draft-ietf-detnet-dp-sol-ip-01.txt   draft-ietf-detnet-dp-sol-ip-02.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: April 24, 2019 Ericsson Expires: September 11, 2019 Ericsson
October 21, 2018 March 10, 2019
DetNet IP Data Plane Encapsulation DetNet IP Data Plane Encapsulation
draft-ietf-detnet-dp-sol-ip-01 draft-ietf-detnet-dp-sol-ip-02
Abstract Abstract
This document specifies Deterministic Networking data plane operation This document specifies the Deterministic Networking data plane when
for IP encapsulated user data. operating in an IP packet switched network.
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.
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 April 24, 2019. This Internet-Draft will expire on September 11, 2019.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2019 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.3. Requirements language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.3. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. DetNet IP Data Plane Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. DetNet IP Data Plane Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. DetNet IP Data Plane Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4. DetNet IP Data Plane Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1. End-system specific considerations . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4.1. End-System Specific Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.2. DetNet domain specific considerations . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.2. DetNet Domain-Specific Considerations . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2.1. DetNet Routers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.2.1. DetNet Routers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.3. Networks with multiple technology segments . . . . . . . 11 4.3. Networks With Multiple Technology Segments . . . . . . . 11
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 4.8. Time Synchronization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5. Management and control plane considerations . . . . . . . . . 15 5. Management and Control Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5.1. Explicit routes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 5.1. Flow Identification and Aggregation . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5.2. Service protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 5.2. Explcit Routes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
5.3. Congestion protection and latency control . . . . . . . . 15 5.3. Contention Loss and Jitter Reduction . . . . . . . . . . 16
5.4. Flow aggregation control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 5.4. Bidirectional Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5.5. Bidirectional traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 5.5. DetNet Controller (Control and Management) Plane
6. DetNet IP Data Plane Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
6.1. DetNet IP Flow Identification Procedures . . . . . . . . 16 6. DetNet IP Data Plane Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
6.1.1. IP Header Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 6.1. DetNet IP Flow Identification Procedures . . . . . . . . 19
6.1.2. Other Protocol Header Information . . . . . . . . . . 18 6.1.1. IP Header Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
6.1.2. Other Protocol Header Information . . . . . . . . . . 21
6.1.3. Flow Identification Management and Control 6.1.3. Flow Identification Management and Control
Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
6.2. Forwarding Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 6.2. Forwarding Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
6.3. DetNet IP Traffic Treatment Procedures . . . . . . . . . 20 6.3. DetNet IP Traffic Treatment Procedures . . . . . . . . . 23
6.4. Aggregation Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 6.4. Aggregation Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
7. Mapping IP DetNet Flows to IEEE 802.1 TSN . . . . . . . . . . 21 7. IP over DetNet MPLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
7.1. TSN Stream ID Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 7.1. IP Over DetNet MPLS Data Plane Scenarios . . . . . . . . 24
7.2. TSN Usage of FRER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 7.2. DetNet IP over DetNet MPLS Encapsulation . . . . . . . . 27
7.3. Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 7.3. DetNet IP over DetNet MPLS Flow Identification
7.4. Management and Control Implications . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
8. Security considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 7.4. DetNet IP over DetNet MPLS Traffic Treatment Procedures . 29
9. IANA considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 8. Mapping DetNet IP Flows to IEEE 802.1 TSN . . . . . . . . . . 29
10. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 8.1. TSN Stream ID Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
11. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 8.2. TSN Usage of FRER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 8.3. Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
12.1. Normative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 8.4. Management and Control Implications . . . . . . . . . . . 34
12.2. Informative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Appendix A. Example of DetNet data plane operation . . . . . . . 31 10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Appendix B. Example of pinned paths using IPv6 . . . . . . . . . 31 11. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 12. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
13.1. Normative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
13.2. Informative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Appendix A. Example of DetNet Data Plane Operation . . . . . . . 43
Appendix B. Example of Pinned Paths Using IPv6 . . . . . . . . . 43
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
1. Introduction 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 and higher layer protocol header information is used to existing IP and higher layer protocol header information is used to
support flow identification and DetNet service delivery. support flow identification and DetNet service delivery.
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 sub-layers: a service sub-layer and a forwarding
The service layer is used to provide DetNet service protection and sub-layer. The service sub-layer is used to provide DetNet service
reordering. The transport layer is used to provides congestion protection and reordering. The forwarding sub-layer is used to
protection (low loss, assured latency, and limited reordering). As provides congestion protection (low loss, assured latency, and
no DetNet specific headers are added to support IP DetNet flows, only limited reordering). As no DetNet specific headers are added to
the transport layer functions are supported using the IP DetNet support DetNet IP flows, only the forwarding sub-layer functions are
defined by this document. Service protection can be provided on a supported using the DetNet IP defined by this document. Service
per sub-net basis using technologies such as MPLS protection can be provided on a per sub-net basis using technologies
[I-D.ietf-detnet-dp-sol-mpls] and IEEE802.1 TSN. such as MPLS [I-D.ietf-detnet-dp-sol-mpls] and IEEE802.1 TSN.
This document provides an overview of the DetNet IP data plane in 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 procedures 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 8 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], and the reader is
assumed to be familiar with that document. assumed to be familiar with that document and its terminology.
2.2. Abbreviations 2.2. Abbreviations
The following abbreviations used in this document: The following abbreviations used in this document:
CE Customer Edge equipment. CE Customer Edge equipment.
CoS Class of Service. CoS Class of Service.
DetNet Deterministic Networking. DetNet Deterministic Networking.
skipping to change at page 4, line 34 skipping to change at page 4, line 42
PW Pseudowire. PW Pseudowire.
QoS Quality of Service. QoS Quality of Service.
TE Traffic Engineering. TE Traffic Engineering.
TSN Time-Sensitive Networking, TSN is a Task Group of the TSN Time-Sensitive Networking, TSN is a Task Group of the
IEEE 802.1 Working Group. IEEE 802.1 Working Group.
2.3. Requirements language 2.3. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"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
skipping to change at page 5, line 17 skipping to change at page 5, line 29
on the delivery differentiated services (DiffServ) and "6-tuple" on the delivery differentiated services (DiffServ) and "6-tuple"
based flow identification. based flow identification.
DetNet flow aggregation may be enabled via the use of wildcards, DetNet flow aggregation may be enabled via the use of wildcards,
masks, prefixes and ranges. IP tunnels may also be used to support masks, prefixes and ranges. IP tunnels may also be used to support
flow aggregation. In these cases, it is expected that DetNet aware flow aggregation. In these cases, it is expected that DetNet aware
intermediate nodes will provide DetNet service assurance on the intermediate nodes will provide DetNet service assurance on the
aggregate through resource allocation and congestion control aggregate through resource allocation and congestion control
mechanisms. mechanisms.
IP DetNet Relay Relay IP DetNet DetNet IP Relay Relay DetNet IP
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| |Forwarding| |Forwarding| |Forwarding| |Forwarding|
+-------.-+ +-.-----.-+ +-.-----.-+ +---.-----+ +--------.-+ +-.------.-+ +-.---.----+ +-------.--+
: Link : \ ,-----. / / ,-----. \ : Link : \ ,-----. / \ ,-----. /
+........+ +-----[ Sub ]----+ +-[ Sub ]-+ +......+ +----[ Sub ]----+ +-[ Sub ]-+
[Network] [Network] [Network] [Network]
`-----' `-----' `-----' `-----'
|<--------------------- DetNet 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 forwarding 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 sub-layer function, e.g., PREOF. IEEE 802.1 TSN
example sub-network type which can provide support for DetNet flows is an example sub-network type which can provide support for DetNet
and service. The mapping of IP DetNet flows to TSN streams and TSN flows and service. The mapping of DetNet IP flows to TSN streams and
protection mechanisms is covered in Section 7. TSN protection mechanisms is covered in Section 8.
