IEEE8021CB].  Furthermore
   when a TSN-aware IP (DetNet) node acting as a replication or
   elimination point for FRER it SHALL implement the Stream splitting
   function and the Individual recovery function as per chapter 7.7 and
   7.5 in IEEE 802.1CB [IEEE8021CB].

8.4.  Management and Control Implications

   [Editor's note: This section is TBD Covers Creation, mapping, removal
   of TSN Stream IDs, related parameters and,when needed, configuration
   of FRER.  Supported by management/control plane.]

   DetNet flow and TSN Stream mapping related information are required
   only for TSN-aware IP (DetNet) nodes.  From the Data Plane




Korhonen & Varga       Expires September 11, 2019              [Page 34]


Internet-Draft            DetNet IP Data Plane                March 2019


   perspective there is no practical difference based on the origin of
   flow mapping related information (management plane or control plane).

   TSN-aware DetNet IP nodes are member of both the DetNet domain and
   the TSN sub-network.  Within the TSN sub-network the TSN-aware IP
   (DetNet) node has a TSM-aware Talker/Listener role, so TSN specific
   management and control plane functionalities must be implemented.
   There are many similarities in the management plane techniques used
   in DetNet and TSN, but that is not the case for the control plane
   protocols.  For example, RSVP-TE and MSRP behaves differently.
   Therefore management and control plane design is an important aspect
   of scenarios, where mapping between DetNet and TSN is required.

   In order to use a TSN sub-network between DetNet nodes, DetNet
   specific information must be converted to TSN sub-network specific
   ones.  DetNet flow ID and flow related parameters/requirements must
   be converted to a TSN Stream ID and stream related parameters/
   requirements.  Note that, as the TSN sub-network is just a portion of
   the end2end DetNet path (i.e., single hop from IP perspective), some
   parameters (e.g., delay) may differ significantly.  Other parameters
   (like bandwidth) also may have to be tuned due to the L2
   encapsulation used in the TSN sub-network.

   In some case it may be challenging to determine some TSN Stream
   related information.  For example on a TSN-aware IP (DetNet) node
   that acts as a Talker, it is quite obvious which DetNet node is the
   Listener of the mapped TSN stream (i.e., the IP Next-Hop).  However
   it may be not trivial to locate the point/interface where that
   Listener is connected to the TSN sub-network.  Such attributes may
   require interaction between control and management plane functions
   and between DetNet and TSN domains.

   Mapping between DetNet flow identifiers and TSN Stream identifiers,
   if not provided explicitly, can be done by a TSN-aware IP (DetNet)
   node locally based on information provided for configuration of the
   TSN Stream identification functions (IP Stream identification and
   active Stream identification function).

   Triggering the setup/modification of a TSN Stream in the TSN sub-
   network is an example where management and/or control plane
   interactions are required between the DetNet and TSN sub-network.
   TSN-unaware IP (DetNet) nodes make such a triggering even more
   complicated as they are fully unaware of the sub-network and run
   independently.

   Configuration of TSN specific functions (e.g., FRER) inside the TSN
   sub-network is a TSN specific decision and may not be visible in the
   DetNet domain.



Korhonen & Varga       Expires September 11, 2019              [Page 35]


Internet-Draft            DetNet IP Data Plane                March 2019


9.  Security Considerations

   The security considerations of DetNet in general are discussed in
   [I-D.ietf-detnet-architecture] and [I-D.ietf-detnet-security].  Other
   security considerations will be added in a future version of this
   draft.

10.  IANA Considerations

   TBD.

11.  Contributors

   RFC7322 limits the number of authors listed on the front page of a
   draft to a maximum of 5, far fewer than the 20 individuals below who
   made important contributions to this draft.  The editor wishes to
   thank and acknowledge each of the following authors for contributing
   text to this draft.  See also Section 12.

































Korhonen & Varga       Expires September 11, 2019              [Page 36]


Internet-Draft            DetNet IP Data Plane                March 2019


      Loa Andersson
      Huawei
      Email: loa@pi.nu

      Yuanlong Jiang
      Huawei
      Email: jiangyuanlong@huawei.com

      Norman Finn
      Huawei
      3101 Rio Way
      Spring Valley, CA  91977
      USA
      Email: norman.finn@mail01.huawei.com

      Janos Farkas
      Ericsson
      Magyar Tudosok krt. 11
      Budapest  1117
      Hungary
      Email: janos.farkas@ericsson.com

      Carlos J. Bernardos
      Universidad Carlos III de Madrid
      Av. Universidad, 30
      Leganes, Madrid  28911
      Spain
      Email: cjbc@it.uc3m.es

      Tal Mizrahi
      Marvell
      6 Hamada st.
      Yokneam
      Israel
      Email: talmi@marvell.com

      Lou Berger
      LabN Consulting, L.L.C.
      Email: lberger@labn.net

      Andrew G. Malis
      Huawei Technologies
      Email: agmalis@gmail.com








Korhonen & Varga       Expires September 11, 2019              [Page 37]


Internet-Draft            DetNet IP Data Plane                March 2019


12.  Acknowledgements

   The author(s) ACK and NACK.

