Internet-Draft DetNet Bounded Latency March 2021
Finn, et al. Expires 23 September 2021 [Page]
Intended Status:
N. Finn
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd
J-Y. Le Boudec
E. Mohammadpour
J. Zhang
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd
B. Varga
J. Farkas

DetNet Bounded Latency


This document references specific queuing mechanisms, defined in other documents, that can be used to control packet transmission at each output port and achieve the DetNet qualities of service. This document presents a timing model for sources, destinations, and the DetNet transit nodes that relay packets that is applicable to all of those referenced queuing mechanisms. Using the model presented in this document, it should be possible for an implementor, user, or standards development organization to select a particular set of queuing mechanisms for each device in a DetNet network, and to select a resource reservation algorithm for that network, so that those elements can work together to provide the DetNet service.

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

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 23 September 2021.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

The ability for IETF Deterministic Networking (DetNet) or IEEE 802.1 Time-Sensitive Networking (TSN, [IEEE8021TSN]) to provide the DetNet services of bounded latency and zero congestion loss depends upon A) configuring and allocating network resources for the exclusive use of DetNet flows; B) identifying, in the data plane, the resources to be utilized by any given packet, and C) the detailed behavior of those resources, especially transmission queue selection, so that latency bounds can be reliably assured.

As explained in [RFC8655], DetNet flows are characterized by 1) a maximum bandwidth, guaranteed either by the transmitter or by strict input metering; and 2) a requirement for a guaranteed worst-case end-to-end latency. That latency guarantee, in turn, provides the opportunity for the network to supply enough buffer space to guarantee zero congestion loss.

To be used by the applications identified in [RFC8578], it must be possible to calculate, before the transmission of a DetNet flow commences, both the worst-case end-to-end network latency, and the amount of buffer space required at each hop to ensure against congestion loss.

This document references specific queuing mechanisms, defined in [RFC8655], that can be used to control packet transmission at each output port and achieve the DetNet qualities of service. This document presents a timing model for sources, destinations, and the DetNet transit nodes that relay packets that is applicable to all of those referenced queuing mechanisms. It furthermore provides end-to-end delay bound and backlog bound computations for such mechanisms that can be used by the control plane to provide DetNet QoS.

Using the model presented in this document, it should be possible for an implementor, user, or standards development organization to select a particular set of queuing mechanisms for each device in a DetNet network, and to select a resource reservation algorithm for that network, so that those elements can work together to provide the DetNet service. Section 7 provides an example application of this document to a DetNet IP network with combination of different queuing mechanisms.

This document does not specify any resource reservation protocol or control plane function. It does not describe all of the requirements for that protocol or control plane function. It does describe requirements for such resource reservation methods, and for queuing mechanisms that, if met, will enable them to work together.

2. Terminology and Definitions

This document uses the terms defined in [RFC8655].

3. DetNet bounded latency model

3.1. Flow admission

This document assumes that following paradigm is used to admit DetNet flows:

  1. Perform any configuration required by the DetNet transit nodes in the network for aggregates of DetNet flows. This configuration is done beforehand, and not tied to any particular DetNet flow.
  2. Characterize the new DetNet flow, particularly in terms of required bandwidth.
  3. Establish the path that the DetNet flow will take through the network from the source to the destination(s). This can be a point-to-point or a point-to-multipoint path.
  4. Compute the worst-case end-to-end latency for the DetNet flow, using one of the methods, below (Section 3.1.1, Section 3.1.2). In the process, determine whether sufficient resources are available for the DetNet flow to guarantee the required latency and to provide zero congestion loss.
  5. Assuming that the resources are available, commit those resources to the DetNet flow. This may or may not require adjusting the parameters that control the filtering and/or queuing mechanisms at each hop along the DetNet flow's path.

This paradigm can be implemented using peer-to-peer protocols or using a central controller. In some situations, a lack of resources can require backtracking and recursing through this list.

Issues such as service preemption of a DetNet flow in favor of another, when resources are scarce, are not considered, here. Also not addressed is the question of how to choose the path to be taken by a DetNet flow.

3.1.1. Static latency calculation

The static problem:
Given a network and a set of DetNet flows, compute an end-to-end latency bound (if computable) for each DetNet flow, and compute the resources, particularly buffer space, required in each DetNet transit node to achieve zero congestion loss.

In this calculation, all of the DetNet flows are known before the calculation commences. This problem is of interest to relatively static networks, or static parts of larger networks. It provides bounds on delay and buffer size. The calculations can be extended to provide global optimizations, such as altering the path of one DetNet flow in order to make resources available to another DetNet flow with tighter constraints.

The static latency calculation is not limited only to static networks; the entire calculation for all DetNet flows can be repeated each time a new DetNet flow is created or deleted. If some already-established DetNet flow would be pushed beyond its latency requirements by the new DetNet flow, then the new DetNet flow can be refused, or some other suitable action taken.

This calculation may be more difficult to perform than that of the dynamic calculation (Section 3.1.2), because the DetNet flows passing through one port on a DetNet transit node affect each others' latency. The effects can even be circular, from a node A to B to C and back to A. On the other hand, the static calculation can often accommodate queuing methods, such as transmission selection by strict priority, that are unsuitable for the dynamic calculation.