Note: The sub-network can represent a TSN, MPLS or IP network Note: The sub-network can represent a TSN, MPLS or IP network
segment. segment.
IP DetNet Relay Transit Relay IP DetNet DetNet IP Relay Transit Relay DetNet IP
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 ->| : | | | | : |<- DN MPLS flow ->| : | |
+---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +----------+ +---------+ +----------+ +---------+ +----------+
|Transport| |Trp| |Trp| |Transport| |Trp| |Trp| |Transport| |Forwarding| |Fwd| |Fwd| |Forwarding| |Fwd| |Fwd| |Forwarding|
+-------.-+ +-.-+ +-.-+ +---.---.-+ +-.-+ +-.-+ +---.-----+ +--------.-+ +-.-+ +-.-+ +---.----.-+ +-.-+ +-.-+ +----.-----+
: Link : / ,-----. \ : Link : / ,-----. \ : Link : / ,-----. \ : Link : / ,-----. \
+........+ +-[ Sub ]-+ +........+ +--[ Sub ]--+ +.......+ +-[ Sub ]-+ +.......+ +--[ Sub ]--+
[Network] [Network] [Network] [Network]
`-----' `-----' `-----' `-----'
|<---- DetNet MPLS ---->| |<---- DetNet MPLS --->|
|<--------------------- DetNet IP -------------------->| |<--------------------- DetNet IP ------------------->|
Figure 2: DetNet (DN) IP Over MPLS Network Figure 2: DetNet IP Over DetNet MPLS Network
Figure 2 illustrates a variant of Figure 1, with an MPLS based DetNet Figure 2 illustrates a variant of Figure 1, with an MPLS based DetNet
network as a sub-network between the relay nodes. It shows a more network as a sub-network between the relay nodes. It shows a more
complex DetNet enabled IP network where an IP flow is mapped to one complex DetNet enabled IP network where an IP flow is mapped to one
or more PWs and MPLS (TE) LSPs. The end systems still originate IP or more PWs and MPLS (TE) LSPs. The end systems still originate IP
encapsulated traffic that is identified as DetNet flows. The relay encapsulated traffic that is identified as DetNet flows. The relay
nodes follow procedures defined in [I-D.ietf-detnet-dp-sol-mpls] to nodes follow procedures defined in Section 7 to map each DetNet flow
map each DetNet flow to MPLS LSPs. While not shown, relay nodes can to MPLS LSPs. While not shown, relay nodes can provide service sub-
provide service layer functions such as PREOF over the MPLS transport layer functions such as PREOF using DetNet over MPLS, and this is
layer, and this is indicated by the solid line for the MPLS facing indicated by the solid line for the MPLS facing portion of the
portion of the Service component. Note that the Transit node is MPLS Service component. Note that the Transit node is MPLS (TE) LSP aware
(TE) LSP aware and performs switching based on MPLS labels, and need and performs switching based on MPLS labels, and need not have any
not have any specific knowledge of the DetNet service or the specific knowledge of the DetNet service or the corresponding DetNet
corresponding DetNet flow identification. See flow identification. See Section 7 for details on the mapping of IP
[I-D.ietf-detnet-dp-sol-mpls] for details on the mapping of IP flows flows to MPLS, and [I-D.ietf-detnet-dp-sol-mpls] for general support
to MPLS as well as general support for DetNet services using MPLS. of 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:----- IP flow ----:Svc: :IP :-->| IP | | IP |<--:IP : :Svc:----- IP flow ----:Svc: :IP :-->| IP |
+---------+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---------+ +----------+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +----------+
|Transport| |Trp| |Trp| |Trp| |Trp| |Transport| |Forwarding| |Fwd| |Fwd| |Fwd| |Fwd| |Forwarding|
+-------.-+ +-.-+ +-.-+ +-.-+ +-.-+ +---.-----+ +--------.-+ +-.-+ +-.-+ +-.-+ +-.-+ +---.------+
: 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 DetNet IP Domain
Figure 3 illustrates another variant of Figure 1 where the end Figure 3 illustrates another variant of Figure 1 where the end
systems are not DetNet aware. In this case, edge nodes sit at the systems are not DetNet aware. In this case, edge nodes sit at the
boundary of the DetNet domain and provide DetNet service proxies for boundary of the DetNet domain and provide DetNet service proxies for
the end applications by initiating and terminating DetNet service for the end applications by initiating and terminating DetNet service for
the application's 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.
Non-DetNet and DetNet IP packets are identical on the wire. From Non-DetNet and DetNet IP packets are identical on the wire. From
skipping to change at page 8, line 13 skipping to change at page 8, line 13
flow basis: flow basis:
Congestion protection and latency control: Congestion protection and latency control:
Usage of allocated resources (queuing, policing, shaping) to Usage of allocated resources (queuing, policing, shaping) to
ensure that the congestion-related loss and latency/jitter ensure that the congestion-related loss and latency/jitter
requirements of a DetNet flow are met. requirements of a DetNet flow are met.
Explicit routes: Explicit routes:
Use of a specific path for a flow. This limits miss-ordering and Use of a specific path for a flow. This limits misordering and
can improve delivery of deterministic latency. can improve delivery of deterministic latency.
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 in order to restore explicit path after a failure is detected in order to restore
delivery of the required DetNet service characteristics. Path delivery of the required DetNet service characteristics. Path
changes, even in the case of failure recovery, can lead to the out changes, even in the case of failure recovery, can lead to the out
of order delivery of data. of order delivery of data.
skipping to change at page 8, line 45 skipping to change at page 8, line 45
For example, to support identification of misbehaving flows. For example, to support identification of misbehaving flows.
Recognize flow(s) for analytics: Recognize flow(s) for analytics:
For example, increase counters. For example, increase counters.
Correlate events with flows: Correlate events with flows:
For example, unexpected loss. For example, unexpected loss.
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. This document deals only with IP end systems. The end systems. This document deals only with IP end systems. The
protocols used by an IP end system are specific to an application and protocols used by an IP end system are specific to an application and
end systems peer with end systems using the same application end systems peer with end systems using the same application
encapsulation format. This said, DetNet's use of 6-tuple IP flow encapsulation format. This said, DetNet's use of 6-tuple IP flow
identification means that DetNet must be aware of not only the format 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 of the IP header, but also of the next protocol carried within an IP
packet. packet.
When IP end systems are DetNet aware, no application-level or When IP end systems are DetNet aware, no application-level or
service-level proxy functions are needed inside the DetNet domain. service-level proxy functions are needed inside the DetNet domain.
For DetNet unaware IP end systems service-level proxy functions are For DetNet unaware IP end systems service-level proxy functions are
needed inside the DetNet domain. 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 means that packets are appropriately forwarding packets, this means that packets are appropriately shaped
shaped on transmission and received appropriate traffic treatment on on transmission and received appropriate traffic treatment on the
the connected sub-network, see Section 4.6 and Section 4.2.1 for more connected sub-network, see Section 4.6 and Section 4.2.1 for more
details. When receiving packets, this means that there are details. When receiving packets, this means that there are
appropriate local node resources, e.g., buffers, to receive and appropriate local node resources, 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 IP 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.
