draft-ietf-detnet-dp-sol-ip-00.txt   draft-ietf-detnet-dp-sol-ip-01.txt 
DetNet J. Korhonen, Ed. DetNet J. Korhonen, Ed.
Internet-Draft Internet-Draft
Intended status: Standards Track B. Varga, Ed. Intended status: Standards Track B. Varga, Ed.
Expires: January 1, 2019 Ericsson Expires: April 24, 2019 Ericsson
June 30, 2018 October 21, 2018
DetNet IP Data Plane Encapsulation DetNet IP Data Plane Encapsulation
draft-ietf-detnet-dp-sol-ip-00 draft-ietf-detnet-dp-sol-ip-01
Abstract Abstract
This document specifies Deterministic Networking data plane operation This document specifies Deterministic Networking data plane operation
for IP encapsulated user data. for IP encapsulated user data.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
skipping to change at page 1, line 32 skipping to change at page 1, line 32
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on January 1, 2019. This Internet-Draft will expire on April 24, 2019.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Terms used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.1. Terms used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.2. Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.3. Requirements language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.3. Requirements language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. DetNet IP Data Plane Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. DetNet IP Data Plane Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. DetNet IP Flow Identification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4. DetNet IP Data Plane Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2. DetNet Data Plane Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4.1. End-system specific considerations . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4. DetNet IP Data Plane Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4.2. DetNet domain specific considerations . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1. End-system specific considerations . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.2.1. DetNet Routers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.2. DetNet domain specific considerations . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.3. Networks with multiple technology segments . . . . . . . 11
4.2.1. DetNet Routers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.3. Networks with multiple technology segments . . . . . . . 12
4.4. OAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4.4. OAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.5. Class of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4.5. Class of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.6. Quality of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 4.6. Quality of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.7. Cross-DetNet flow resource aggregation . . . . . . . . . 14 4.7. Cross-DetNet flow resource aggregation . . . . . . . . . 14
4.8. Time synchronization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 4.8. Time synchronization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5. Management and control plane considerations . . . . . . . . . 15 5. Management and control plane considerations . . . . . . . . . 15
5.1. Explicit routes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 5.1. Explicit routes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5.2. Service protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 5.2. Service protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5.3. Congestion protection and latency control . . . . . . . . 16 5.3. Congestion protection and latency control . . . . . . . . 15
5.4. Flow aggregation control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 5.4. Flow aggregation control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5.5. Bidirectional traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 5.5. Bidirectional traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6. DetNet IP Encapsulation Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 6. DetNet IP Data Plane Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6.1. Multi-Path Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 6.1. DetNet IP Flow Identification Procedures . . . . . . . . 16
7. Mapping IP DetNet Flows to IEEE 802.1 TSN . . . . . . . . . . 17 6.1.1. IP Header Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7.1. TSN Stream ID Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 6.1.2. Other Protocol Header Information . . . . . . . . . . 18
7.2. TSN Usage of FRER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 6.1.3. Flow Identification Management and Control
7.3. Management and Control Implications . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
8. Security considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 6.2. Forwarding Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
9. IANA considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 6.3. DetNet IP Traffic Treatment Procedures . . . . . . . . . 20
10. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 6.4. Aggregation Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
11. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 7. Mapping IP DetNet Flows to IEEE 802.1 TSN . . . . . . . . . . 21
12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 7.1. TSN Stream ID Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
12.1. Normative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 7.2. TSN Usage of FRER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
12.2. Informative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 7.3. Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Appendix A. Example of DetNet data plane operation . . . . . . . 24 7.4. Management and Control Implications . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Appendix B. Example of pinned paths using IPv6 . . . . . . . . . 24 8. Security considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 9. IANA considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
10. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
11. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
12.1. Normative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
12.2. Informative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Appendix A. Example of DetNet data plane operation . . . . . . . 31
Appendix B. Example of pinned paths using IPv6 . . . . . . . . . 31
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
Deterministic Networking (DetNet) is a service that can be offered by Deterministic Networking (DetNet) is a service that can be offered by
a network to DetNet flows. DetNet provides these flows extremely low a network to DetNet flows. DetNet provides these flows extremely low
packet loss rates and assured maximum end-to-end delivery latency. packet loss rates and assured maximum end-to-end delivery latency.
General background and concepts of DetNet can be found in the DetNet General background and concepts of DetNet can be found in the DetNet
Architecture [I-D.ietf-detnet-architecture]. Architecture [I-D.ietf-detnet-architecture].
This document specifies the DetNet data plane operation for IP hosts This document specifies the DetNet data plane operation for IP hosts
and routers that provide DetNet service to IP encapsulated data. No and routers that provide DetNet service to IP encapsulated data. No
DetNet specific encapsulation is defined to support IP flows, rather DetNet specific encapsulation is defined to support IP flows, rather
existing IP header information is used to support flow identification existing IP and higher layer protocol header information is used to
and DetNet service delivery. General background on the use of IP support flow identification and DetNet service delivery.
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.
The DetNet Architecture decomposes the DetNet related data plane The DetNet Architecture decomposes the DetNet related data plane
functions into two layers: a service layer and a transport layer. functions into two layers: a service layer and a transport layer.
The service layer is used to provide DetNet service protection and The service layer is used to provide DetNet service protection and
reordering. The transport layer is used to provides congestion reordering. The transport layer is used to provides congestion
protection (low loss, assured latency, and limited reordering). As protection (low loss, assured latency, and limited reordering). As
no DetNet specific headers are added to support IP DetNet flows, only no DetNet specific headers are added to support IP DetNet flows, only
the transport layer functions are supported using the IP DetNet the transport layer functions are supported using the IP DetNet
defined by this document. Service protection can be provided on a defined by this document. Service protection can be provided on a
per sub-net basis using technologies such as MPLS per sub-net basis using technologies such as MPLS
[I-D.ietf-detnet-dp-sol-mpls] and IEEE802.1 TSN. [I-D.ietf-detnet-dp-sol-mpls] and IEEE802.1 TSN.
This document provides an overview of the DetNet IP data plane in This document provides an overview of the DetNet IP data plane in
Section 3, considerations that apply to providing DetNet services via Section 3, considerations that apply to providing DetNet services via
the DetNet IP data plane in Section 4 and Section 5. Section 6 the DetNet IP data plane in Section 4 and Section 5. Section 6
provides the requirements for hosts and routers that support IP-based provides the procedures for hosts and routers that support IP-based
DetNet services. Finally, Section 7 provides rules for mapping IP- DetNet services. Finally, Section 7 provides rules for mapping IP-
based DetNet flows to IEEE 802.1 TSN streams. based DetNet flows to IEEE 802.1 TSN streams.
2. Terminology 2. Terminology
2.1. Terms used in this document 2.1. Terms used in this document
This document uses the terminology and concepts established in the This document uses the terminology and concepts established in the
DetNet architecture [I-D.ietf-detnet-architecture] the reader is DetNet architecture [I-D.ietf-detnet-architecture] the reader is
assumed to be familiar with that document. assumed to be familiar with that document.
skipping to change at page 5, line 4 skipping to change at page 4, line 47
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here. capitals, as shown here.
3. DetNet IP Data Plane Overview 3. DetNet IP Data Plane Overview
This document describes how IP is used by DetNet nodes, i.e., hosts This document describes how IP is used by DetNet nodes, i.e., hosts
and routers, to identify DetNet flows and provide a DetNet service. and routers, to identify DetNet flows and provide a DetNet service.
From a data plane perspective, an end-to-end IP model is followed. 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.