3.1.2. Dynamic latency calculation

The dynamic problem:
Given a network whose maximum capacity for DetNet flows is bounded by a set of static configuration parameters applied to the DetNet transit nodes, and given just one DetNet flow, compute the worst-case end-to-end latency that can be experienced by that flow, no matter what other DetNet flows (within the network's configured parameters) might be created or deleted in the future. Also, compute the resources, particularly buffer space, required in each DetNet transit node to achieve zero congestion loss.

This calculation is dynamic, in the sense that DetNet flows can be added or deleted at any time, with a minimum of computation effort, and without affecting the guarantees already given to other DetNet flows.

The choice of queuing methods is critical to the applicability of the dynamic calculation. Some queuing methods (e.g. CQF, Section 6.6) make it easy to configure bounds on the network's capacity, and to make independent calculations for each DetNet flow. Some other queuing methods (e.g. strict priority with the credit-based shaper defined in [IEEE8021Q] section can be used for dynamic DetNet flow creation, but yield poorer latency and buffer space guarantees than when that same queuing method is used for static DetNet flow creation (Section 3.1.1).

3.2. Relay node model

A model for the operation of a DetNet transit node is required, in order to define the latency and buffer calculations. In Figure 1 we see a breakdown of the per-hop latency experienced by a packet passing through a DetNet transit node, in terms that are suitable for computing both hop-by-hop latency and per-hop buffer requirements.

      DetNet transit node A            DetNet transit node B
   +-------------------------+       +------------------------+
   |              Queuing    |       |              Queuing   |
   |   Regulator subsystem   |       |   Regulator subsystem  |
   |   +-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+   |       |   +-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+  |
-->+   | | | | | | | | | +   +------>+   | | | | | | | | | +  +--->
   |   +-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+   |       |   +-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+  |
   |                         |       |                        |
   +-------------------------+       +------------------------+
2,3  4      5        6      1    2,3   4      5        6     1   2,3
                1: Output delay             4: Processing delay
                2: Link delay               5: Regulation delay
                3: Frame preemption delay   6: Queuing delay
Figure 1: Timing model for DetNet or TSN

In Figure 1, we see two DetNet transit nodes that are connected via a link. In this model, the only queues, that we deal with explicitly, are attached to the output port; other queues are modeled as variations in the other delay times. (E.g., an input queue could be modeled as either a variation in the link delay (2) or the processing delay (4).) There are six delays that a packet can experience from hop to hop.

1. Output delay
The time taken from the selection of a packet for output from a queue to the transmission of the first bit of the packet on the physical link. If the queue is directly attached to the physical port, output delay can be a constant. But, in many implementations, the queuing mechanism in a forwarding ASIC is separated from a multi-port MAC/PHY, in a second ASIC, by a multiplexed connection. This causes variations in the output delay that are hard for the forwarding node to predict or control.
2. Link delay
The time taken from the transmission of the first bit of the packet to the reception of the last bit, assuming that the transmission is not suspended by a frame preemption event. This delay has two components, the first-bit-out to first-bit-in delay and the first-bit-in to last-bit-in delay that varies with packet size. The former is typically measured by the Precision Time Protocol and is constant (see [RFC8655]). However, a virtual "link" could exhibit a variable link delay.
3. Frame preemption delay
If the packet is interrupted in order to transmit another packet or packets, (e.g. [IEEE8023] clause 99 frame preemption) an arbitrary delay can result.
4. Processing delay
This delay covers the time from the reception of the last bit of the packet to the time the packet is enqueued in the regulator (Queuing subsystem, if there is no regulation). This delay can be variable, and depends on the details of the operation of the forwarding node.
5. Regulator delay
This is the time spent from the insertion of the last bit of a packet into a regulation queue until the time the packet is declared eligible according to its regulation constraints. We assume that this time can be calculated based on the details of regulation policy. If there is no regulation, this time is zero.
6. Queuing subsystem delay
This is the time spent for a packet from being declared eligible until being selected for output on the next link. We assume that this time is calculable based on the details of the queuing mechanism. If there is no regulation, this time is from the insertion of the packet into a queue until it is selected for output on the next link.

Not shown in Figure 1 are the other output queues that we presume are also attached to that same output port as the queue shown, and against which this shown queue competes for transmission opportunities.

The initial and final measurement point in this analysis (that is, the definition of a "hop") is the point at which a packet is selected for output. In general, any queue selection method that is suitable for use in a DetNet network includes a detailed specification as to exactly when packets are selected for transmission. Any variations in any of the delay times 1-4 result in a need for additional buffers in the queue. If all delays 1-4 are constant, then any variation in the time at which packets are inserted into a queue depends entirely on the timing of packet selection in the previous node. If the delays 1-4 are not constant, then additional buffers are required in the queue to absorb these variations. Thus:

  • Variations in output delay (1) require buffers to absorb that variation in the next hop, so the output delay variations of the previous hop (on each input port) must be known in order to calculate the buffer space required on this hop.
  • Variations in processing delay (4) require additional output buffers in the queues of that same DetNet transit node. Depending on the details of the queueing subsystem delay (6) calculations, these variations need not be visible outside the DetNet transit node.

4. Computing End-to-end Delay Bounds

4.1. Non-queuing delay bound

End-to-end delay bounds can be computed using the delay model in Section 3.2. Here, it is important to be aware that for several queuing mechanisms, the end-to-end delay bound is less than the sum of the per-hop delay bounds. An end-to-end delay bound for one DetNet flow can be computed as

end_to_end_delay_bound = non_queuing_delay_bound + queuing_delay_bound

The two terms in the above formula are computed as follows.