From a connection type perspective two scenarios are identified: From a connection type perspective two scenarios are identified:
1. DN attached: end system is directly connected to an edge node or 1. DN attached: end system is directly connected to an edge node or
end system is behind a sub-network. (See ES1 and ES2 in figure end system is behind a sub-network. (See ES1 and ES2 in figure
below) below)
2. DN integrated: end system is part of the DetNet domain. (See ES3 2. DN integrated: end system is part of the DetNet domain. (See ES3
in figure below) in figure below)
L3 (IP) end systems may use any of these connection types. DetNet L3 (IP) end systems may use any of these connection types. DetNet
domain MUST allow communication between any end-systems using the domain allows communication between any end-systems using the same
same encapsulation format, independent of their connection type and encapsulation format, independent of their connection type and DetNet
DetNet capability. DN attached end systems have no knowledge about capability. DN attached end systems have no knowledge about the
the DetNet domain and its encapsulation format. See Figure 4 for L3 DetNet domain and its encapsulation format. See Figure 4 for L3 end
end system connection scenarios. system connection scenarios.
____+----+ ____+----+
+----+ _____ / | ES3| +----+ _____ / | ES3|
| ES1|____ / \__/ +----+___ | ES1|____ / \__/ +----+___
+----+ \ / \ +----+ \ / \
+ | + |
____ \ _/ ____ \ _/
+----+ __/ \ +__ DetNet domain / +----+ __/ \ +__ DetNet domain /
| ES2|____/ L2/L3 |___/ \ __ __/ | ES2|____/ L2/L3 |___/ \ __ __/
+----+ \_______/ \_______/ \___/ +----+ \_______/ \_______/ \___/
skipping to change at page 10, line 47 skipping to change at page 10, line 47
| X | | X | | X | | X |
+======+ +------+ +======+ +------+
End-system | IP | | IP | End-system | IP | | IP |
-----+------+-------+======+--- --+======+-- -----+------+-------+======+--- --+======+--
DetNet |L2/SbN| |L2/SbN| DetNet |L2/SbN| |L2/SbN|
+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
Figure 5: Encapsulation of DetNet Routing in simplified IP service L3 Figure 5: Encapsulation of DetNet Routing in simplified IP service L3
end-systems end-systems
The DetNet Service Flow MUST be mapped to the link / sub-network The DetNet Service Flow is mapped to the link / sub-network specific
specific resources using an underlying system specific means. This resources using an underlying system specific means. This implies
implies each DetNet aware node on path MUST look into the transported each DetNet aware node on path looks into the forwarded DetNet
DetNet Service Flow packet and utilize e.g., a 5- (or 6-) tuple to Service Flow packet and utilize e.g., a 5- (or 6-) tuple to find out
find out the required mapping within a node. the required mapping within a node.
As noted earlier, the Service Protection is done within each link / As noted earlier, the Service Protection is done within each link /
sub-network independently using the domain specific mechanisms (due sub-network independently using the domain specific mechanisms (due
the lack of a unified end to end sequencing information that would be the lack of a unified end to end sequencing information that would be
available for intermediate nodes). Therefore, service protection (if available for intermediate nodes). Therefore, service protection (if
any) cannot be provided end-to-end, only within sub-networks. This 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 is shown for a three sub-network scenario in Figure 6, where each
sub-network can provide service protection between its borders. sub-network can provide service protection between its borders.
______ ______
skipping to change at page 11, line 39 skipping to change at page 11, line 39
+---+ +-----R------------+ +-----+ +---+ +-----R------------+ +-----+
Figure 6: Replication and elimination in sub-networks for DetNet IP Figure 6: Replication and elimination in sub-networks for DetNet IP
networks networks
If end to end service protection is desired that can be implemented, If end to end service protection is desired that can be implemented,
for example, by the DetNet end systems using Layer-4 (L4) transport for example, by the DetNet end systems using Layer-4 (L4) transport
protocols or application protocols. However, these are out of scope protocols or application protocols. However, these are out of scope
of this document. 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
mapping the service requirements of each flow to appropriate sub- mapping the service requirements of each flow to appropriate sub-
network mechanisms. Such mapping is sub-network technology specific. network mechanisms. Such mapping is sub-network technology specific.
The mapping of IP DetNet Flows to MPLS is covered The mapping of DetNet IP Flows to MPLS is covered Section 7. The
[I-D.ietf-detnet-dp-sol-mpls]. The mapping of IP DetNet Flows to mapping of IP DetNet Flows to IEEE 802.1 TSN is covered in Section 8.
IEEE 802.1 TSN is covered in Section 7.
______ ______
_____ / \__ _____ / \__
____ / \__/ \___ ______ ____ / \__/ \___ ______
+----+ __/ +======+ +==+ \ +----+ +----+ __/ +======+ +==+ \ +----+
|src |__/ Seg1 ) | | \ Seg3 \__| dst| |src |__/ Seg1 ) | | \ Seg3 \__| dst|
+----+ \_______+ \ Segment-2 | \+_____/ +----+ +----+ \_______+ \ Segment-2 | \+_____/ +----+
\======+__ _+===/ \======+__ _+===/
\ __ __/ \ __ __/
\_______/ \___/ \_______/ \___/
skipping to change at page 13, line 7 skipping to change at page 13, line 7
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
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 15 skipping to change at page 14, line 15
nodes of a DetNet network must: nodes of a DetNet network must:
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
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.
DetNet flows transported via IP have more limited aggregation DetNet flows forwarded via IP have more limited aggregation options,
options, due to the available traffic flow identification fields of due to the available traffic flow identification fields of the IP
the IP solution. One available approach is to manage the resources solution. One available approach is to manage the resources
associated with a DSCP identified traffic class and to map (remark) associated with a DSCP identified traffic class and to map (remark)
individually controlled DetNet flows onto that traffic class. This individually controlled DetNet flows onto that traffic class. This
approach also requires that nodes support aggregation ensure that approach also requires that nodes support aggregation ensure that
traffic from aggregated LSPs are placed (shaped/policed/enqueued) in traffic from aggregated LSPs are placed (shaped/policed/enqueued) in
a fashion that ensures the required DetNet service is preserved. a fashion that ensures the required DetNet service is preserved.
In both the MPLS and IP cases, additional details of the traffic In both the MPLS and IP cases, additional details of the traffic
control capabilities needed at a DetNet-aware node may be covered in control capabilities needed at a DetNet-aware node may be covered in
the new service descriptions mentioned above or in separate future the new service descriptions mentioned above or in separate future
documents. Management and control plane mechanisms will also need to documents. Management and control plane mechanisms will also need to
ensure that the service required on the aggregate flow (H-LSP or ensure that the service required on the aggregate flow (H-LSP or
DSCP) are provided, which may include the discarding or remarking DSCP) are provided, which may include the discarding or remarking
mentioned in the previous sections. mentioned in the previous sections.
4.8. Time synchronization 4.8. Time Synchronization
While time synchronization can be important both from the perspective While time synchronization can be important both from the perspective
of operating the DetNet network itself and from the perspective of of operating the DetNet network itself and from the perspective of
DetNet-based applications, time synchronization is outside the scope DetNet-based applications, time synchronization is outside the scope
of this document. This said, a DetNet node can also support time of this document. This said, a DetNet node can also support time
synchronization or distribution mechanisms. synchronization or distribution mechanisms.
For example, [RFC8169] describes a method of recording the packet For example, [RFC8169] describes a method of recording the packet
queuing time in an MPLS LSR on a packet by per packet basis and queuing time in an MPLS LSR on a packet by per packet basis and
forwarding this information to the egress edge system. This allows forwarding this information to the egress edge system. This allows
compensation for any variable packet queuing delay to be applied at compensation for any variable packet queuing delay to be applied at
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 Considerations
[Editor's note: This section needs to be different for MPLS and IP While management plane and control planes are traditionally
solutions. Most solutions are technology dependent.] considered separately, from the Data Plane perspective there is no
practical difference based on the origin of flow provisioning
information, and the DetNet architecture
[I-D.ietf-detnet-architecture] refers to these collectively as the
'Controller Plane'. This document therefore does not distinguish
between information provided by distributed control plane protocols,
e.g., IGP routing protocols, or by centralized network management
mechanisms, e.g., RestConf [RFC8040], YANG [RFC7950], and the Path
Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) [RFC8283]
[I-D.ietf-teas-pce-native-ip] or any combination thereof. Specific
considerations and requirements for the DetNet Controller Plane are
discussed in Section 5.5.