IP DetNet Relay Relay IP DetNet IP DetNet Relay Relay IP DetNet
End System Node Node End System End System Node Node End System
+---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+
| Appl. |<--------------- End to End Service ---------->| Appl. | | Appl. |<--------------- End to End Service ---------->| Appl. |
+---------+ ........... ........... +---------+ +---------+ ........... ........... +---------+
| Service |<---: Service :-- DetNet flow ---: Service :-->| Service | | Service |<---: Service :-- DetNet flow ---: Service :-->| Service |
+---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+
|Transport| |Transport| |Transport| |Transport| |Transport| |Transport| |Transport| |Transport|
+-------.-+ +-.-----.-+ +-.-----.-+ +---.-----+ +-------.-+ +-.-----.-+ +-.-----.-+ +---.-----+
: Link : \ ,-----. / / ,-----. \ : Link : \ ,-----. / / ,-----. \
+........+ +-----[ Sub ]----+ +-[ Sub ]-+ +........+ +-----[ Sub ]----+ +-[ Sub ]-+
[Network] [Network] [Network] [Network]
`-----' `-----' `-----' `-----'
|<-DN IP->| |<----- DetNet IP ---->| |<-DN IP->| |<--------------------- DetNet IP -------------------->|
Figure 1: A Simple DetNet (DN) Enabled IP Network Figure 1: A Simple DetNet (DN) Enabled IP Network
Figure 1 illustrates a DetNet enabled IP network. The DetNet enabled Figure 1 illustrates a DetNet enabled IP network. The DetNet enabled
end systems originate IP encapsulated traffic that is identified as end systems originate IP encapsulated traffic that is identified as
DetNet flows, relay nodes understand the transport requirements of DetNet flows, relay nodes understand the transport requirements of
the DetNet flow and ensure that node, interface and sub-network the DetNet flow and ensure that node, interface and sub-network
resources are allocated to ensure DetNet service requirements. The resources are allocated to ensure DetNet service requirements. The
dotted line around the Service component of the Relay Nodes indicates dotted line around the Service component of the Relay Nodes indicates
that the transit routers are DetNet service aware but do not perform that the transit routers are DetNet service aware but do not perform
any DetNet service layer function, e.g., PREOF. IEEE 802.1 TSN is an any DetNet service layer function, e.g., PREOF. IEEE 802.1 TSN is an
example sub-network type which can provide support for DetNet flows example sub-network type which can provide support for DetNet flows
and service. The mapping of IP DetNet flows to TSN streams and TSN and service. The mapping of IP DetNet flows to TSN streams and TSN
protection mechanisms is covered in Section 7. protection mechanisms is covered in Section 7.
Note: The sub-network can represent a TSN, MPLS or IP network
segment.
IP DetNet Relay Transit Relay IP DetNet IP DetNet Relay Transit Relay IP DetNet
End System Node Node Node End System End System Node Node Node End System
+---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+
| Appl. |<--------------- End to End Service ---------->| Appl. | | Appl. |<--------------- End to End Service ---------->| Appl. |
+---------+ .....-----+ +-----..... +---------+ +---------+ .....-----+ +-----..... +---------+
| Service |<---: Service |-- DetNet flow ---| Service :-->| Service | | Service |<---: Service |-- DetNet flow ---| Service :-->| Service |
| | : |<- DN MPLS flow ->| : | |
+---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+
|Transport| |Trp| |Trp| |Transport| |Trp| |Trp| |Transport| |Transport| |Trp| |Trp| |Transport| |Trp| |Trp| |Transport|
+-------.-+ +-.-+ +-.-+ +---.---.-+ +-.-+ +-.-+ +---.-----+ +-------.-+ +-.-+ +-.-+ +---.---.-+ +-.-+ +-.-+ +---.-----+
: Link : / ,-----. \ : Link : / ,-----. \ : Link : / ,-----. \ : Link : / ,-----. \
+........+ +-[ Sub ]-+ +........+ +-[ Sub ]-+ +........+ +-[ Sub ]-+ +........+ +--[ Sub ]--+
[Network] [Network] [Network] [Network]
`-----' `-----' `-----' `-----'
|<-DN IP->| |<---- DetNet MPLS ---->| |<-DN IP->| |<---- DetNet MPLS ---->|
|<--------------------- DetNet IP -------------------->|
Figure 2: DetNet (DN) IP Over MPLS Network Figure 2: DetNet (DN) IP Over MPLS Network
Figure 2 illustrates a more complex DetNet enabled IP network where Figure 2 illustrates a variant of Figure 1, with an MPLS based DetNet
an IP flow is mapped to one or more PWs and MPLS (TE) LSPs. The end network as a sub-network between the relay nodes. It shows a more
systems still originate IP encapsulated traffic that is identified as complex DetNet enabled IP network where an IP flow is mapped to one
DetNet flows. The relay nodes follow procedures defined in or more PWs and MPLS (TE) LSPs. The end systems still originate IP
[I-D.ietf-detnet-dp-sol-mpls] to map each DetNet flow to MPLS LSPs. encapsulated traffic that is identified as DetNet flows. The relay
While not shown, relay nodes can provide service layer functions such nodes follow procedures defined in [I-D.ietf-detnet-dp-sol-mpls] to
as PREOF over the MPLS transport layer, and this is indicated by the map each DetNet flow to MPLS LSPs. While not shown, relay nodes can
solid line for the MPLS facing portion of the Service component. provide service layer functions such as PREOF over the MPLS transport
Note that the Transit node is MPLS (TE) LSP aware and performs layer, and this is indicated by the solid line for the MPLS facing
switching based on MPLS labels, and need not have any specific portion of the Service component. Note that the Transit node is MPLS
knowledge of the DetNet service or the corresponding DetNet flow (TE) LSP aware and performs switching based on MPLS labels, and need
identification. See [I-D.ietf-detnet-dp-sol-mpls] for details on the not have any specific knowledge of the DetNet service or the
mapping of IP flows to MPLS as well as general support for DetNet corresponding DetNet flow identification. See
services using MPLS. [I-D.ietf-detnet-dp-sol-mpls] for details on the mapping of IP flows
to MPLS as well as general support for DetNet services using MPLS.
IP Edge Edge IP IP Edge Edge IP
End System Node Node End System End System Node Node End System
+---------+ +.........+ +.........+ +---------+ +---------+ +.........+ +.........+ +---------+
| Appl. |<---:Svc Proxy:-- E2E Service ---:Svc Proxy:-->| Appl. | | Appl. |<---:Svc Proxy:-- E2E Service ---:Svc Proxy:-->| Appl. |
+---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +.........+ +.........+ +---------+
| IP | |IP | |Svc|<-- DetNet flow ->|Svc| |IP | | IP | | IP |<---:IP : :Svc:----- IP flow ----:Svc: :IP :-->| IP |
+---------+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---------+ +---------+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---------+
|Transport| |Trp| |Trp| |Trp| |Trp| |Transport| |Transport| |Trp| |Trp| |Trp| |Trp| |Transport|
+-------.-+ +-.-+ +-.-+ +-.-+ +-.-+ +---.-----+ +-------.-+ +-.-+ +-.-+ +-.-+ +-.-+ +---.-----+
: Link : \ ,-----. / / ,-----. \ : Link : \ ,-----. / / ,-----. \
+........+ +-----[ Sub ]---+ +-[ Sub ]-+ +........+ +-----[ Sub ]----+ +--[ Sub ]--+
[Network] [Network] [Network] [Network]
`-----' `-----' `-----' `-----'
|<----IP --->| |<----- DetNet IP ------>| |<----IP --->| |<--- IP --->| |<------ DetNet IP ------->| |<--- IP --->|
Figure 3: Non-DetNet aware IP end systems with IP DetNet Domain Figure 3: Non-DetNet aware IP end systems with IP DetNet Domain
Figure 3 illustrates a variant of Figure 1 where the end systems are Figure 3 illustrates another variant of Figure 1 where the end
not DetNet aware. In this case, edge nodes sit at the boundary of systems are not DetNet aware. In this case, edge nodes sit at the
the DetNet domain and act as DetNet service proxies for the end boundary of the DetNet domain and provide DetNet service proxies for
applications by initiating and terminating DetNet service for the the end applications by initiating and terminating DetNet service for
non-DetNet aware IP flows. The existing header information or an the application's IP flows. The existing header information or an
approach such as described in Section 4.7 can be used to support approach such as described in Section 4.7 can be used to support
DetNet flow identification. DetNet flow identification.