First, at the h-th hop along the path of this DetNet flow, obtain an upperbound per-hop_non_queuing_delay_bound[h] on the sum of the bounds over the delays 1,2,3,4 of Figure 1. These upper bounds are expected to depend on the specific technology of the DetNet transit node at the h-th hop but not on the T-SPEC of this DetNet flow. Then set non_queuing_delay_bound = the sum of per-hop_non_queuing_delay_bound[h] over all hops h.

Second, compute queuing_delay_bound as an upper bound to the sum of the queuing delays along the path. The value of queuing_delay_bound depends on the T-SPEC of this DetNet flow and possibly of other flows in the network, as well as the specifics of the queuing mechanisms deployed along the path of this DetNet flow. The computation of queuing_delay_bound is described in Section 4.2 as a separate section.

4.2. Queuing delay bound

For several queuing mechanisms, queuing_delay_bound is less than the sum of upper bounds on the queuing delays (5,6) at every hop. This occurs with (1) per-flow queuing, and (2) aggregate queuing with regulators, as explained in Section 4.2.1, Section 4.2.2, and Section 6.

For other queuing mechanisms the only available value of queuing_delay_bound is the sum of the per-hop queuing delay bounds. In such cases, the computation of per-hop queuing delay bounds must account for the fact that the T-SPEC of a DetNet flow is no longer satisfied at the ingress of a hop, since burstiness increases as one flow traverses one DetNet transit node.

4.2.1. Per-flow queuing mechanisms

With such mechanisms, each flow uses a separate queue inside every node. The service for each queue is abstracted with a guaranteed rate and a latency. For every DetNet flow, a per-node delay bound as well as an end-to-end delay bound can be computed from the traffic specification of this DetNet flow at its source and from the values of rates and latencies at all nodes along its path. The per-flow queuing is used in IntServ. Details of calculation for IntServ are described in Section 6.5.

4.2.2. Aggregate queuing mechanisms

With such mechanisms, multiple flows are aggregated into macro-flows and there is one FIFO queue per macro-flow. A practical example is the credit-based shaper defined in section of [IEEE8021Q] where a macro-flow is called a "class". One key issue in this context is how to deal with the burstiness cascade: individual flows that share a resource dedicated to a macro-flow may see their burstiness increase, which may in turn cause increased burstiness to other flows downstream of this resource. Computing delay upper bounds for such cases is difficult, and in some conditions impossible [charny2000delay][bennett2002delay]. Also, when bounds are obtained, they depend on the complete configuration, and must be recomputed when one flow is added. (The dynamic calculation, Section 3.1.2.)

A solution to deal with this issue for the DetNet flows is to reshape them at every hop. This can be done with per-flow regulators (e.g. leaky bucket shapers), but this requires per-flow queuing and defeats the purpose of aggregate queuing. An alternative is the interleaved regulator, which reshapes individual DetNet flows without per-flow queuing ([Specht2016UBS], [IEEE8021Qcr]). With an interleaved regulator, the packet at the head of the queue is regulated based on its (flow) regulation constraints; it is released at the earliest time at which this is possible without violating the constraint. One key feature of per-flow or interleaved regulator is that, it does not increase worst-case latency bounds [le_boudec2018theory]. Specifically, when an interleaved regulator is appended to a FIFO subsystem, it does not increase the worst-case delay of the latter.

Figure 2 shows an example of a network with 5 nodes, aggregate queuing mechanism and interleaved regulators as in Figure 1. An end-to-end delay bound for DetNet flow f, traversing nodes 1 to 5, is calculated as follows:

end_to_end_latency_bound_of_flow_f = C12 + C23 + C34 + S4

In the above formula, Cij is a bound on the delay of the queuing subsystem in node i and interleaved regulator of node j, and S4 is a bound on the delay of the queuing subsystem in node 4 for DetNet flow f. In fact, using the delay definitions in Section 3.2, Cij is a bound on sum of the delays 1,2,3,6 of node i and 4,5 of node j. Similarly, S4 is a bound on sum of the delays 1,2,3,6 of node 4. A practical example of queuing model and delay calculation is presented Section 6.4.

+---+   +---+   +---+   +---+   +---+
| 1 |---| 2 |---| 3 |---| 4 |---| 5 |
+---+   +---+   +---+   +---+   +---+
Figure 2: End-to-end delay computation example

REMARK: The end-to-end delay bound calculation provided here gives a much better upper bound in comparison with end-to-end delay bound computation by adding the delay bounds of each node in the path of a DetNet flow [TSNwithATS].

4.3. Ingress considerations

A sender can be a DetNet node which uses exactly the same queuing methods as its adjacent DetNet transit node, so that the delay and buffer bounds calculations at the first hop are indistinguishable from those at a later hop within the DetNet domain. On the other hand, the sender may be DetNet-unaware, in which case some conditioning of the DetNet flow may be necessary at the ingress DetNet transit node.

This ingress conditioning typically consists of a FIFO with an output regulator that is compatible with the queuing employed by the DetNet transit node on its output port(s). For some queuing methods, simply requires added extra buffer space in the queuing subsystem. Ingress conditioning requirements for different queuing methods are mentioned in the sections, below, describing those queuing methods.