While management plane and control plane are traditionally considered 5.1. Flow Identification and Aggregation
separately, from the Data Plane perspective there is no practical
difference based on the origin of flow provisioning information.
This document therefore does not distinguish between information
provided by a control plane protocol, e.g., RSVP-TE [RFC3209] and
[RFC3473], or by a network management mechanisms, e.g., RestConf
[RFC8040] and YANG [RFC7950].
[Editor's note: This section is a work in progress. discuss here Section 3 introduces the use of the IP "6-tuple" for flow
what kind of enhancements are needed for DetNet and specifically for identification, and Section 4.6 goes on to discuss how identified
PREOF and DetNet zero congest loss and latency control. Need to flows use specific QoS mechanisms for flow-specific traffic
cover both traffic control (queuing) and connection control (control treatment, including path control and resource allocation.
plane).] Section 6.1 contains detailed DetNet IP flow identification
procedures. Flow identification will play an important role for the
DetNet controller plane.
5.1. Explicit routes Section 4.7 and Section 6.4 discuss the use of flow aggregation in
DetNet. Flow aggregation can be accomplished using any of the
6-tuple fields defined in Section 6.1, using a DSCP identified
traffic class or other field. It will be the responsibility of the
DetNet controller plane to be able to properly provision the use of
these aggregation mechanisms. These requirements are included in
Section 5.5.
[Editor's note: this is TBD.] 5.2. Explcit Routes
5.2. Service protection Explicit routes are used to ensure that packets are routed through
the resources that have been reserved for them, and hence provide the
DetNet application with the required service. A requirement for the
DetNet Controller Plane will be the ability to assign a particular
identified DetNet IP flow to a path through the DetNet domain that
has been assigned the required nodal resources to provide the
appropriate traffic treatment for the flow, and also to include
particular links as a part of the path that are able to support the
DetNet flow, for example by using IEEE 802.1 TSN links (as discussed
in Section 8). Further considerations and requirements for the
DetNet Controller Plane are discussed in Section 5.5.
[Editor's note: this is TBD.] Whether configuring, calculating and instantiating these routes is a
single-stage or multi-stage process, or in a centralized or
distributed manner, is out of scope of this document.
5.3. Congestion protection and latency control There are several of approaches that could be used to provide
explicit routes and resource allocation in the DetNet layer. For
example:
[Editor's note: this is TBD.] o The path could be explicitly set up by a controller which
calculates the path and explicitly configures each node along that
path with the appropriate forwarding and resource allocation
information.
5.4. Flow aggregation control o The path could be used a distributed control plane such as RSVP
[RFC2205] or RSVP-TE [RFC3473] extended to support DetNet IP
flows.
[Editor's note: this is TBD.] o The path could be implemented using IPv6-based segment routing
when extended to support resource allocation.
5.5. Bidirectional traffic See Section 5.5 for further discussion of these alternatives. In
addition, [RFC2386] contains useful background information on QoS-
based routing, and [RFC5575] discusses a specific mechanism used by
BGP for traffic flow specification and policy-based routing.
[Editor's note: This is managed at the management plane or controller 5.3. Contention Loss and Jitter Reduction
level.]
Some DetNet applications generate bidirectional traffic. While the As discussed in Section 1, this document does not specify the
DetNet data plane must support bidirectional DetNet flows, there are mechanisms needed to eliminate contention loss or reduce jitter for
no special bidirectional features with respect to the data plane DetNet flows at the DetNet forwarding sub-layer. The ability to
other than need for the two directions take the same paths. That is manage node and link resources to be able to provide these functions
to say that bidirectional DetNet flows are solely represented at the will be a necessary part of the DetNet controller plane. It will
management and control plane levels, without specific support or also be necessary to be able to control the required queuing
knowledge within the DetNet data plane. Fate sharing and associated mechanisms used to provide these functions along a flow's path
vs co-routed bidirectional flows can be managed at the control level. through the network. See Section 6.3 and Section 5.5 for further
Note, that there is no stated requirement for bidirectional DetNet discussion of these requirements.
flows to be supported using the same 6-tuple in each direction.
Control mechanisms will need to support such bidirectional flows but 5.4. Bidirectional Traffic
such mechanisms are out of scope of this document. An example
control plane solution for MPLS can be found in [RFC7551]. Some DetNet applications generate bidirectional traffic. Although
this document discusses the DetNet IP data plane, MPLS definitions
[RFC5654] are useful to illustrate terms such as associated
bidirectional flows and co-routed bidirectional flows. MPLS defines
a point-to-point associated bidirectional LSP as consisting of two
unidirectional point-to-point LSPs, one from A to B and the other
from B to A, which are regarded as providing a single logical
bidirectional forwarding path. This is analogous to standard IP
routing. MPLS defines a point-to-point co-routed bidirectional LSP
as an associated bidirectional LSP which satisfies the additional
constraint that its two unidirectional component LSPs follow the same
path (in terms of both nodes and links) in both directions. An
important property of co-routed bidirectional LSPs is that their
unidirectional component LSPs share fate. In both types of
bidirectional LSPs, resource reservations may differ in each
direction. The concepts of associated bidirectional flows and co-
routed bidirectional flows can also be applied to DetNet IP flows.
While the DetNet IP data plane must support bidirectional DetNet
flows, there are no special bidirectional features with respect to
the data plane other than the need for the two directions of a co-
routed bidirectional flow to take the same path. That is to say that
bidirectional DetNet flows are solely represented at the management
and control plane levels, without specific support or knowledge
within the DetNet data plane. Fate sharing and associated vs. co-
routed bidirectional flows can be managed at the control level.
Control and management mechanisms will need to support bidirectional
flows, but the specification of such mechanisms are out of scope of
this document. An example control plane solution for MPLS can be
found in [RFC7551].
This is further discussed in Section 5.5.
5.5. DetNet Controller (Control and Management) Plane Requirements
While the definition of controller plane for DetNet is out of the
scope of this document, there are particular considerations and
requirements for such that result from the unique characteristics of
the DetNet architecture [I-D.ietf-detnet-architecture] and data plane
as defined herein.
The primary requirements of the DetNet controller plane are that it
must be able to:
o Instantiate DetNet flows in a DetNet domain (which may include
some or all of explicit path determination, link bandwidth
reservations, restricting flows to IEEE 802.1 TSN links, node
buffer and other resource reservations, specification of required
queuing disciplines along the path, ability to manage
bidirectional flows, etc.) as needed for a flow.
o The ability to support DetNet flow aggregation
o Advertise static and dynamic node and link resources such as
capabilities and adjacencies to other network nodes (for dynamic
signaling approaches) or to network controllers (for centralized
approaches)
o Scale to handle the number of DetNet flows expected in a domain
(which may require per-flow signaling or provisioning)
o Provision flow identification information at each of the nodes
along the path, and it may differ depending on the location in the
network and the DetNet functionality.
These requirements, as stated earlier, could be satisfied using
distributed control protocol signaling, centralized network
management provisioning mechanisms, or hybrid combinations of the
two, and could also make use of IPv6-based segment routing.