3.1. DetNet IP 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-
DetNet IP flows are identified based on IP, both IPv4 [RFC0791] and associated DetNet information on each DetNet node that defines the
IPv6 [RFC8200], header information. 6 header fields are used and flow related characteristics and required forwarding behavior. As
this set of fields is commonly referred to as the IP header shown above, edge nodes provide a Service Proxy function that
"6-tuple". The 6 fields include the IP source and destination "associates" one or more IP flows with the appropriate DetNet flow-
address fields, the next level protocol or header field, the next specific information and ensures that the receives the proper traffic
level protocol (e.g. TCP or UDP) source and destination ports, and treatment within the domain.
the IPv4 Type of Service or IPv6 Traffic Class field (i.e., DSCP).
As part of single DetNet flow identification, any of the fields can
be ignored (wildcarded), and bit masks, prefix based longest match,
and ranges can also be used.
DetNet flow aggregation may be enabled via the use of wildcards, Note: The operation of IEEE802.1 TSN end systems over DetNet enabled
masks, prefixes and ranges. IP tunnels may also be used to support IP networks is not described in this document. While TSN flows could
flow aggregation. In these cases, it is expected that DetNet aware be encapsulated in IP packets by an IP End System or DetNet Edge Node
intermediate nodes will provide DetNet service assurance on the in order to produce DetNet IP flows, the details of such are out of
aggregate through resource allocation and congestion control scope of this document.
mechanisms.
3.2. DetNet Data Plane Requirements 4. DetNet IP Data Plane Considerations
Two major groups of scenarios can be distinguished which require flow This section provides informative considerations related to providing
identification during transport: 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:
1. DetNet function related scenarios: Congestion protection and latency control:
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.
Usage of allocated resources (queuing, policing, shaping) to Explicit routes:
ensure that the congestion-related loss and latency/jitter
requirements of a DetNet flow are met.
Explicit routes: a reservation that maps a flow to a specific Use of a specific path for a flow. This limits miss-ordering and
path, which also limits miss-ordering and jitter. The can improve delivery of deterministic latency.
spreading of a single DetNet flow across multiple paths, e.g.,
via ECMP, also impacts ordering and end-to-end jitter, and as
such use of multiple paths for support of a single DetNet flow
is is out of scope this document.
Service protection: Service protection:
Which in the case of this document translates to changing the Which in the case of this document translates to changing the
explicit path after a failure is detected while maintaining explicit path after a failure is detected in order to restore
the required DetNet service characteristics. Path changes, delivery of the required DetNet service characteristics. Path
even in the case of failure recovery, can lead to the out of changes, even in the case of failure recovery, can lead to the out
order delivery of data. Note: DetNet PREOF is not provided by of order delivery of data.
the mechanisms defined in this document.
2. OAM function related scenarios: Note: DetNet PREOF is not provided by the mechanisms defined in
this document.
Troubleshooting: Load sharing:
For example, identify misbehaving flows. 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.
Recognize flow(s) for analytics: Troubleshooting:
For example, increase counters. For example, to support identification of misbehaving flows.
Correlate events with flows: Recognize flow(s) for analytics:
For example, volume above threshold. For example, increase counters.
4. DetNet IP Data Plane Considerations Correlate events with flows:
This section provides informative considerations related to providing For example, unexpected loss.
DetNet services via IP.
4.1. End-system specific considerations 4.1. End-system specific considerations
Data-flows requiring DetNet service are generated and terminated on Data-flows requiring DetNet service are generated and terminated on
end systems. The specific protocols used by an end system are end systems. This document deals only with IP end systems. The
specific to an application. This said, DetNet's use of 6-tuple IP protocols used by an IP end system are specific to an application and
flow identification means that DetNet must be aware of not only the
format of the IP header, but also of the next protocol carried within
an IP packet.
When IP end systems are DetNet aware, no application-level or
service-level proxy functions are needed inside the DetNet domain, so
end systems peer with end systems using the same application end systems peer with end systems using the same application
encapsulation format (see Figure 4). encapsulation format. This said, DetNet's use of 6-tuple IP flow
identification means that DetNet must be aware of not only the format
+-----+ of the IP header, but also of the next protocol carried within an IP
| X | +-----+ packet.
+-----+ | X |
| IP | ________ +-----+
+-----+ _____ / \ | IP |
\ / \__/ \___ +-----+
\ / \ /
0========= flow-1 =========0_
| \
\ |
0========== flow-2 ==========0
/ \ __/ \
+-----+ \__ DetNet domain / \
| X | \ __ / +-----+
+-----+ \_______/ \_____/ | X |
| IP | +-----+
+-----+ | IP |
+-----+
Figure 4: End-systems and the DetNet domain 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 End systems need to ensure that DetNet service requirements are met
when processing packets associated with a DetNet flow. When when processing packets associated with a DetNet flow. When
transporting packets, this generally means that packets are transporting packets, this means that packets are appropriately
appropriately shaped on transmission and received appropriate traffic shaped on transmission and received appropriate traffic treatment on
treatment on the connected sub-network, see Section 4.6 and the connected sub-network, see Section 4.6 and Section 4.2.1 for more
Section 4.2.1 for more details. When receiving packets, this details. When receiving packets, this means that there are
generally means that there are appropriate local node resources, appropriate local node resources, e.g., buffers, to receive and
e.g., buffers, to receive and process a DetNet flow packets. process a DetNet flow packets.
4.2. DetNet domain specific considerations 4.2. DetNet domain specific considerations
As a general rule, DetNet domains need to be able to forward any 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 DetNet flow identified by the IP 6-tuple. Doing otherwise would
limit end system encapsulation format. From a practical standpoint limit end system encapsulation format. From a practical standpoint
this means that all nodes along the end-to-end path of a DetNet flows 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 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 the transport protocols (e.g., TCP/UDP/IPsec) which can be used to
identify 6-tuple protocol ports. identify 6-tuple protocol ports.
[Editor's note: Update accordingly. BV to take a pass at update.] From a connection type perspective two scenarios are identified:
From a connection type perspective three scenarios are identified:
1. Directly attached: end system is directly connected to an edge
node.
2. Indirectly attached: end system is behind a (L2-TSN / L3-DetNet) 1. DN attached: end system is directly connected to an edge node or
sub-networks. end system is behind a sub-network. (See ES1 and ES2 in figure
below)
3. DN integrated: end system is part of the DetNet domain. 2. DN integrated: end system is part of the DetNet domain. (See ES3
in figure below)
L3 end systems may use any of these connection types, however L2 end L3 (IP) end systems may use any of these connection types. DetNet
systems may use only the first two (directly or indirectly attached). domain MUST allow communication between any end-systems using the
DetNet domain MUST allow communication between any end-systems of the same encapsulation format, independent of their connection type and
same type (L2-L2, L3-L3), independent of their connection type and DetNet capability. DN attached end systems have no knowledge about
DetNet capability. However, directly attached and indirectly the DetNet domain and its encapsulation format. See Figure 4 for L3
attached end systems have no knowledge about the DetNet domain and end system connection scenarios.
its encapsulation format at all. See Figure 5 for L3 end system
connection scenarios.