4.4. Interspersed DetNet-unaware transit nodes

It is sometimes desirable to build a network that has both DetNet-aware transit nodes and DetNet-uaware transit nodes, and for a DetNet flow to traverse an island of DetNet-unaware transit nodes, while still allowing the network to offer delay and congestion loss guarantees. This is possible under certain conditions.

In general, when passing through a DetNet-unaware island, the island may cause delay variation in excess of what would be caused by DetNet nodes. That is, the DetNet flow might be "lumpier" after traversing the DetNet-unaware island. DetNet guarantees for delay and buffer requirements can still be calculated and met if and only if the following are true:

  1. The latency variation across the DetNet-unaware island must be bounded and calculable.
  2. An ingress conditioning function (Section 4.3) is required at the re-entry to the DetNet-aware domain. This will, at least, require some extra buffering to accommodate the additional delay variation, and thus further increases the delay bound.

The ingress conditioning is exactly the same problem as that of a sender at the edge of the DetNet domain. The requirement for bounds on the latency variation across the DetNet-unaware island is typically the most difficult to achieve. Without such a bound, it is obvious that DetNet cannot deliver its guarantees, so a DetNet-unaware island that cannot offer bounded latency variation cannot be used to carry a DetNet flow.

5. Achieving zero congestion loss

When the input rate to an output queue exceeds the output rate for a sufficient length of time, the queue must overflow. This is congestion loss, and this is what deterministic networking seeks to avoid.

To avoid congestion losses, an upper bound on the backlog present in the regulator and queuing subsystem of Figure 1 must be computed during resource reservation. This bound depends on the set of flows that use these queues, the details of the specific queuing mechanism and an upper bound on the processing delay (4). The queue must contain the packet in transmission plus all other packets that are waiting to be selected for output.

A conservative backlog bound, that applies to all systems, can be derived as follows.

The backlog bound is counted in data units (bytes, or words of multiple bytes) that are relevant for buffer allocation. Based on the que For every flow or an aggregate of flows, we need one buffer space for the packet in transmission, plus space for the packets that are waiting to be selected for output. Excluding transmission and frame preemption times, the packets are waiting in the queue since reception of the last bit, for a duration equal to the processing delay (4) plus the queuing delays (5,6).


Then a bound on the backlog of traffic in the queue at this output port is

backlog_bound = nb_input_ports * max_packet_length + total_in_rate* max_delay456

6. Queuing techniques

In this section, for simplicity of delay computation, we assume that the T-SPEC or arrival curve [NetCalBook] for each DetNet flow at source is leaky bucket. Also, at each Detnet transit node, the service for each queue is abstracted with a guaranteed rate and a latency.

6.1. Queuing data model

Sophisticated queuing mechanisms are available in Layer 3 (L3, see, e.g., [RFC7806] for an overview). In general, we assume that "Layer 3" queues, shapers, meters, etc., are precisely the "regulators" shown in Figure 1. The "queuing subsystems" in this figure are not the province solely of bridges; they are an essential part of any DetNet transit node. As illustrated by numerous implementation examples, some of the "Layer 3" mechanisms described in documents such as [RFC7806] are often integrated, in an implementation, with the "Layer 2" mechanisms also implemented in the same node. An integrated model is needed in order to successfully predict the interactions among the different queuing mechanisms needed in a network carrying both DetNet flows and non-DetNet flows.

Figure 3 shows the general model for the flow of packets through the queues of a DetNet transit node. The DetNet packets are mapped to a number of regulators. Here, we assume that the PREOF (Packet Replication, Elimination and Ordering Functions) functions are performed before the DetNet packets enter the regulators. All Packets are assigned to a set of queues. Queues compete for the selection of packets to be passed to queues in the queuing subsystem. Packets again are selected for output from the queuing subsystem.

|                          Queue assignment                         |
   |      |          |         |           |     |       |       |
+--V-+ +--V-+     +--V--+   +--V--+     +--V--+  |       |       |
|Flow| |Flow|     |Flow |   |Flow |     |Flow |  |       |       |
|  0 | |  1 | ... |  i  |   | i+1 | ... |  n  |  |       |       |
| reg| | reg|     | reg |   | reg |     | reg |  |       |       |
+--+-+ +--+-+     +--+--+   +--+--+     +--+--+  |       |       |
   |      |          |         |           |     |       |       |
+--V------V----------V--+   +--V-----------V--+  |       |       |
|  Trans.  selection    |   | Trans. select.  |  |       |       |
+----------+------------+   +-----+-----------+  |       |       |
           |                      |              |       |       |
        +--V--+                +--V--+        +--V--+ +--V--+ +--V--+
        | out |                | out |        | out | | out | | out |
        |queue|                |queue|        |queue| |queue| |queue|
        |  1  |                |  2  |        |  3  | |  4  | |  5  |
        +--+--+                +--+--+        +--+--+ +--+--+ +--+--+
           |                      |              |       |       |
|                      Transmission selection                       |
Figure 3: IEEE 802.1Q Queuing Model: Data flow

Some relevant mechanisms are hidden in this figure, and are performed in the queue boxes:

  • Discarding packets because a queue is full.
  • Discarding packets marked "yellow" by a metering function, in preference to discarding "green" packets.

Ideally, neither of these actions are performed on DetNet packets. Full queues for DetNet packets should occur only when a DetNet flow is misbehaving, and the DetNet QoS does not include "yellow" service for packets in excess of committed rate.