In the abstract, the results of either distributed signaling or
centralized provisioning are equivalent from a DetNet data plane
perspective - flows are instantiated, explicit routes are determined,
resources are reserved, and packets are forwarded through the domain
using the IP data plane.
However, from a practical and implementation standpoint, they are not
equivalent at all. Some approaches are more scalable than others in
terms of signaling load on the network. Some can take advantage of
global tracking of resources in the DetNet domain for better overall
network resource optimization. Some are more resilient than others
if link, node, or management equipment failures occur. While a
detailed analysis of the control plane alternatives is out of the
scope of this document, the requirements from this document can be
used as the basis of a later analysis of the alternatives.
6. DetNet IP Data Plane Procedures 6. DetNet IP Data Plane Procedures
This section provides DetNet IP data plane procedures. These This section provides DetNet IP data plane procedures. These
procedures have been divided into the following areas: flow procedures have been divided into the following areas: flow
identification, forwarding and traffic treatment. Flow identification, forwarding and traffic treatment. Flow
identification includes those procedures related to matching IP and identification includes those procedures related to matching IP and
higher layer protocol header information to DetNet flow (state) higher layer protocol header information to DetNet flow (state)
information and service requirements. Flow identification is also information and service requirements. Flow identification is also
sometimes called Traffic classification, for example see [RFC5777]. sometimes called Traffic classification, for example see [RFC5777].
skipping to change at page 17, line 40 skipping to change at page 20, line 21
zero (0) effectively means that the field is ignored. zero (0) effectively means that the field is ignored.
6.1.1.2. Destination Address Field 6.1.1.2. Destination Address Field
Implementations of this document MUST support DetNet flow Implementations of this document MUST support DetNet flow
identification based on the Destination Address field of an IP identification based on the Destination Address field of an IP
packet. Implementations SHOULD support longest prefix matching for packet. Implementations SHOULD support longest prefix matching for
this field, see [RFC1812] and [RFC7608]. Note that a prefix length this field, see [RFC1812] and [RFC7608]. Note that a prefix length
of zero (0) effectively means that the field is ignored. of zero (0) effectively means that the field is ignored.
Note: using IP multicast destination address is also allowed. Note: any IP address value is allowed, including IP multicast
destination address.
6.1.1.3. IPv4 Protocol and IPv6 Next Header Fields 6.1.1.3. IPv4 Protocol and IPv6 Next Header Fields
Implementations of this document MUST support DetNet flow Implementations of this document MUST support DetNet flow
identification based on the IPv4 Protocol field when processing IPv4 identification based on the IPv4 Protocol field when processing IPv4
packets, and the IPv6 Next Header Field when processing IPv6 packets. packets, and the IPv6 Next Header Field when processing IPv6 packets.
An implementation MUST support flow identification based based the An implementation MUST support flow identification based based the
next protocol values defined in Section 6.1.2. Other, non-zero next protocol values defined in Section 6.1.2. Other, non-zero
values, SHOULD be used for flow identification. Implementations values, MUST be used for flow identification. Implementations SHOULD
SHOULD allow for these fields to be ignored for a specific DetNet allow for these fields to be ignored for a specific DetNet flow.
flow.
6.1.1.4. IPv4 Type of Service and IPv6 Traffic Class Fields 6.1.1.4. IPv4 Type of Service and IPv6 Traffic Class Fields
These fields are used to support Differentiated Services [RFC2474] These fields are used to support Differentiated Services [RFC2474]
and Explicit Congestion Notification [RFC3168]. Implementations of and Explicit Congestion Notification [RFC3168]. Implementations of
this document MUST support DetNet flow identification based on the this document MUST support DetNet flow identification based on the
IPv4 Type of Service field when processing IPv4 packets, and the IPv6 IPv4 Type of Service field when processing IPv4 packets, and the IPv6
Traffic Class Field when processing IPv6 packets. Implementations Traffic Class Field when processing IPv6 packets. Implementations
MUST support bimask based matching, where one (1) values in the 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 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 in determining a match. Note that a zero (0) value as a bitmask
effectively means that these fields are ignored. effectively means that these fields are ignored.
6.1.1.5. IPv6 Flow Label Field 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 Implementations of this document SHOULD support identification of
DetNet flows based on the IPv6 Flow Label field. Implementations DetNet flows based on the IPv6 Flow Label field. Implementations
that support matching based on this field MUST allow for this fields 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 be ignored for a specific DetNet flow. When this fields is used
to identify a specific DetNet flow, implementations MAY exclude the to identify a specific DetNet flow, implementations MAY exclude the
IPv6 Next Header field and next header information as part of DetNet IPv6 Next Header field and next header information as part of DetNet
flow identification. flow identification.
6.1.2. Other Protocol Header Information 6.1.2. Other Protocol Header Information
Implementations of this document MUST support DetNet flow Implementations of this document MUST support DetNet flow
identification based on header information identified in this identification based on header information identified in this
section. Support for TCP, UDP and IPsec flows are defined. Future section. Support for TCP, UDP and IPsec flows are defined. Future
documents are expected to define support for other protocols. 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 6.1.2.1. TCP and UDP
DetNet flow identification for TCP [RFC0793] and UDP [RFC0768] is DetNet flow identification for TCP [RFC0793] and UDP [RFC0768] is
done based on the Source and Destination Port fields carried in each done based on the Source and Destination Port fields carried in each
protocol's header. These fields share a common format and common protocol's header. These fields share a common format and common
DetNet flow identification procedures. DetNet flow identification procedures.
6.1.2.1.1. Source Port Field 6.1.2.1.1. Source Port Field
Implementations of this document MUST support DetNet flow Implementations of this document MUST support DetNet flow
skipping to change at page 20, line 18 skipping to change at page 22, line 43
o IPv6 flow label field. This field can be optionally used for o IPv6 flow label field. This field can be optionally used for
matching. When used, can be exclusive of matching against the matching. When used, can be exclusive of matching against the
next header field. next header field.
o TCP and UDP Source Port. Exact and wildcard matching is required. o TCP and UDP Source Port. Exact and wildcard matching is required.
Port ranges can optionally be used. Port ranges can optionally be used.
o TCP and UDP Destination Port. Exact and wildcard matching is o TCP and UDP Destination Port. Exact and wildcard matching is
required. Port ranges can optionally be used. required. Port ranges can optionally be used.
This information MUST be provisioned per DetNet flow via
configuration, e.g., via the controller plane described in Section 5.
Information identifying a DetNet flow is ordered and implementations Information identifying a DetNet flow is ordered and implementations
use the first match. This can, for example, be used to provide a use the first match. This can, for example, be used to provide a
DetNet service for a specific UDP flow, with unique Source and DetNet service for a specific UDP flow, with unique Source and
Destination Port field values, while providing a different service Destination Port field values, while providing a different service
for all other flows with that same UDP Destination Port value. for all other flows with that same UDP Destination Port value.
6.2. Forwarding Procedures 6.2. Forwarding Procedures
General requirements for IP nodes are defined in [RFC1122], [RFC1812] General requirements for IP nodes are defined in [RFC1122], [RFC1812]
and [RFC6434], and are not modified by this document. The typical and [RFC6434], and are not modified by this document. The typical
next-hop selection process is impacted by DetNet. Specifically, next-hop selection process is impacted by DetNet. Specifically,
implementations of this document SHALL use management and control implementations of this document SHALL use management and control
information to select the one or more outgoing interfaces and next information to select the one or more outgoing interfaces and next
hops to be used for a packet belonging to a DetNet flow. 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 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 DetNet flow is NOT RECOMMENDED. ECMP MAY be used for non-DetNet
requirements. flows within a DetNet domain.