____+----+ ____+----+
+----+ _____ / | ES3| +----+ _____ / | ES3|
| ES1|____ / \__/ +----+___ | ES1|____ / \__/ +----+___
+----+ \ / \ +----+ \ / \
+ | + |
____ \ _/ ____ \ _/
+----+ __/ \ +__ DetNet domain / +----+ __/ \ +__ DetNet domain /
| ES2|____/ L2/L3 |___/ \ __ __/ | ES2|____/ L2/L3 |___/ \ __ __/
+----+ \_______/ \_______/ \___/ +----+ \_______/ \_______/ \___/
Figure 5: Connection types of L3 end systems Figure 4: Connection types of L3 end systems
4.2.1. DetNet Routers 4.2.1. DetNet Routers
Within a DetNet domain, the DetNet enabled IP Routers interconnect Within a DetNet domain, the DetNet enabled IP Routers interconnect
links and sub-networks to support end-to-end delivery of DetNet links and sub-networks to support end-to-end delivery of DetNet
flows. From a DetNet architecture perspective, these routers are flows. From a DetNet architecture perspective, these routers are
DetNet relays, as they must be DetNet service aware. Such routers DetNet relays, as they must be DetNet service aware. Such routers
identify DetNet flows based on the IP 6-tuple, and ensure that the identify DetNet flows based on the IP 6-tuple, and ensure that the
DetNet service required traffic treatment is provided both on the DetNet service required traffic treatment is provided both on the
node and on any attached sub-network. node and on any attached sub-network.
This solution provides DetNet functions end to end, but does so on a This solution provides DetNet functions end to end, but does so on a
per link and sub-network basis. Congestion protection and latency per link and sub-network basis. Congestion protection and latency
control and the resource allocation (queuing, policing, shaping) are control and the resource allocation (queuing, policing, shaping) are
supported using the underlying link / sub net specific mechanisms. supported using the underlying link / sub net specific mechanisms.
However, service protections (packet replication and packet However, service protections (packet replication and packet
emilination functions) are not provided at the DetNet layer end to elimination functions) are not provided at the DetNet layer end to
end. But such service protection can be provided on a per underlying end. But such service protection can be provided on a per underlying
L2 link and sub-network basis. L2 link and sub-network basis.
+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
| X | | X | | X | | X |
+======+ +------+ +======+ +------+
End-system | IP | | IP | End-system | IP | | IP |
-----+------+-------+======+--- --+======+-- -----+------+-------+======+--- --+======+--
DetNet |L2/SbN| |L2/SbN| DetNet |L2/SbN| |L2/SbN|
+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
Figure 6: Encapsulation of DetNet Routing in simplified IP service L3 Figure 5: Encapsulation of DetNet Routing in simplified IP service L3
end-systems end-systems
Note: the DetNet Service Flow MUST be mapped to the link / sub- The DetNet Service Flow MUST be mapped to the link / sub-network
network specific resources using an underlying system specific means. specific resources using an underlying system specific means. This
This implies each DetNet aware node on path MUST look into the implies each DetNet aware node on path MUST look into the transported
transported DetNet Service Flow packet and utilize e.g., a 5- (or 6-) DetNet Service Flow packet and utilize e.g., a 5- (or 6-) tuple to
tuple to find out the required mapping within a node. As noted find out the required mapping within a node.
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). 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.
[Editor's note: the service protection to be clarified further.] 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 4.3. Networks with multiple technology segments
There are network scenarios, where the DetNet domain contains There are network scenarios, where the DetNet domain contains
multiple technology segments (IEEE 802.1 TSN, MPLS) and all those multiple technology segments (IEEE 802.1 TSN, MPLS) and all those
segments are under the same administrative control (see Figure 7). segments are under the same administrative control (see Figure 7).
Furthermore, DetNet nodes may be interconnected via TSN segments. Furthermore, DetNet nodes may be interconnected via TSN segments.
DetNet routers ensure that detnet service requirements are met per DetNet routers ensure that detnet service requirements are met per
hop by allocating local resources, both receive and transmit, and by hop by allocating local resources, both receive and transmit, and by
skipping to change at page 12, line 34 skipping to change at page 12, line 23
|src |__/ Seg1 ) | | \ Seg3 \__| dst| |src |__/ Seg1 ) | | \ Seg3 \__| dst|
+----+ \_______+ \ Segment-2 | \+_____/ +----+ +----+ \_______+ \ Segment-2 | \+_____/ +----+
\======+__ _+===/ \======+__ _+===/
\ __ __/ \ __ __/
\_______/ \___/ \_______/ \___/
Figure 7: DetNet domains and multiple technology segments Figure 7: DetNet domains and multiple technology segments
4.4. OAM 4.4. OAM
[Editor's note: This section is TBD] [Editor's note: This section is TBD. OAM may be dropped from this
document and left for future study.]
4.5. Class of Service 4.5. Class of Service
[Editor's note: this section is TBD]
Class and quality of service, i.e., CoS and QoS, are terms that are Class and quality of service, i.e., CoS and QoS, are terms that are
often used interchangeably and confused. In the context of DetNet, often used interchangeably and confused. In the context of DetNet,
CoS is used to refer to mechanisms that provide traffic forwarding CoS is used to refer to mechanisms that provide traffic forwarding
treatment based on aggregate group basis and QoS is used to refer to treatment based on aggregate group basis and QoS is used to refer to
mechanisms that provide traffic forwarding treatment based on a mechanisms that provide traffic forwarding treatment based on a
specific DetNet flow basis. Examples of existing network level CoS specific DetNet flow basis. Examples of existing network level CoS
mechanisms include DiffServ which is enabled by IP header mechanisms include DiffServ which is enabled by IP header
differentiated services code point (DSCP) field [RFC2474] and MPLS differentiated services code point (DSCP) field [RFC2474] and MPLS
label traffic class field [RFC5462], and at Layer-2, by IEEE 802.1p label traffic class field [RFC5462], and at Layer-2, by IEEE 802.1p
priority code point (PCP). priority code point (PCP).
CoS for DetNet flows carried in PWs and MPLS is provided using the
existing MPLS Differentiated Services (DiffServ) architecture
[RFC3270]. Both E-LSP and L-LSP MPLS DiffServ modes MAY be used to
support DetNet flows. The Traffic Class field (formerly the EXP
field) of an MPLS label follows the definition of [RFC5462] and
[RFC3270]. The Uniform, Pipe, and Short Pipe DiffServ tunneling and
TTL processing models are described in [RFC3270] and [RFC3443] and
MAY be used for MPLS LSPs supporting DetNet flows. MPLS ECN MAY also
be used as defined in ECN [RFC5129] and updated by [RFC5462].
CoS for DetNet flows carried in IPv6 is provided using the standard CoS for DetNet flows carried in IPv6 is provided using the standard
differentiated services code point (DSCP) field [RFC2474] and related differentiated services code point (DSCP) field [RFC2474] and related
mechanisms. The 2-bit explicit congestion notification (ECN) mechanisms. The 2-bit explicit congestion notification (ECN)
[RFC3168] field MAY also be used. [RFC3168] field MAY also be used.
One additional consideration for DetNet nodes which support CoS One additional consideration for DetNet nodes which support CoS
services is that they MUST ensure that the CoS service classes do not services is that they MUST ensure that the CoS service classes do not
impact the congestion protection and latency control mechanisms used impact the congestion protection and latency control mechanisms used
to provide DetNet QoS. This requirement is similar to requirement to provide DetNet QoS. This requirement is similar to requirement
for MPLS LSRs to that CoS LSPs do not impact the resources allocated for MPLS LSRs to that CoS LSPs do not impact the resources allocated
to TE LSPs via [RFC3473]. to TE LSPs via [RFC3473].
4.6. Quality of Service 4.6. Quality of Service
[Editor's note: Keep this section. We should document the used
technologies but the detailed discussion may go somewhere else. We
should start having it here and then decide whether to move to some
other document.]
Quality of Service (QoS) mechanisms for flow specific traffic Quality of Service (QoS) mechanisms for flow specific traffic
treatment typically includes a guarantee/agreement for the service, treatment typically includes a guarantee/agreement for the service,
and allocation of resources to support the service. Example QoS and allocation of resources to support the service. Example QoS
mechanisms include discrete resource allocation, admission control, mechanisms include discrete resource allocation, admission control,
flow identification and isolation, and sometimes path control, flow identification and isolation, and sometimes path control,
traffic protection, shaping, policing and remarking. Example traffic protection, shaping, policing and remarking. Example
protocols that support QoS control include Resource ReSerVation protocols that support QoS control include Resource ReSerVation
Protocol (RSVP) [RFC2205] (RSVP) and RSVP-TE [RFC3209] and [RFC3473]. Protocol (RSVP) [RFC2205] (RSVP) and RSVP-TE [RFC3209] and [RFC3473].