The queue assignment function can be quite complex, even in a bridge [IEEE8021Q], since the introduction of per-stream filtering and policing ([IEEE8021Q] clause In addition to the Layer 2 priority expressed in the 802.1Q VLAN tag, a DetNet transit node can utilize any of the following information to assign a packet to a particular queue:

  • Input port.
  • Selector based on a rotating schedule that starts at regular, time-synchronized intervals and has nanosecond precision.
  • MAC addresses, VLAN ID, IP addresses, Layer 4 port numbers, DSCP. ([RFC8939], [RFC8964]) (Work items are expected to add MPC and other indicators.)
  • The queue assignment function can contain metering and policing functions.
  • MPLS and/or pseudowire ([RFC6658]) labels.

The "Transmission selection" function decides which queue is to transfer its oldest packet to the output port when a transmission opportunity arises.

6.2. Frame Preemption

In [IEEE8021Q] and [IEEE8023], the transmission of a frame can be interrupted by one or more "express" frames, and then the interrupted frame can continue transmission. The frame preemption is modeled as consisting of two MAC/PHY stacks, one for packets that can be interrupted, and one for packets that can interrupt the interruptible packets. Only one layer of frame preemption is supported -- a transmitter cannot have more than one interrupted frame in progress. DetNet flows typically pass through the interrupting MAC. For those DetNet flows with T-SPEC, latency bound can be calculated by the methods provided in the following sections that accounts for the affect of frame preemption, according to the specific queuing mechanism that is used in DetNet nodes. Best-effort queues pass through the interruptible MAC, and can thus be preempted.

6.3. Time Aware Shaper

In [IEEE8021Q], the notion of time-scheduling queue gates is described in section On each node, the transmission selection for packets is controlled by time-synchronized gates; each output queue is associated with a gate. The gates can be either open or close. The states of the gates are determined by the gate control list (GCL). The GCL specifies the opening and closing times of the gates. The design of GCL should satisfy the requirement of latency upper bounds of all DetNet flows; therefore, those DetNet flows traverse a network should have bounded latency, if the traffic and nodes are conformant.

It should be noted that scheduled traffic service relies on a synchronized network and coordinated GCL configuration. Synthesis of GCL on multiple nodes in network is a scheduling problem considering all DetNet flows traversing the network, which is a non-deterministic polynomial-time hard (NP-hard) problem. Also, at this writing, scheduled traffic service supports no more than eight traffic queues, typically using up to seven priority queues and at least one best effort.

6.4. Credit-Based Shaper with Asynchronous Traffic Shaping

In the considered queuing model, we considered the four traffic classes (Definition 3.268 of [IEEE8021Q]): control-data traffic (CDT), class A, class B, and best effort (BE) in decreasing order of priority. Flows of classes A and B are together referred as AVB flows. This model is a subset of Time-Sensitive Networking as described next.

Based on the timing model described in Figure 1, the contention occurs only at the output port of a DetNet transit node; therefore, the focus of the rest of this subsection is on the regulator and queuing subsystem in the output port of a DetNet transit node. Then, the input flows are identified using the information in (Section 5.1 of [RFC8939]). Then they are aggregated into eight macro flows based on their traffic classes. We refer to each macro flow as a class. The output port performs aggregate scheduling with eight queues (queuing subsystems): one for CDT, one for class A flows, one for class B flows, and five for BE traffic denoted as BE0-BE4. The queuing policy for each queuing subsystem is FIFO. In addition, each node output port also performs per-flow regulation for AVB flows using an interleaved regulator (IR), called Asynchronous Traffic Shaper [IEEE8021Qcr]. Thus, at each output port of a node, there is one interleaved regulator per-input port and per-class; the interleaved regulator is mapped to the regulator depicted in Figure 1. The detailed picture of scheduling and regulation architecture at a node output port is given by Figure 4. The packets received at a node input port for a given class are enqueued in the respective interleaved regulator at the output port. Then, the packets from all the flows, including CDT and BE flows, are enqueued in queuing subsytem; there is no regulator for such classes.

      +--+   +--+ +--+   +--+
      |  |   |  | |  |   |  |
      |IR|   |IR| |IR|   |IR|
      |  |   |  | |  |   |  |
      +-++XXX++-+ +-++XXX++-+
        |     |     |     |
        |     |     |     |
+---+ +-v-XXX-v-+ +-v-XXX-v-+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+
|   | |         | |         | |Class| |Class| |Class| |Class| |Class|
|CDT| | Class A | | Class B | | BE4 | | BE3 | | BE2 | | BE1 | | BE0 |
|   | |         | |         | |     | |     | |     | |     | |     |
+-+-+ +----+----+ +----+----+ +--+--+ +--+--+ +--+--+ +--+--+ +--+--+
  |        |           |         |       |       |       |       |
  |      +-v-+       +-v-+       |       |       |       |       |
  |      |CBS|       |CBS|       |       |       |       |       |
  |      +-+-+       +-+-+       |       |       |       |       |
  |        |           |         |       |       |       |       |
|                     Strict Priority selection                     |
Figure 4: The architecture of an output port inside a relay node with interleaved regulators (IRs) and credit-based shaper (CBS)

Each of the queuing subsystems for classes A and B, contains Credit-Based Shaper (CBS). The CBS serves a packet from a class according to the available credit for that class. The credit for each class A or B increases based on the idle slope, and decreases based on the send slope, both of which are parameters of the CBS (Section of [IEEE8021Q]). The CDT and BE0-BE4 flows are served by separate queuing subsystems. Then, packets from all flows are served by a transmission selection subsystem that serves packets from each class based on its priority. All subsystems are non-preemptive. Guarantees for AVB traffic can be provided only if CDT traffic is bounded; it is assumed that the CDT traffic has leaky bucket arrival curve with two parameters r_h as rate and b_h as bucket size, i.e., the amount of bits entering a node within a time interval t is bounded by r_h t + b_h.