The above implies that management and control functions will be The above implies that management and control functions will be
defined to support this requirement, e.g., see [YANG-REF-TBD]. defined to support this requirement, e.g., see [YANG-REF-TBD].
6.3. DetNet IP Traffic Treatment Procedures 6.3. DetNet IP Traffic Treatment Procedures
Implementations if this document MUST ensure that a DetNet flow Implementations if this document MUST ensure that a DetNet flow
receives the traffic treatment that is provisioned for it via receives the traffic treatment that is provisioned for it via
management and control functions, e.g., via [YANG-REF-TBD]. General configuration or the controller plane, e.g., via [YANG-REF-TBD].
information on DetNet service can be found in General information on DetNet service can be found in
[I-D.ietf-detnet-flow-information-model]. Typical mechanisms used to [I-D.ietf-detnet-flow-information-model]. Typical mechanisms used to
provide different treatment to different flows includes the provide different treatment to different flows includes the
allocation of system resources (such as queues and buffers) and allocation of system resources (such as queues and buffers) and
provisioning or related parameters (such as shaping, and policing). provisioning or related parameters (such as shaping, and policing).
Support can also be provided via an underlying network technology Support can also be provided via an underlying network technology
such as MPLS [I-D.ietf-detnet-dp-sol-mpls] and IEEE802.1 TSN such as MPLS Section 7 and IEEE802.1 TSN Section 8. Other than in
Section 7. Other than in the TSN case, the specific mechanisms used the TSN case, the specific mechanisms used by a DetNet node to ensure
by a DetNet node to ensure DetNet service delivery requirements are DetNet service delivery requirements are met for supported DetNet
met for supported DetNet flows is outside the scope of this document. flows is outside the scope of this document.
6.4. Aggregation Considerations 6.4. Aggregation Considerations
The use of prefixes, wildcards, bimasks, and port ranges allows a The use of prefixes, wildcards, bitmasks, and port ranges allows a
DetNet node to aggregate DetNet flows. This aggregation can take DetNet node to aggregate DetNet flows. This aggregation can take
place within a single node, when that node maintains state about both place within a single node, when that node maintains state about both
the aggregated and component flows. It can also take place between the aggregated and component flows. It can also take place between
nodes, where one node maintains state about only flow aggregates nodes, where one node maintains state about only flow aggregates
while the other node maintains state on all or a portion of the while the other node maintains state on all or a portion of the
component flows. In either case, the management or control function component flows. In either case, the management or control function
that provisions the aggregate flows must ensure that adequate that provisions the aggregate flows must ensure that adequate
resources are allocated and configured to provide combined service resources are allocated and configured to provide combined service
requirements of the component flows. As DetNet is concerned about requirements of the component flows. As DetNet is concerned about
latency and jitter, more than just bandwidth needs to be considered. latency and jitter, more than just bandwidth needs to be considered.
7. Mapping IP DetNet Flows to IEEE 802.1 TSN 7. IP over DetNet MPLS
[Editor's note: This section is TBD - it covers how IP DetNet flows This section defines how IP encapsulated flows are carried over a
operate over an IEEE 802.1 TSN sub-network. BV to take a pass at DetNet MPLS data plane as defined in [I-D.ietf-detnet-dp-sol-mpls].
filling in this section] As Non-DetNet and DetNet IP packets are identical on the wire, this
section is applicable to any node that supports IP over DetNet MPLS,
and this section refers to both cases as DetNet IP over DetNet MPLS.
This section covers how IP DetNet flows operate over an IEEE 802.1 7.1. IP Over DetNet MPLS Data Plane Scenarios
TSN sub-network. Figure 8 illustrates such a scenario, where two IP
This section provides example uses of IP over DetNet MPLS for
illustrative purposes.
IP DetNet Relay Transit Relay IP DetNet
End System Node Node Node End System
(T-PE) (LSR) (T-PE)
+----------+ +----------+
| Appl. |<------------ End to End Service ----------->| Appl. |
+----------+ .....-----+ +-----..... +----------+
| Service |<--: Service |-- DetNet flow --| Service :-->| Service |
+----------+ +---------+ +----------+ +---------+ +----------+
|Forwarding| |Fwd| |Fwd| |Forwarding| |Fwd| |Fwd| |Forwarding|
+-------.--+ +-.-+ +-.-+ +----.---.-+ +-.-+ +-.-+ +---.------+
: Link : / ,-----. \ : Link : / ,-----. \
+........+ +-[ Sub ]-+ +......+ +-[ Sub ]-+
[Network] [Network]
`-----' `-----'
|<- DN IP->| |<---- DetNet MPLS ---->| |< -DN IP ->|
Figure 8: DetNet IP Over MPLS Network
Figure 8 illustrates DetNet enabled End Systems (hosts), connected to
DetNet (DN) enabled IP networks, operating over a DetNet aware MPLS
network. In this figure, Relay nodes sit at the boundary of the MPLS
domain since the non-MPLS domain is DetNet aware. This figure is
very similar to the DetNet MPLS Network figure in
[I-D.ietf-detnet-dp-sol-mpls]. The primary difference is that the
Relay nodes are at the edges of the MPLS domain and therefore
function as T-PEs, and that service sub-layer functions are not
provided over the DetNet IP network. The transit node functions show
above are identical to those described in
[I-D.ietf-detnet-dp-sol-mpls].
Figure 9 illustrates how relay nodes can provide service protection
over an MPLS domain. In this case, CE1 and CE2 are IP DetNet end
systems which are interconnected via a MPLS domain such as described
in [I-D.ietf-detnet-dp-sol-mpls]. Note that R1 and R3 sit at the
edges of an MPLS domain and therefore are similar to T-PEs, while R2
sits in the middle of the domain and is therefore similar to an S-PE.
DetNet DetNet
IP Service Transit Transit Service IP
DetNet |<-Tnl->| |<-Tnl->| DetNet
End | V 1 V V 2 V | End
System | +--------+ +--------+ +--------+ | System
+---+ | | R1 |=======| R2 |=======| R3 | | +---+
| |-------|._X_....|..DF1..|.__ ___.|..DF3..|...._X_.|-------| |
|CE1| | | \ | | X | | / | | |CE2|
| | | | \_.|..DF2..|._/ \__.|..DF4..|._/ | | | |
+---+ | |=======| |=======| | +---+
^ +--------+ +--------+ +--------+ ^
| Relay Node Relay Node Relay Node |
| (T-PE) (S-PE) (T-PE) |
| |
|<-DN IP-> <-------- DetNet MPLS ---------------> <-DN IP->|
| |
|<-------------- End to End DetNet Service --------------->|
-------------------------- Data Flow ------------------------->
X = Service protection (PRF, PREOF, PEF/POF)
DFx = DetNet member flow x over a TE LSP
Figure 9: DetNet IP Over DetNet MPLS Network
[Editor's note: Text below in this sub-section is rather DetNet MPLS
related, therefore candidate to be deleted in future versions.]
IP Edge Edge IP
End System Node Node End System
(T-PE) (LSR) (T-PE)
+----------+ +....-----+ +-----....+ +----------+
| Appl. |<--:Svc Proxy|-- E2E Service --|Svc Proxy:-->| Appl. |
+----------+ +.....+---+ +---+.....+ +----------+
| IP |<--:IP : |Svc|-- IP/DN Flow ---|Svc| :IP :-->| IP |
+----------+ +---+ +---+ +----------+ +---+ +---+ +----------+
|Forwarding| |Fwd| |Fwd| |Forwarding| |Fwd| |Fwd| |Forwarding|
+-------.--+ +-.-+ +-.-+ +----.---.-+ +-.-+ +-.-+ +---.------+
: Link : / ,-----. \ : Link : / ,-----. \
+........+ +-[ Sub ]-+ +......+ +-[ Sub ]-+
[Network] [Network]
`-----' `-----'
|<--- IP --->| |<----- DetNet MPLS ----->| |<--- IP --->|
Figure 10: Non-DetNet Aware IP Over DetNet MPLS Network
Figure 10 illustrates non-DetNet enabled End Systems (hosts),
connected to DetNet (DN) enabled MPLS network. It differs from
Figure 8 in that the hosts and edge IP networks are not DetNet aware.