The existing MPLS mechanisms defined to support CoS [RFC3270] can The existing MPLS mechanisms defined to support CoS [RFC3270] can
also be used to reserve resources for specific traffic classes. also be used to reserve resources for specific traffic classes.
skipping to change at page 14, line 43 skipping to change at page 14, line 17
o Defend the DetNet QoS by discarding or remarking (to a non-DetNet o Defend the DetNet QoS by discarding or remarking (to a non-DetNet
CoS) packets received that are not the subject of a completed CoS) packets received that are not the subject of a completed
reservation. reservation.
o Not use a DetNet reserved resource, e.g. a queue or shaper 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 reserved for DetNet flows, for any packet that does not carry a
DetNet Class of Service marker. DetNet Class of Service marker.
4.7. Cross-DetNet flow resource aggregation 4.7. Cross-DetNet flow resource aggregation
[Editor's note: Aggregation is FFS. The addregation can be provided
via encapsulation or header wildcards]
The ability to aggregate individual flows, and their associated The ability to aggregate individual flows, and their associated
resource control, into a larger aggregate is an important technique resource control, into a larger aggregate is an important technique
for improving scaling of control in the data, management and control for improving scaling of control in the data, management and control
planes. This document identifies the traffic identification related planes. This document identifies the traffic identification related
aspects of aggregation of DetNet flows. The resource control and aspects of aggregation of DetNet flows. The resource control and
management aspects of aggregation (including the queuing/shaping/ management aspects of aggregation (including the queuing/shaping/
policing implications) will be covered in other documents. The data policing implications) will be covered in other documents. The data
plane implications of aggregation are independent for PW/MPLS and IP plane implications of aggregation are independent for PW/MPLS and IP
encapsulated DetNet flows. encapsulated DetNet flows.
skipping to change at page 15, line 46 skipping to change at page 15, line 19
the packet receiver. Other mechanisms for IP networks are defined the packet receiver. Other mechanisms for IP networks are defined
based on IEEE Standard 1588 [IEEE1588], such as ITU-T [G.8275.1] and based on IEEE Standard 1588 [IEEE1588], such as ITU-T [G.8275.1] and
[G.8275.2]. [G.8275.2].
A more detailed discussion of time synchronization is outside the A more detailed discussion of time synchronization is outside the
scope of this document. scope of this document.
5. Management and control plane considerations 5. Management and control plane considerations
[Editor's note: This section needs to be different for MPLS and IP [Editor's note: This section needs to be different for MPLS and IP
solutions. Most solutions are technology dependant.] solutions. Most solutions are technology dependent.]
While management plane and control plane are traditionally considered While management plane and control plane are traditionally considered
separately, from the Data Plane perspective there is no practical separately, from the Data Plane perspective there is no practical
difference based on the origin of flow provisioning information. difference based on the origin of flow provisioning information.
This document therefore does not distinguish between information This document therefore does not distinguish between information
provided by a control plane protocol, e.g., RSVP-TE [RFC3209] and provided by a control plane protocol, e.g., RSVP-TE [RFC3209] and
[RFC3473], or by a network management mechanisms, e.g., RestConf [RFC3473], or by a network management mechanisms, e.g., RestConf
[RFC8040] and YANG [RFC7950]. [RFC8040] and YANG [RFC7950].
[Editor's note: This section is a work in progress. discuss here [Editor's note: This section is a work in progress. discuss here
skipping to change at page 17, line 5 skipping to change at page 16, line 24
to say that bidirectional DetNet flows are solely represented at the to say that bidirectional DetNet flows are solely represented at the
management and control plane levels, without specific support or management and control plane levels, without specific support or
knowledge within the DetNet data plane. Fate sharing and associated knowledge within the DetNet data plane. Fate sharing and associated
vs co-routed bidirectional flows can be managed at the control level. vs co-routed bidirectional flows can be managed at the control level.
Note, that there is no stated requirement for bidirectional DetNet Note, that there is no stated requirement for bidirectional DetNet
flows to be supported using the same 6-tuple in each direction. flows to be supported using the same 6-tuple in each direction.
Control mechanisms will need to support such bidirectional flows but Control mechanisms will need to support such bidirectional flows but
such mechanisms are out of scope of this document. An example such mechanisms are out of scope of this document. An example
control plane solution for MPLS can be found in [RFC7551]. control plane solution for MPLS can be found in [RFC7551].
6. DetNet IP Encapsulation Procedures 6. DetNet IP Data Plane Procedures
[Editor's note: RFC2119 conformance language goes here Need to This section provides DetNet IP data plane procedures. These
support flow identification Based on 4 IP header fields {ip addrs, procedures have been divided into the following areas: flow
dscp, nct protocol} need to support port identification for TCP/UDP, identification, forwarding and traffic treatment. Flow
IPsec spi (?), what else? Service proxies -- basically same from identification includes those procedures related to matching IP and
data plane, different from management map to local resources] 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.
6.1. Multi-Path Considerations 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].
[Note: talk about implications of ECMP/LAG/parallel links -- perhaps 6.1. DetNet IP Flow Identification Procedures
just say support for such is not covered in the document.]
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].
6.1.1.1. Source Address Field
Implementations of this document MUST support DetNet flow
identification based on the Source Address field of an IP packet.
Implementations SHOULD support longest prefix matching for this
field, see [RFC1812] and [RFC7608]. Note that a prefix length of
zero (0) effectively means that the field is ignored.
6.1.1.2. Destination Address Field
Implementations of this document MUST support DetNet flow
identification based on the Destination Address field of an IP
packet. Implementations SHOULD support longest prefix matching for
this field, see [RFC1812] and [RFC7608]. Note that a prefix length
of zero (0) effectively means that the field is ignored.
Note: using IP multicast destination address is also allowed.
6.1.1.3. IPv4 Protocol and IPv6 Next Header Fields
Implementations of this document MUST support DetNet flow
identification based on the IPv4 Protocol field when processing IPv4
packets, and the IPv6 Next Header Field when processing IPv6 packets.
An implementation MUST support flow identification based based the
next protocol values defined in Section 6.1.2. Other, non-zero
values, SHOULD be used for flow identification. Implementations
SHOULD allow for these fields to be ignored for a specific DetNet
flow.
6.1.1.4. IPv4 Type of Service and IPv6 Traffic Class Fields
These fields are used to support Differentiated Services [RFC2474]
and Explicit Congestion Notification [RFC3168]. Implementations of
this document MUST support DetNet flow identification based on the
IPv4 Type of Service field when processing IPv4 packets, and the IPv6
Traffic Class Field when processing IPv6 packets. Implementations
MUST support bimask based matching, where one (1) values in the
bitmask indicate which subset of the bits in the field are to be used
in determining a match. Note that a zero (0) value as a bitmask
effectively means that these fields are ignored.
6.1.1.5. IPv6 Flow Label Field
[Authors note: the use of the IPv6 flow label is TBD this section
requires discussion. Flow label based mapping requires src/dst
adress mapping as well.]
Implementations of this document SHOULD support identification of
DetNet flows based on the IPv6 Flow Label field. Implementations
that support matching based on this field MUST allow for this fields
to be ignored for a specific DetNet flow. When this fields is used
to identify a specific DetNet flow, implementations MAY exclude the
IPv6 Next Header field and next header information as part of DetNet
flow identification.
6.1.2. Other Protocol Header Information
Implementations of this document MUST support DetNet flow
identification based on header information identified in this
section. Support for TCP, UDP and IPsec flows are defined. Future
documents are expected to define support for other protocols.
[Authors note: Other candidate protocols include IP in IP, GRE, DCCP
- should and of these be required supported?]