   The following people were part of the DetNet Data Plane Solution
   Design Team:

      Jouni Korhonen

      Janos Farkas

      Norman Finn

      Balazs Varga

      Loa Andersson

      Tal Mizrahi

      David Mozes

      Yuanlong Jiang

      Andrew Malis

      Carlos J.  Bernardos

   The DetNet chairs serving during the DetNet Data Plane Solution
   Design Team:

      Lou Berger

      Pat Thaler

   Thanks for Stewart Bryant for his extensive review of the previous
   versions of the document.

13.  References

13.1.  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>.



Korhonen & Varga       Expires September 11, 2019              [Page 38]


Internet-Draft            DetNet IP Data Plane                March 2019


   [RFC0793]  Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7,
              RFC 793, DOI 10.17487/RFC0793, September 1981,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc793>.

   [RFC1812]  Baker, F., Ed., "Requirements for IP Version 4 Routers",
              RFC 1812, DOI 10.17487/RFC1812, June 1995,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1812>.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC2211]  Wroclawski, J., "Specification of the Controlled-Load
              Network Element Service", RFC 2211, DOI 10.17487/RFC2211,
              September 1997, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2211>.

   [RFC2212]  Shenker, S., Partridge, C., and R. Guerin, "Specification
              of Guaranteed Quality of Service", RFC 2212,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2212, September 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2212>.

   [RFC2474]  Nichols, K., Blake, S., Baker, F., and D. Black,
              "Definition of the Differentiated Services Field (DS
              Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers", RFC 2474,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2474, December 1998,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2474>.

   [RFC3168]  Ramakrishnan, K., Floyd, S., and D. Black, "The Addition
              of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP",
              RFC 3168, DOI 10.17487/RFC3168, September 2001,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3168>.

   [RFC3209]  Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
              and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
              Tunnels", RFC 3209, DOI 10.17487/RFC3209, December 2001,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3209>.

   [RFC3270]  Le Faucheur, F., Wu, L., Davie, B., Davari, S., Vaananen,
              P., Krishnan, R., Cheval, P., and J. Heinanen, "Multi-
              Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Support of Differentiated
              Services", RFC 3270, DOI 10.17487/RFC3270, May 2002,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3270>.








Korhonen & Varga       Expires September 11, 2019              [Page 39]


Internet-Draft            DetNet IP Data Plane                March 2019


   [RFC3473]  Berger, L., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
              Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-
              Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3473, January 2003,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3473>.

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

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

   [RFC5462]  Andersson, L. and R. Asati, "Multiprotocol Label Switching
              (MPLS) Label Stack Entry: "EXP" Field Renamed to "Traffic
              Class" Field", RFC 5462, DOI 10.17487/RFC5462, February
              2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5462>.

   [RFC6003]  Papadimitriou, D., "Ethernet Traffic Parameters",
              RFC 6003, DOI 10.17487/RFC6003, October 2010,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6003>.

   [RFC7608]  Boucadair, M., Petrescu, A., and F. Baker, "IPv6 Prefix
              Length Recommendation for Forwarding", BCP 198, RFC 7608,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7608, July 2015,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7608>.

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

   [RFC8200]  Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
              (IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8200>.

13.2.  Informative references

   [G.8275.1]
              International Telecommunication Union, "Precision time
              protocol telecom profile for phase/time synchronization
              with full timing support from the network", ITU-T
              G.8275.1/Y.1369.1 G.8275.1, June 2016,
              <https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-G.8275.1/en>.






Korhonen & Varga       Expires September 11, 2019              [Page 40]


Internet-Draft            DetNet IP Data Plane                March 2019


   [G.8275.2]
              International Telecommunication Union, "Precision time
              protocol telecom profile for phase/time synchronization
              with partial timing support from the network", ITU-T
              G.8275.2/Y.1369.2 G.8275.2, June 2016,
              <https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-G.8275.2/en>.

   [I-D.ietf-detnet-architecture]
              Finn, N., Thubert, P., Varga, B., and J. Farkas,
              "Deterministic Networking Architecture", draft-ietf-
              detnet-architecture-11 (work in progress), February 2019.

   [I-D.ietf-detnet-dp-sol-mpls]
              Korhonen, J. and B. Varga, "DetNet MPLS Data Plane
              Encapsulation", draft-ietf-detnet-dp-sol-mpls-01 (work in
              progress), October 2018.