In this case, edge nodes sit at the boundary of the MPLS domain since
it is also a DetNet domain boundary. The edge nodes provide DetNet
service proxies for the end applications by initiating and
terminating DetNet service for the application's IP flows. While the
node types differ, there is essentially no difference in data plane
processing between relay and edges. There are likely to be
differences in controller plane operation, particularly when
distributed control plane protocols are used.
Figure 11 illustrates how it is still possible to provided DetNet
service protection for non-DetNet aware end systems. This figures is
basically the same as Figure 9, with the exception that CE1 and CE2
are non-DetNet aware end systems and E1 and E3 are edge nodes that
replace the relay nodes R1 and R3.
IP IP
Non Service Transit Transit Service Non
DetNet |<-Tnl->| |<-Tnl->| DetNet
End | V 1 V V 2 V | End
System | +--------+ +--------+ +--------+ | System
+---+ | | E1 |=======| R2 |=======| E3 | | +---+
| |--------|._X_....|..DF1..|.__ ___.|..DF3..|...._X_.|------| |
|CE1| | | \ | | X | | / | | |CE2|
| | | | \_.|..DF2..|._/ \__.|..DF4..|._/ | | | |
+---+ | |=======| |=======| | +---+
+--------+ +--------+ +--------+
^ Edge Node Relay Node Edge Node^
| (T-PE) (S-PE) (T-PE) |
| |
<--IP-->| <-------- IP Over DetNet MPLS ---------> |<--IP-->
| |
|<------ End to End DetNet Service ------->|
X = Optional service protection (none, PRF, PREOF, PEF/POF)
DFx = DetNet member flow x over a TE LSP
Figure 11: MPLS-Based DetNet (non-MPLS End System)
[Editor's note: End of text being rather DetNet MPLS related.]
7.2. DetNet IP over DetNet MPLS Encapsulation
The basic encapsulation approach is to treat a DetNet IP flow as an
app-flow from the DetNet MPLS app perspective. The corresponding
example DetNet Sub-Network format is shown in Figure 12.
/-> +------+ +------+ +------+ ^
| | X | | X | | X | IP App-Flow :
| +------+ +------+ +------+ :
MPLS <-+ |NProto| |NProto| |NProto| :(1)
App-Flow | +------+ +------+ +------+ :
| | IP | | IP | | IP | v
\-> +---+======+--+======+--+======+-----+
DetNet-MPLS | d-CW | | d-CW | | d-CW | ^
+------+ +------+ +------+ :(2)
|Labels| |Labels| |Labels| v
+---+======+--+======+--+======+-----+
Sub-Network | L2 | | TSN | | UDP |
+------+ +------+ +------+
| IP |
+------+
| L2 |
+------+
(1) DetNet IP Flow
(2) DetNet MPLS Flow
Figure 12: Example DetNet IP over MPLS Sub-Network Formats
In the figure, "IP App-Flow" indicates the payload carried by the
DetNet IP data plane. "IP" and "NProto" indicate the fields
described in Section 6.1.1 and Section 6.1.2, respectively. "MPLS
App-Flow" indicates that an individual DetNet IP flow is the payload
from the perspective of the DetNet MPLS data plane defined in
[I-D.ietf-detnet-dp-sol-mpls].
Per [I-D.ietf-detnet-dp-sol-mpls], the DetNet MPLS data plane uses a
single S-Label to support a single app flow. Section 6.1 states that
a single DetNet flow is identified based on IP, and next level
protocol, header information. It also defines that aggregation is
supported (Section 6.4) through the use of prefixes, wildcards,
bimasks, and port ranges. Collectively, this results in the fairly
straight forward procedures defined in this section.
As shown in Figure 2, DetNet relay nodes are responsible for the
mapping of a DetNet flow, at the service sub-layer, from the IP to
MPLS DetNet data planes and back again. Their related DetNet IP over
DetNet MPLS data plane operation is comprised of two sets of
procedures: the mapping of flow identifiers; and ensuring proper
traffic treatment.
7.3. DetNet IP over DetNet MPLS Flow Identification Procedures
A relay node that sends a DetNet IP flows over a DetNet MPLS network
MUST map a single DetNet IP flow into a single app-flow and MUST
process that app-flow in accordance to the procedures defined in
[I-D.ietf-detnet-dp-sol-mpls] Section 6.2. PRF MAY be supported for
DetNet IP flows sent over an DetNet MPLS network. Aggregation as
defined in Section 6.4 MAY be used to identify an individual DetNet
IP flow. The provisioning of the mapping of DetNet IP flows to
DetNet MPLS app-flow information MUST be supported via configuration,
e.g., via the controller plane described in Section 5.
A relay node MAY be provisioned to handle packets received via the
DetNet MPLS data plane as DetNet IP flows. A single incoming MPLS
app-flow MAY be treated as a single DetNet IP flow, without
examination of IP headers. Alternatively, packets received via the
DetNet MPLS data plane MAY follow the normal DetNet IP flow
identification procedures defined in Section 6.1. An implementation
MUST support the provisioning of handling of received DetNet MPLS
data plane as DetNet IP flows via configuration. Note that such
configuration MAY include support from PEOF on the incoming DetNet
MPLS flow.
7.4. DetNet IP over DetNet MPLS Traffic Treatment Procedures
The traffic treatment required for a particular DetNet IP flow is
provisioned via configuration or the controller plane. When an
DetNet IP flow is sent over DetNet MPLS a relay node MUST ensure that
the provisioned DetNet IP traffic treatment is provided at the
forwarding sub-layer as described in [I-D.ietf-detnet-dp-sol-mpls]
Section 6.2. Note that the PRF function can also be used when
sending over MPLS.
Traffic treatment for DetNet IP flows received over the DetNet MPLS
data plane MUST follow Section 6.3.
8. Mapping DetNet IP Flows to IEEE 802.1 TSN
[Authors note: how do we handle control protocols such as ICMP,
IPsec, etc.]
This section covers how DetNet IP flows operate over an IEEE 802.1
TSN sub-network. Figure 13 illustrates such a scenario, where two IP
(DetNet) nodes are interconnected by a TSN sub-network. Node-1 is (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 single homed and Node-2 is dual-homed. IP nodes can be (1) DetNet IP
End System, (2) IP DetNet Edge or Relay node or (3) IP End System. End System, (2) DetNet IP Edge or Relay node or (3) IP End System.
IP (DetNet) IP (DetNet) IP (DetNet) IP (DetNet)
Node-1 Node-2 Node-1 Node-2
........... ........... ............ ............