Additionally, it is assumed that the AVB flows are also regulated at their source according to leaky bucket arrival curve. At the source, the traffic satisfies its regulation constraint, i.e. the delay due to interleaved regulator at source is ignored.

At each DetNet transit node implementing an interleaved regulator, packets of multiple flows are processed in one FIFO queue; the packet at the head of the queue is regulated based on its leaky bucket parameters; it is released at the earliest time at which this is possible without violating the constraint.

The regulation parameters for a flow (leaky bucket rate and bucket size) are the same at its source and at all DetNet transit nodes along its path in the case of that all clocks are perfect. However, in reality there is clock nonideality thoughout the DetNet domain even with clock synchronization. This phenomenon causes inaccuracy in the rates configured at the regulators that may lead to network instability. To avoid that, when configuring the regulators, the rates are set as the source rates with some positive margin. [Thomas2020time] describes and provides solutions to this issue.

6.4.1. Delay Bound Calculation

A delay bound of the queuing subsystem ((4) in Figure 1) for an AVB flow of classes A or B can be computed if the following condition holds:

sum of leaky bucket rates of all flows of this class at this transit node <= R, where R is given below for every class.

If the condition holds, the delay bounds for a flow of class X (A or B) is d_X and calculated as:

d_X = T_X + (b_t_X-L_min_X)/R_X - L_min_X/c

where L_min_X is the minimum packet lengths of class X (A or B); c is the output link transmission rate; b_t_X is the sum of the b term (bucket size) for all the flows of the class X. Parameters R_X and T_X are calculated as follows for class A and class B, separately:

If the flow is of class A:

R_A = I_A (c-r_h)/ c
T_A = L_nA + b_h + r_h L_n/c)/(c-r_h)

where L_nA is the maximum packet length of class B and BE packets; L_n is the maximum packet length of classes A,B, and BE.

If the flow is of class B:

R_B = I_B (c-r_h)/ c
T_B = (L_BE + L_A + L_nA I_A/(c_h-I_A) + b_h + r_h L_n/c)/(c-r_h)

where L_A is the maximum packet length of class A; L_BE is the maximum packet length of class BE.

Then, an end-to-end delay bound of class X (A or B)is calculated by the formula Section 4.2.2, where for Cij:

Cij = d_X

More information of delay analysis in such a DetNet transit node is described in [TSNwithATS].

6.4.2. Flow Admission

The delay bound calculation requires some information about each node. For each node, it is required to know the idle slope of CBS for each class A and B (I_A and I_B), as well as the transmission rate of the output link (c). Besides, it is necessary to have the information on each class, i.e. maximum packet length of classes A, B, and BE. Moreover, the leaky bucket parameters of CDT (r_h,b_h) should be known. To admit a flow/flows of classes A and B, their delay requirements should be guaranteed not to be violated. As described in Section 3.1, the two problems, static and dynamic, are addressed separately. In either of the problems, the rate and delay should be guaranteed. Thus,

The static admission control:
The leaky bucket parameters of all AVB flows are known, therefore, for each AVB flow f, a delay bound can be calculated. The computed delay bound for every AVB flow should not be more than its delay requirement. Moreover, the sum of the rate of each flow (r_f) should not be more than the rate allocated to each class (R). If these two conditions hold, the configuration is declared admissible.
The dynamic admission control:
For dynamic admission control, we allocate to every node and class A or B, static value for rate (R) and maximum burstiness (b_t). In addition, for every node and every class A and B, two counters are maintained:
R_acc is equal to the sum of the leaky-bucket rates of all flows of this class already admitted at this node; At all times, we must have:
R_acc <=R, (Eq. 1)
b_acc is equal to the sum of the bucket sizes of all flows of this class already admitted at this node; At all times, we must have:
b_acc <=b_t. (Eq. 2)
A new AVB flow is admitted at this node, if Eqs. (1) and (2) continue to be satisfied after adding its leaky bucket rate and bucket size to R_acc and b_acc. An AVB flow is admitted in the network, if it is admitted at all nodes along its path. When this happens, all variables R_acc and b_acc along its path must be incremented to reflect the addition of the flow. Similarly, when an AVB flow leaves the network, all variables R_acc and b_acc along its path must be decremented to reflect the removal of the flow.

The choice of the static values of R and b_t at all nodes and classes must be done in a prior configuration phase; R controls the bandwidth allocated to this class at this node, b_t affects the delay bound and the buffer requirement. R must satisfy the constraints given in Annex L.1 of [IEEE8021Q].

6.5. IntServ

Integrated service (IntServ) is an architecture that specifies the elements to guarantee quality of service (QoS) on networks [RFC2212].

The flow, at the source, has a leaky bucket arrival curve with two parameters r as rate and b as bucket size, i.e., the amount of bits entering a node within a time interval t is bounded by r t + b.