   [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-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.

   [I-D.ietf-teas-pce-native-ip]
              Wang, A., Zhao, Q., Khasanov, B., Chen, H., and R. Mallya,
              "PCE in Native IP Network", draft-ietf-teas-pce-native-
              ip-02 (work in progress), October 2018.

   [IEEE1588]
              IEEE, "IEEE 1588 Standard for a Precision Clock
              Synchronization Protocol for Networked Measurement and
              Control Systems Version 2", 2008.

   [IEEE8021CB]
              Finn, N., "Draft Standard for Local and metropolitan area
              networks - Seamless Redundancy", IEEE P802.1CB
              /D2.1 P802.1CB, December 2015,
              <http://www.ieee802.org/1/files/private/cb-drafts/
              d2/802-1CB-d2-1.pdf>.







Korhonen & Varga       Expires September 11, 2019              [Page 41]


Internet-Draft            DetNet IP Data Plane                March 2019


   [IEEE8021Q]
              IEEE 802.1, "Standard for Local and metropolitan area
              networks--Bridges and Bridged Networks (IEEE Std 802.1Q-
              2014)", 2014, <http://standards.ieee.org/about/get/>.

   [RFC1122]  Braden, R., Ed., "Requirements for Internet Hosts -
              Communication Layers", STD 3, RFC 1122,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC1122, October 1989,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1122>.

   [RFC2205]  Braden, R., Ed., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and S.
              Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1
              Functional Specification", RFC 2205, DOI 10.17487/RFC2205,
              September 1997, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2205>.

   [RFC2386]  Crawley, E., Nair, R., Rajagopalan, B., and H. Sandick, "A
              Framework for QoS-based Routing in the Internet",
              RFC 2386, DOI 10.17487/RFC2386, August 1998,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2386>.

   [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>.

   [RFC5575]  Marques, P., Sheth, N., Raszuk, R., Greene, B., Mauch, J.,
              and D. McPherson, "Dissemination of Flow Specification
              Rules", RFC 5575, DOI 10.17487/RFC5575, August 2009,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5575>.

   [RFC5654]  Niven-Jenkins, B., Ed., Brungard, D., Ed., Betts, M., Ed.,
              Sprecher, N., and S. Ueno, "Requirements of an MPLS
              Transport Profile", RFC 5654, DOI 10.17487/RFC5654,
              September 2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5654>.

   [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>.







Korhonen & Varga       Expires September 11, 2019              [Page 42]


Internet-Draft            DetNet IP Data Plane                March 2019


   [RFC7551]  Zhang, F., Ed., Jing, R., and R. Gandhi, Ed., "RSVP-TE
              Extensions for Associated Bidirectional Label Switched
              Paths (LSPs)", RFC 7551, DOI 10.17487/RFC7551, May 2015,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7551>.

   [RFC7657]  Black, D., Ed. and P. Jones, "Differentiated Services
              (Diffserv) and Real-Time Communication", RFC 7657,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7657, November 2015,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7657>.

   [RFC7950]  Bjorklund, M., Ed., "The YANG 1.1 Data Modeling Language",
              RFC 7950, DOI 10.17487/RFC7950, August 2016,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7950>.

   [RFC8040]  Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and K. Watsen, "RESTCONF
              Protocol", RFC 8040, DOI 10.17487/RFC8040, January 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8040>.

   [RFC8169]  Mirsky, G., Ruffini, S., Gray, E., Drake, J., Bryant, S.,
              and A. Vainshtein, "Residence Time Measurement in MPLS
              Networks", RFC 8169, DOI 10.17487/RFC8169, May 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8169>.

   [RFC8283]  Farrel, A., Ed., Zhao, Q., Ed., Li, Z., and C. Zhou, "An
              Architecture for Use of PCE and the PCE Communication
              Protocol (PCEP) in a Network with Central Control",
              RFC 8283, DOI 10.17487/RFC8283, December 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8283>.

Appendix A.  Example of DetNet Data Plane Operation

   [Editor's note: Add a simplified example of DetNet data plane and how
   labels etc work in the case of MPLS-based PSN and utilizing PREOF.
   The figure is subject to change depending on the further DT decisions
   on the label handling..]

Appendix B.  Example of Pinned Paths Using IPv6

   TBD.

Authors' Addresses

   Jouni Korhonen (editor)

   Email: jouni.nospam@gmail.com






Korhonen & Varga       Expires September 11, 2019              [Page 43]


Internet-Draft            DetNet IP Data Plane                March 2019


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

   Email: balazs.a.varga@ericsson.com












































Korhonen & Varga       Expires September 11, 2019              [Page 44]


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