6.1.2.1. TCP and UDP
DetNet flow identification for TCP [RFC0793] and UDP [RFC0768] is
done based on the Source and Destination Port fields carried in each
protocol's header. These fields share a common format and common
DetNet flow identification procedures.
6.1.2.1.1. Source Port Field
Implementations of this document MUST support DetNet flow
identification based on the Source Port field of a TCP or UDP packet.
Implementations MUST support flow identification based on a
particular value carried in the field, i.e., an exact.
Implementations SHOULD support range-based port matching.
Implementation MUST also allow for the field to be ignored for a
specific DetNet flow.
6.1.2.1.2. Destination Port Field
Implementations of this document MUST support DetNet flow
identification based on the Destination Port field of a TCP or UDP
packet. Implementations MUST support flow identification based on a
particular value carried in the field, i.e., an exact.
Implementations SHOULD support range-based port matching.
Implementation MUST also allow for the field to be ignored for a
specific DetNet flow.
6.1.2.2. IPsec AH and ESP
IPsec Authentication Header (AH) [RFC4302] and Encapsulating Security
Payload (ESP) [RFC4303] share a common format for the Security
Parameters Index (SPI) field. Implementations MUST support flow
identification based on a particular value carried in the field,
i.e., an exact. Implementation SHOULD also allow for the field to be
ignored for a specific DetNet flow.
6.1.3. Flow Identification Management and Control Information
The following summarizes the set of information that is needed to
identify an individual DetNet flow:
o IPv4 and IPv6 source address field.
o IPv4 and IPv6 source address prefix length, where a zero (0) value
effectively means that the address field is ignored.
o IPv4 and IPv6 destination address field.
o IPv4 and IPv6 destination address prefix length, where a zero (0)
effectively means that the address field is ignored.
o IPv4 protocol field. A limited set of values is allowed, and the
ability to ignore this field, e.g., via configuration of the value
zero (0), is desirable.
o IPv6 next header field. A limited set of values is allowed, and
the ability to ignore this field, e.g., via configuration of the
value zero (0), is desirable.
o IPv4 Type of Service and IPv6 Traffic Class Fields.
o IPv4 Type of Service and IPv6 Traffic Class Field Bitmask, where a
zero (0) effectively means that theses fields are ignored.
o IPv6 flow label field. This field can be optionally used for
matching. When used, can be exclusive of matching against the
next header field.
o TCP and UDP Source Port. Exact and wildcard matching is required.
Port ranges can optionally be used.
o TCP and UDP Destination Port. Exact and wildcard matching is
required. Port ranges can optionally be used.
Information identifying a DetNet flow is ordered and implementations
use the first match. This can, for example, be used to provide a
DetNet service for a specific UDP flow, with unique Source and
Destination Port field values, while providing a different service
for all other flows with that same UDP Destination Port value.
6.2. Forwarding Procedures
General requirements for IP nodes are defined in [RFC1122], [RFC1812]
and [RFC6434], and are not modified by this document. The typical
next-hop selection process is impacted by DetNet. Specifically,
implementations of this document SHALL use management and control
information to select the one or more outgoing interfaces and next
hops to be used for a packet belonging to a DetNet flow.
The use of multiple paths or links, e.g., ECMP, to support a single
DetNet flow will generally be avoided in order to meet DetNet service
requirements.
The above implies that management and control functions will be
defined to support this requirement, e.g., see [YANG-REF-TBD].
6.3. DetNet IP Traffic Treatment Procedures
Implementations if this document MUST ensure that a DetNet flow
receives the traffic treatment that is provisioned for it via
management and control functions, e.g., via [YANG-REF-TBD]. General
information on DetNet service can be found in
[I-D.ietf-detnet-flow-information-model]. Typical mechanisms used to
provide different treatment to different flows includes the
allocation of system resources (such as queues and buffers) and
provisioning or related parameters (such as shaping, and policing).
Support can also be provided via an underlying network technology
such as MPLS [I-D.ietf-detnet-dp-sol-mpls] and IEEE802.1 TSN
Section 7. Other than in the TSN case, the specific mechanisms used
by a DetNet node to ensure DetNet service delivery requirements are
met for supported DetNet flows is outside the scope of this document.
6.4. Aggregation Considerations
The use of prefixes, wildcards, bimasks, and port ranges allows a
DetNet node to aggregate DetNet flows. This aggregation can take
place within a single node, when that node maintains state about both
the aggregated and component flows. It can also take place between
nodes, where one node maintains state about only flow aggregates
while the other node maintains state on all or a portion of the
component flows. In either case, the management or control function
that provisions the aggregate flows must ensure that adequate
resources are allocated and configured to provide combined service
requirements of the component flows. As DetNet is concerned about
latency and jitter, more than just bandwidth needs to be considered.
7. Mapping IP DetNet Flows to IEEE 802.1 TSN 7. Mapping IP DetNet Flows to IEEE 802.1 TSN
[Editor's note: This section is TBD - it covers how IP DetNet flows [Editor's note: This section is TBD - it covers how IP DetNet flows
operate over an IEEE 802.1 TSN sub-network. BV to take a pass at operate over an IEEE 802.1 TSN sub-network. BV to take a pass at
filling in this section] filling in this section]
This section covers how IP DetNet flows operate over an IEEE 802.1
TSN sub-network. Figure 8 illustrates such a scenario, where two IP
(DetNet) nodes are interconnected by a TSN sub-network. Node-1 is
single homed and Node-2 is dual-homed. IP nodes can be (1) IP DetNet
End System, (2) IP DetNet Edge or Relay node or (3) IP End System.
IP (DetNet) IP (DetNet)
Node-1 Node-2
........... ...........
<--: Service :-- DetNet flow ---: Service :-->
+---------+ +---------+
|Transport| |Transport|
+-------.-+ <-TSN Str-> +-.-----.-+
\ ,-------. / /
+----[ TSN-Sub ]---+ /
[ Network ]--------+
`-------'
<----------------- DetNet IP ---------------->
Figure 8: DetNet (DN) Enabled IP Network over a TSN sub-network
The Time-Sensitive Networking (TSN) Task Group of the IEEE 802.1 The Time-Sensitive Networking (TSN) Task Group of the IEEE 802.1
Working Group have defined (and are defining) a number of amendments Working Group have defined (and are defining) a number of amendments
to IEEE 802.1Q [IEEE8021Q] that provide zero congestion loss and to IEEE 802.1Q [IEEE8021Q] that provide zero congestion loss and
bounded latency in bridged networks. IEEE 802.1CB [IEEE8021CB] bounded latency in bridged networks. Furthermore IEEE 802.1CB
defines packet replication and elimination functions that should [IEEE8021CB] defines frame replication and elimination functions for
prove both compatible with and useful to, DetNet networks. 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 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 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 belongs in order to provide the TSN/DetNet QoS for that packet. It
also will likely need a CoS marking, such as the priority field of an also may need additional marking, such as the priority field of an
IEEE Std 802.1Q VLAN tag, to give the packet proper service. IEEE Std 802.1Q VLAN tag, to give the packet proper service.
Although the flow identification methods described in IEEE 802.1CB TSN capabilities of the TSN sub-network are made available for IP
[IEEE8021CB] are flexible, and in fact, include IP 5-tuple (DetNet) flows via the protocol interworking function defined in IEEE
identification methods, the baseline TSN standards assume that every 802.1CB [IEEE8021CB]. For example, applied on the TSN edge port
Ethernet frame belonging to a TSN stream (i.e. DetNet flow) carries connected to the IP (DetNet) node it can convert an ingress unicast
a multicast destination MAC address that is unique to that flow IP (DetNet) flow to use a specific multicast destination MAC address
within the bridged network over which it is carried. Furthermore, and VLAN, in order to direct the packet through a specific path
IEEE 802.1CB [IEEE8021CB] describes three methods by which a packet inside the bridged network. A similar interworking pair at the other
sequence number can be encoded in an Ethernet frame. end of the TSN sub-network would restore the packet to its original
destination MAC address and VLAN.