If a resource reservation on a path is applied, a node provides a guaranteed rate R and maximum service latency of T. This can be interpreted in a way that the bits might have to wait up to T before being served with a rate greater or equal to R. The delay bound of the flow traversing the node is T + b / R.

Consider an IntServ path including a sequence of nodes, where the i-th node provides a guaranteed rate R_i and maximum service latency of T_i. Then, the end-to-end delay bound for a flow on this can be calculated as sum(T_i) + b / min(R_i).

If more information about the flow is known, e.g. the peak rate, the delay bound is more complicated; the detail is available in Section 1.4.1 of [NetCalBook].

6.6. Cyclic Queuing and Forwarding

Annex T of [IEEE8021Q] describes Cyclic Queuing and Forwarding (CQF), which provides bounded latency and zero congestion loss using the time-scheduled gates of [IEEE8021Q] section For a given class of DetNet flows, a set of two or more buffers is provided at the output queue layer of Figure 3. A cycle time T_c is configured for each class of DetNet flows c, and all of the buffer sets in a class of DetNet flows swap buffers simultaneously throughout the DetNet domain at that cycle rate, all in phase. In such a mechanism, the regulator, mentioned in Figure 1, is not required.

In the case of two-buffer CQF, each class of DetNet flows c has two buffers, namely buffer1 and buffer2. In a cycle (i) when buffer1 accumulates received packets from the node's reception ports, buffer2 transmits the already stored packets from the previous cycle (i-1). In the next cycle (i+1), buffer2 stores the received packets and buffer1 transmits the packets received in cycle (i). The duration of each cycle is T_c.

The per-hop latency is trivially determined by the cycle time T_c: the packet transmitted from a node at a cycle (i), is transmitted from the next node at cycle (i+1). Hence, the maximum delay experienced by a given packet is from the beginning of cycle (i) to the end of cycle (i+1), or 2T_c; also, the minimum delay is from the end of cycle (i) to the beginning of cycle (i+1), i.e., zero. Then, if the packet traverses h hops, the maximum delay is:

(h+1) T_c

and the minimum delay is:

(h-1) T_c

which gives a latency variation of 2T_c.

The cycle length T_c should be carefully chosen; it needs to be large enough to accomodate all the DetNet traffic, plus at least one maximum interfering packet, that can be received within one cycle. Also, the value of T_c includes a time interval, called dead time (DT), which is the sum of the delays 1,2,3,4 defined in Figure 1. The value of DT guarantees that the last packet of one cycle in a node is fully delivered to a buffer of the next node is the same cycle. A two-buffer CQF is recommended if DT is small compared to T_c. For a large DT, CQF with more buffers can be used and a cycle identification label can be added to the packets.

Ingress conditioning (Section 4.3) may be required if the source of a DetNet flow does not, itself, employ CQF. Since there are no per-flow parameters in the CQF technique, per-hop configuration is not required in the CQF forwarding nodes.

7. Example application on DetNet IP network

This section provides an example application of this document on a DetNet-enabled IP network. Consider Figure 5, taken from Section 3 of [RFC8939], that shows a simple IP network:

 DetNet IP       Relay                        Relay       DetNet IP
 End-System      Node 1                       Node 2      End-System
     1                                                        2
+----------+                                             +----------+
|   Appl.  |<------------ End-to-End Service ----------->|   Appl.  |
+----------+  ............                 ...........   +----------+
| Service  |<-: Service  :-- DetNet flow --: Service  :->| Service  |
+----------+  +----------+                 +----------+  +----------+
|Forwarding|  |Forwarding|                 |Forwarding|  |Forwarding|
+--------.-+  +-.------.-+                 +-.---.----+  +-------.--+
         : Link :       \      ,-----.      /     \   ,-----.   /
         +......+        +----[  Sub- ]----+       +-[  Sub- ]-+
                              [Network]              [Network]
                               `--1--'                `--2--'

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

|<--- d1 --->|<--------------- d2_p --------------->|<-- d3_p -->|
Figure 5: A Simple DetNet-Enabled IP Network, taken from RFC8939

Consider a fully centeralized control plane for the network of Figure 5 as described in Section 3.2 of [I-D.ietf-detnet-controller-plane-framework]. Suppose end-system 1 wants to create a DetNet flow with traffic specification destined to end-system 2 with end-to-end delay bound requirement D. Therefore, the control plane receives a flow establishment request and calculates a number of valid paths through the network (Section 3.2 of [I-D.ietf-detnet-controller-plane-framework]). To select a proper path, the control plane needs to compute an end-to-end delay bound at every node of each selected path p.

The end-to-end delay bound is d1 + d2_p + d3_p, where d1 is the delay bound from end-system 1 to the entrance of relay node 1, d2_p is the delay bound for path p from relay node 1 to entrance of the first node in sub-network 2, and d3_p the delay bound of path p from the first node in sub-network 2 to end-system 2. The computation of d1 is explained in Section 6.5. Since the relay node 1, sub-network 1 and relay node 2 implement aggregate queuing, we use the results in Section 4.2.2 and Section 6.4 to compute d2_p for the path p. Finally, d3_p is computed using the delay bound computation of Section 6.6. Any path p such that d1 + d2_p + d3_p <= D satisfies the delay bound requirement of the flow. If there is no such path, the control plane may compute new set of valid paths and redo the delay bound computation or do not admit the DetNet flow.