Ensuring that the proper Ethernet VLAN tag priority and destination Placement of TSN functions depends on the TSN capabilities of nodes.
MAC address are used on a DetNet/TSN packet may require further IP (DetNet) Nodes may or may not support TSN functions. For a given
clarification of the customary L2/L3 transformations carried out by TSN Stream (i.e., DetNet flow) an IP (DetNet) node is treated as a
routers and edge label switches. Edge nodes may also have to move Talker or a Listener inside the TSN sub-network.
sequence number fields among Layer 2, PW, and IPv6 encapsulations.
7.1. TSN Stream ID Mapping 7.1. TSN Stream ID Mapping
[Editor's Note: This section covers the data plane aspects of mapping IP DetNet Flow and TSN Stream mapping is based on the active Stream
an IP DetNet flow to one or more TSN Stream-IDs.] Identification function, that operates at the frame level. IEEE
802.1CB [IEEE8021CB] defines an Active Destination MAC and VLAN
Stream identification function, what can replace some Ethernet header
fields namely (1) the destination MAC-address, (2) the VLAN-ID and
(3) priority parameters with alternate values. Replacement is
provided for the frame passed down the stack from the upper layers or
up the stack from the lower layers.
Active Destination MAC and VLAN Stream identification can be used
within a Talker to set flow identity or a Listener to recover the
original addressing information. It can be used also in a TSN bridge
that is providing translation as a proxy service for an End System.
As a result IP (DetNet) flows can be mapped to use a particular {MAC-
address, VLAN} pair to match the Stream in the TSN sub-network.
From the TSN sub-network perspective IP DetNet nodes without any TSN
functions can be treated as TSN-unaware Talker or Listener. In such
cases relay nodes in the TSN sub-network MUST modify the Ethernet
encapsulation of the IP DetNet flow (e.g., MAC translation, VLAN-ID
setting, Sequence number addition, etc.) to allow proper TSN specific
handling of the flow inside the sub-network. This is illustrated in
Figure 9.
IP (DetNet)
Node-1
<--------->
...........
<--: Service :-- DetNet flow ------------------
+---------+
|Transport|
+---------+ +---------------+
| L2 | | L2 Relay with |<--- TSN ----
| | | TSN function | Stream
+----.----+ +--.---------.--+
\__________/ \______
TSN-unaware
Talker / TSN-Bridge
Listener Relay
<-------- TSN sub-network -------
Figure 9: IP (DetNet) node without TSN functions
IP (DetNet) nodes being TSN-aware can be treated as a combination of
a TSN-unaware Talker/Listener and a TSN-Relay, as shown in Figure 10.
In such cases the IP (DetNet) node MUST provide the TSN sub-network
specific Ethernet encapsulation over the link(s) towards the sub-
network. An TSN-aware IP (DetNet) node MUST support the following
TSN components:
1. For recognizing flows:
* Stream Identification
2. For FRER used inside the TSN domain, additionally:
* Sequencing function
* Sequence encode/decode function
3. For FRER when the node is a replication or elimination point,
additionally:
* Stream splitting function
* Individual recovery function
[Editor's note: Should we added here requirements regarding IEEE
802.1Q C-VLAN component?]
IP (DetNet)
Node-2
<---------------------------------->
...........
<--: Service :-- DetNet flow ------------------
+---------+
|Transport|
+---------+ +---------------+
| L2 | | L2 Relay with |<--- TSN ---
| | | TSN function | Stream
+----.----+ +--.------.---.-+
\__________/ \ \______
\_________
TSN-unaware
Talker / TSN-Bridge
Listener Relay
<----- TSN Sub-network -----
<------ TSN-aware Tlk/Lstn ------->
Figure 10: IP (DetNet) node with TSN functions
A Stream identification component MUST be able to instantiate the
following functions (1) Active Destination MAC and VLAN Stream
identification function, (2) IP Stream identification function and
(3) the related managed objects in Clause 9 of IEEE 802.1CB
[IEEE8021CB]. IP Stream identification function provides a 6-tuple
match.
The Sequence encode/decode function MUST support the Redundancy tag
(R-TAG) format as per Clause 7.8 of IEEE 802.1CB [IEEE8021CB].
7.2. TSN Usage of FRER 7.2. TSN Usage of FRER
[Core point] TSN Streams support DetNet flows may use Frame TSN Streams supporting DetNet flows may use Frame Replication and
Replication and Elimination for Redundancy (FRER) [802.1CB] based on Elimination for Redundancy (FRER) [802.1CB] based on the loss service
the loss service requirements of the TSN Stream, which is derived requirements of the TSN Stream, which is derived from the DetNet
from the DetNet service requirements of the DetNet mapped flow. The service requirements of the DetNet mapped flow. The specific
specific operation of the FRER is not modified by the use of DetNe operation of FRER is not modified by the use of DetNet and follows
and follows IEEE 802.1CB [IEEE8021CB]. IEEE 802.1CB [IEEE8021CB].
7.3. Management and Control Implications FRER function and the provided service recovery is available only
within the TSN sub-network (as shown in Figure 6) as the Stream-ID
and the TSN sequence number are not valid outside the sub-network.
An IP (DetNet) node represents a L3 border and as such it terminates
all related information elements encoded in the L2 frames.
7.3. Procedures
[Editor's note: This section is TBD - covers required behavior of
DetNet node using a TSN underlay.]
7.4. Management and Control Implications
[Editor's note: This section is TBD Covers Creation, mapping, removal [Editor's note: This section is TBD Covers Creation, mapping, removal
of TSN Stream IDs, related parameters and,when needed, configuration of TSN Stream IDs, related parameters and,when needed, configuration
of FRER. Supported by management/control plane.] of FRER. Supported by management/control plane.]
8. Security considerations 8. Security considerations
The security considerations of DetNet in general are discussed in The security considerations of DetNet in general are discussed in
[I-D.ietf-detnet-architecture] and [I-D.ietf-detnet-security]. Other [I-D.ietf-detnet-architecture] and [I-D.ietf-detnet-security]. Other
security considerations will be added in a future version of this security considerations will be added in a future version of this
skipping to change at page 20, line 34 skipping to change at page 27, line 34
Pat Thaler Pat Thaler
Thanks for Stewart Bryant for his extensive review of the previous Thanks for Stewart Bryant for his extensive review of the previous
versions of the document. versions of the document.
12. References 12. References
12.1. Normative references 12.1. Normative references
[RFC0768] Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768,
DOI 10.17487/RFC0768, August 1980,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc768>.
[RFC0791] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791, [RFC0791] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791,
DOI 10.17487/RFC0791, September 1981, DOI 10.17487/RFC0791, September 1981,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc791>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc791>.
[RFC0793] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7,
RFC 793, DOI 10.17487/RFC0793, September 1981,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc793>.
[RFC1812] Baker, F., Ed., "Requirements for IP Version 4 Routers",
RFC 1812, DOI 10.17487/RFC1812, June 1995,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1812>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC2211] Wroclawski, J., "Specification of the Controlled-Load [RFC2211] Wroclawski, J., "Specification of the Controlled-Load
Network Element Service", RFC 2211, DOI 10.17487/RFC2211, Network Element Service", RFC 2211, DOI 10.17487/RFC2211,
September 1997, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2211>. September 1997, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2211>.
[RFC2212] Shenker, S., Partridge, C., and R. Guerin, "Specification [RFC2212] Shenker, S., Partridge, C., and R. Guerin, "Specification
skipping to change at page 21, line 27 skipping to change at page 28, line 41
and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
Tunnels", RFC 3209, DOI 10.17487/RFC3209, December 2001, Tunnels", RFC 3209, DOI 10.17487/RFC3209, December 2001,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3209>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3209>.