As soon as the control plane selects a path that satisfies the delay bound constraint, it allocates and reserves the resources in the path for the DetNet flow (Section 4.2 [I-D.ietf-detnet-controller-plane-framework]).

8. Security considerations

Detailed security considerations for DetNet are cataloged in [I-D.ietf-detnet-security], and more general security considerations are described in [RFC8655].

Security aspects that are unique to DetNet are those whose aim is to provide the specific QoS aspects of DetNet, specifically bounded end-to-end delivery latency and zero congestion loss. Achieving such loss rates and bounded latency may not be possible in the face of a highly capable adversary, such as the one envisioned by the Internet Threat Model of BCP 72 [RFC3552] that can arbitrarily drop or delay any or all traffic. In order to present meaningful security considerations, we consider a somewhat weaker attacker who does not control the physical links of the DetNet domain but may have the ability to control a network node within the boundary of the DetNet domain.

A security consideration for this document is to secure the resource reservation signaling for DetNet flows. Any forge or manipulation of packets during reservation may lead the flow not to be admitted or face delay bound violation. Security mitigation for this issue is describedd in Section 7.6 of [I-D.ietf-detnet-security].

9. IANA considerations

This document has no IANA actions.

10. References

10.1. Normative References

Shenker, S., Partridge, C., and R. Guerin, "Specification of Guaranteed Quality of Service", RFC 2212, DOI 10.17487/RFC2212, , <>.
Bryant, S., Ed., Martini, L., Swallow, G., and A. Malis, "Packet Pseudowire Encapsulation over an MPLS PSN", RFC 6658, DOI 10.17487/RFC6658, , <>.
Baker, F. and R. Pan, "On Queuing, Marking, and Dropping", RFC 7806, DOI 10.17487/RFC7806, , <>.
Finn, N., Thubert, P., Varga, B., and J. Farkas, "Deterministic Networking Architecture", RFC 8655, DOI 10.17487/RFC8655, , <>.
Varga, B., Ed., Farkas, J., Berger, L., Fedyk, D., and S. Bryant, "Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Data Plane: IP", RFC 8939, DOI 10.17487/RFC8939, , <>.
Varga, B., Ed., Farkas, J., Berger, L., Malis, A., Bryant, S., and J. Korhonen, "Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Data Plane: MPLS", RFC 8964, DOI 10.17487/RFC8964, , <>.

10.2. Informative References

J.C.R. Bennett, K. Benson, A. Charny, W.F. Courtney, and J.-Y. Le Boudec, "Delay Jitter Bounds and Packet Scale Rate Guarantee for Expedited Forwarding", <>.
A. Charny and J.-Y. Le Boudec, "Delay Bounds in a Network with Aggregate Scheduling", <>.
A. Malis, X. Geng, M. Chen, F. Qin, and B. Varga, "Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Controller Plane Framework draft-ietf-detnet-controller-plane-framework-00", <>.
B. Varga, J. Farkas, A. Malis, and S. Bryant, "DetNet Data Plane: IP over IEEE 802.1 Time Sensitive Networking (TSN) draft-ietf-detnet-ip-over-tsn-07", <>.
E. Grossman, T. Mizrahi, and A. Hacker, "Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Security Considerations draft-ietf-detnet-security-16", <>.
IEEE 802.1, "IEEE Std 802.1Q-2018: IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area networks - Bridges and Bridged Networks", , <>.
IEEE 802.1, "IEEE P802.1Qcr: IEEE Draft Standard for Local and metropolitan area networks - Bridges and Bridged Networks - Amendment: Asynchronous Traffic Shaping", , <>.
IEEE 802.1, "IEEE 802.1 Time-Sensitive Networking (TSN) Task Group", <>.
IEEE 802.3, "IEEE Std 802.3-2018: IEEE Standard for Ethernet", , <>.
J.-Y. Le Boudec, "A Theory of Traffic Regulators for Deterministic Networks with Application to Interleaved Regulators", <>.
J.-Y. Le Boudec and P. Thiran, "Network calculus: a theory of deterministic queuing systems for the internet", , <>.
Rescorla, E. and B. Korver, "Guidelines for Writing RFC Text on Security Considerations", BCP 72, RFC 3552, DOI 10.17487/RFC3552, , <>.
Grossman, E., Ed., "Deterministic Networking Use Cases", RFC 8578, DOI 10.17487/RFC8578, , <>.
J. Specht and S. Samii, "Urgency-Based Scheduler for Time-Sensitive Switched Ethernet Networks", <>.
L. Thomas and J.-Y. Le Boudec, "On Time Synchronization Issues in Time-Sensitive Networks with Regulators and Nonideal Clocks", <>.
E. Mohammadpour, E. Stai, M. Mohiuddin, and J.-Y. Le Boudec, "End-to-end Latency and Backlog Bounds in Time-Sensitive Networking with Credit Based Shapers and Asynchronous Traffic Shaping", <>.

Authors' Addresses

Norman Finn
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd
3101 Rio Way
Spring Valley, California 91977
United States of America
Jean-Yves Le Boudec
IC Station 14
CH-1015 Lausanne EPFL
Ehsan Mohammadpour
IC Station 14
CH-1015 Lausanne EPFL
Jiayi Zhang
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd
Q27, No.156 Beiqing Road
Balázs Varga
Konyves Kálmán krt. 11/B
János Farkas
Konyves Kálmán krt. 11/B