[RFC3270] Le Faucheur, F., Wu, L., Davie, B., Davari, S., Vaananen, [RFC3270] Le Faucheur, F., Wu, L., Davie, B., Davari, S., Vaananen,
P., Krishnan, R., Cheval, P., and J. Heinanen, "Multi- P., Krishnan, R., Cheval, P., and J. Heinanen, "Multi-
Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Support of Differentiated Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Support of Differentiated
Services", RFC 3270, DOI 10.17487/RFC3270, May 2002, Services", RFC 3270, DOI 10.17487/RFC3270, May 2002,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3270>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3270>.
[RFC3443] Agarwal, P. and B. Akyol, "Time To Live (TTL) Processing
in Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Networks",
RFC 3443, DOI 10.17487/RFC3443, January 2003,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3443>.
[RFC3473] Berger, L., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label [RFC3473] Berger, L., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol- Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-
Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3473, January 2003, DOI 10.17487/RFC3473, January 2003,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3473>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3473>.
[RFC5129] Davie, B., Briscoe, B., and J. Tay, "Explicit Congestion [RFC4302] Kent, S., "IP Authentication Header", RFC 4302,
Marking in MPLS", RFC 5129, DOI 10.17487/RFC5129, January DOI 10.17487/RFC4302, December 2005,
2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5129>. <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 [RFC5462] Andersson, L. and R. Asati, "Multiprotocol Label Switching
(MPLS) Label Stack Entry: "EXP" Field Renamed to "Traffic (MPLS) Label Stack Entry: "EXP" Field Renamed to "Traffic
Class" Field", RFC 5462, DOI 10.17487/RFC5462, February Class" Field", RFC 5462, DOI 10.17487/RFC5462, February
2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5462>. 2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5462>.
[RFC6003] Papadimitriou, D., "Ethernet Traffic Parameters", [RFC6003] Papadimitriou, D., "Ethernet Traffic Parameters",
RFC 6003, DOI 10.17487/RFC6003, October 2010, RFC 6003, DOI 10.17487/RFC6003, October 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6003>. <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 [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>. May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8200] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 [RFC8200] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200, (IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017, DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8200>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8200>.
12.2. Informative references 12.2. Informative references
skipping to change at page 22, line 33 skipping to change at page 29, line 51
[G.8275.2] [G.8275.2]
International Telecommunication Union, "Precision time International Telecommunication Union, "Precision time
protocol telecom profile for phase/time synchronization protocol telecom profile for phase/time synchronization
with partial timing support from the network", ITU-T with partial timing support from the network", ITU-T
G.8275.2/Y.1369.2 G.8275.2, June 2016, G.8275.2/Y.1369.2 G.8275.2, June 2016,
<https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-G.8275.2/en>. <https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-G.8275.2/en>.
[I-D.ietf-detnet-architecture] [I-D.ietf-detnet-architecture]
Finn, N., Thubert, P., Varga, B., and J. Farkas, Finn, N., Thubert, P., Varga, B., and J. Farkas,
"Deterministic Networking Architecture", draft-ietf- "Deterministic Networking Architecture", draft-ietf-
detnet-architecture-05 (work in progress), May 2018. detnet-architecture-08 (work in progress), September 2018.
[I-D.ietf-detnet-dp-sol-mpls] [I-D.ietf-detnet-dp-sol-mpls]
Korhonen, J., Varga, B., "DetNet MPLS Data Plane Korhonen, J. and B. Varga, "DetNet MPLS Data Plane
Encapsulation", 2018. Encapsulation", draft-ietf-detnet-dp-sol-mpls-00 (work in
progress), July 2018.
[I-D.ietf-detnet-flow-information-model]
Farkas, J., Varga, B., rodney.cummings@ni.com, r., Jiang,
Y., and Y. Zha, "DetNet Flow Information Model", draft-
ietf-detnet-flow-information-model-01 (work in progress),
March 2018.
[I-D.ietf-detnet-security] [I-D.ietf-detnet-security]
Mizrahi, T., Grossman, E., Hacker, A., Das, S., Dowdell, Mizrahi, T., Grossman, E., Hacker, A., Das, S., Dowdell,
J., Austad, H., Stanton, K., and N. Finn, "Deterministic J., Austad, H., Stanton, K., and N. Finn, "Deterministic
Networking (DetNet) Security Considerations", draft-ietf- Networking (DetNet) Security Considerations", draft-ietf-
detnet-security-02 (work in progress), April 2018. detnet-security-03 (work in progress), October 2018.
[IEEE1588] [IEEE1588]
IEEE, "IEEE 1588 Standard for a Precision Clock IEEE, "IEEE 1588 Standard for a Precision Clock
Synchronization Protocol for Networked Measurement and Synchronization Protocol for Networked Measurement and
Control Systems Version 2", 2008. Control Systems Version 2", 2008.
[IEEE8021CB] [IEEE8021CB]
Finn, N., "Draft Standard for Local and metropolitan area Finn, N., "Draft Standard for Local and metropolitan area
networks - Seamless Redundancy", IEEE P802.1CB networks - Seamless Redundancy", IEEE P802.1CB
/D2.1 P802.1CB, December 2015, /D2.1 P802.1CB, December 2015,
<http://www.ieee802.org/1/files/private/cb-drafts/ <http://www.ieee802.org/1/files/private/cb-drafts/
d2/802-1CB-d2-1.pdf>. d2/802-1CB-d2-1.pdf>.
[IEEE8021Q] [IEEE8021Q]
IEEE 802.1, "Standard for Local and metropolitan area IEEE 802.1, "Standard for Local and metropolitan area
networks--Bridges and Bridged Networks (IEEE Std 802.1Q- networks--Bridges and Bridged Networks (IEEE Std 802.1Q-
2014)", 2014, <http://standards.ieee.org/about/get/>. 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. [RFC2205] Braden, R., Ed., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and S.
Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1 Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1
Functional Specification", RFC 2205, DOI 10.17487/RFC2205, Functional Specification", RFC 2205, DOI 10.17487/RFC2205,
September 1997, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2205>. September 1997, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2205>.
[RFC3670] Moore, B., Durham, D., Strassner, J., Westerinen, A., and [RFC3670] Moore, B., Durham, D., Strassner, J., Westerinen, A., and
W. Weiss, "Information Model for Describing Network Device W. Weiss, "Information Model for Describing Network Device
QoS Datapath Mechanisms", RFC 3670, DOI 10.17487/RFC3670, QoS Datapath Mechanisms", RFC 3670, DOI 10.17487/RFC3670,
January 2004, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3670>. January 2004, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3670>.
[RFC5777] Korhonen, J., Tschofenig, H., Arumaithurai, M., Jones, M.,
Ed., and A. Lior, "Traffic Classification and Quality of
Service (QoS) Attributes for Diameter", RFC 5777,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5777, February 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5777>.
[RFC6434] Jankiewicz, E., Loughney, J., and T. Narten, "IPv6 Node
Requirements", RFC 6434, DOI 10.17487/RFC6434, December
2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6434>.
[RFC7551] Zhang, F., Ed., Jing, R., and R. Gandhi, Ed., "RSVP-TE [RFC7551] Zhang, F., Ed., Jing, R., and R. Gandhi, Ed., "RSVP-TE
Extensions for Associated Bidirectional Label Switched Extensions for Associated Bidirectional Label Switched
Paths (LSPs)", RFC 7551, DOI 10.17487/RFC7551, May 2015, Paths (LSPs)", RFC 7551, DOI 10.17487/RFC7551, May 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7551>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7551>.
[RFC7657] Black, D., Ed. and P. Jones, "Differentiated Services [RFC7657] Black, D., Ed. and P. Jones, "Differentiated Services
(Diffserv) and Real-Time Communication", RFC 7657, (Diffserv) and Real-Time Communication", RFC 7657,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7657, November 2015, DOI 10.17487/RFC7657, November 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7657>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7657>.
 End of changes. 83 change blocks. 
256 lines changed or deleted 655 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.47. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/