<--: Service :-- DetNet flow ---: Service :--> <--: Service :-- DetNet flow ---: Service :-->
+---------+ +---------+ +----------+ +----------+
|Transport| |Transport| |Forwarding| |Forwarding|
+-------.-+ <-TSN Str-> +-.-----.-+ +--------.-+ <-TSN Str-> +-.-----.--+
\ ,-------. / / \ ,-------. / /
+----[ TSN-Sub ]---+ / +----[ TSN-Sub ]---+ /
[ Network ]--------+ [ Network ]--------+
`-------' `-------'
<----------------- DetNet IP ----------------> <----------------- DetNet IP ----------------->
Figure 8: DetNet (DN) Enabled IP Network over a TSN sub-network Figure 13: 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. Furthermore IEEE 802.1CB bounded latency in bridged networks. Furthermore IEEE 802.1CB
[IEEE8021CB] defines frame replication and elimination functions for [IEEE8021CB] defines frame replication and elimination functions for
reliability that should prove both compatible with and useful to, reliability that should prove both compatible with and useful to,
DetNet networks. All these functions have to identify flows those DetNet networks. All these functions have to identify flows those
require TSN treatment. require TSN treatment.
skipping to change at page 22, line 31 skipping to change at page 31, line 5
and VLAN, in order to direct the packet through a specific path and VLAN, in order to direct the packet through a specific path
inside the bridged network. A similar interworking pair at the other inside the bridged network. A similar interworking pair at the other
end of the TSN sub-network would restore the packet to its original end of the TSN sub-network would restore the packet to its original
destination MAC address and VLAN. destination MAC address and VLAN.
Placement of TSN functions depends on the TSN capabilities of nodes. Placement of TSN functions depends on the TSN capabilities of nodes.
IP (DetNet) Nodes may or may not support TSN functions. For a given IP (DetNet) Nodes may or may not support TSN functions. For a given
TSN Stream (i.e., DetNet flow) an IP (DetNet) node is treated as a TSN Stream (i.e., DetNet flow) an IP (DetNet) node is treated as a
Talker or a Listener inside the TSN sub-network. Talker or a Listener inside the TSN sub-network.
7.1. TSN Stream ID Mapping 8.1. TSN Stream ID Mapping
IP DetNet Flow and TSN Stream mapping is based on the active Stream DetNet IP Flow and TSN Stream mapping is based on the active Stream
Identification function, that operates at the frame level. IEEE Identification function, that operates at the frame level. IEEE
802.1CB [IEEE8021CB] defines an Active Destination MAC and VLAN 802.1CB [IEEE8021CB] defines an Active Destination MAC and VLAN
Stream identification function, what can replace some Ethernet header Stream identification function, what can replace some Ethernet header
fields namely (1) the destination MAC-address, (2) the VLAN-ID and fields namely (1) the destination MAC-address, (2) the VLAN-ID and
(3) priority parameters with alternate values. Replacement is (3) priority parameters with alternate values. Replacement is
provided for the frame passed down the stack from the upper layers or provided for the frame passed down the stack from the upper layers or
up the stack from the lower layers. up the stack from the lower layers.
Active Destination MAC and VLAN Stream identification can be used Active Destination MAC and VLAN Stream identification can be used
within a Talker to set flow identity or a Listener to recover the 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 original addressing information. It can be used also in a TSN bridge
that is providing translation as a proxy service for an End System. 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- 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. address, VLAN} pair to match the Stream in the TSN sub-network.
From the TSN sub-network perspective IP DetNet nodes without any TSN [Editor's note: there are no requirement on IP DetNet nodes in case
of "IP (DetNet) node without TSN functions" scenarios. Paragraph and
figure beow are candidates to be deleted in future versions.]
From the TSN sub-network perspective DetNet IP nodes without any TSN
functions can be treated as TSN-unaware Talker or Listener. In such functions can be treated as TSN-unaware Talker or Listener. In such
cases relay nodes in the TSN sub-network MUST modify the Ethernet cases relay nodes in the TSN sub-network MUST modify the Ethernet
encapsulation of the IP DetNet flow (e.g., MAC translation, VLAN-ID encapsulation of the DetNet IP flow (e.g., MAC translation, VLAN-ID
setting, Sequence number addition, etc.) to allow proper TSN specific setting, Sequence number addition, etc.) to allow proper TSN specific
handling of the flow inside the sub-network. This is illustrated in handling of the flow inside the sub-network. This is illustrated in
Figure 9. Figure 14.
IP (DetNet) IP (DetNet)
Node-1 Node-1
<---------> <---------->
........... ............
<--: Service :-- DetNet flow ------------------ <--: Service :-- DetNet flow ------------------
+---------+ +----------+
|Transport| |Forwarding|
+---------+ +---------------+ +----------+ +---------------+
| L2 | | L2 Relay with |<--- TSN ---- | L2 | | L2 Relay with |<--- TSN ----
| | | TSN function | Stream | | | TSN function | Stream
+----.----+ +--.---------.--+ +-----.----+ +--.---------.--+
\__________/ \______ \__________/ \______
TSN-unaware TSN-unaware
Talker / TSN-Bridge Talker / TSN-Bridge
Listener Relay Listener Relay
<-------- TSN sub-network ------- <-------- TSN sub-network -------
Figure 9: IP (DetNet) node without TSN functions Figure 14: IP (DetNet) node without TSN functions
IP (DetNet) nodes being TSN-aware can be treated as a combination of 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. a TSN-unaware Talker/Listener and a TSN-Relay, as shown in Figure 15.
In such cases the IP (DetNet) node MUST provide the TSN sub-network In such cases the IP (DetNet) node MUST provide the TSN sub-network
specific Ethernet encapsulation over the link(s) towards the sub- specific Ethernet encapsulation over the link(s) towards the sub-
network. An TSN-aware IP (DetNet) node MUST support the following network. An TSN-aware IP (DetNet) node MUST support the following
TSN components: TSN components:
1. For recognizing flows: 1. For recognizing flows:
* Stream Identification * Stream Identification
2. For FRER used inside the TSN domain, additionally: 2. For FRER used inside the TSN domain, additionally:
skipping to change at page 24, line 4 skipping to change at page 32, line 47
2. For FRER used inside the TSN domain, additionally: 2. For FRER used inside the TSN domain, additionally:
* Sequencing function * Sequencing function
* Sequence encode/decode function * Sequence encode/decode function
3. For FRER when the node is a replication or elimination point, 3. For FRER when the node is a replication or elimination point,
additionally: additionally:
* Stream splitting function * Stream splitting function
* Individual recovery function * Individual recovery function
[Editor's note: Should we added here requirements regarding IEEE [Editor's note: Should we added here requirements regarding IEEE
802.1Q C-VLAN component?] 802.1Q C-VLAN component?]
IP (DetNet)
IP (DetNet) Node-2
Node-2
<----------------------------------> <---------------------------------->
........... ............
<--: Service :-- DetNet flow ------------------ <--: Service :-- DetNet flow ------------------
+---------+ +----------+
|Transport| |Forwarding|
+---------+ +---------------+ +----------+ +---------------+
| L2 | | L2 Relay with |<--- TSN --- | L2 | | L2 Relay with |<--- TSN ---
| | | TSN function | Stream | | | TSN function | Stream
+----.----+ +--.------.---.-+ +-----.----+ +--.------.---.-+
\__________/ \ \______ \__________/ \ \______
\_________ \_________
TSN-unaware TSN-unaware
Talker / TSN-Bridge Talker / TSN-Bridge
Listener Relay Listener Relay
<----- TSN Sub-network ----- <----- TSN Sub-network -----
<------ TSN-aware Tlk/Lstn -------> <------- TSN-aware Tlk/Lstn ------->
Figure 10: IP (DetNet) node with TSN functions Figure 15: IP (DetNet) node with TSN functions
A Stream identification component MUST be able to instantiate the A Stream identification component MUST be able to instantiate the
following functions (1) Active Destination MAC and VLAN Stream following functions (1) Active Destination MAC and VLAN Stream
identification function, (2) IP Stream identification function and identification function, (2) IP Stream identification function and
(3) the related managed objects in Clause 9 of IEEE 802.1CB (3) the related managed objects in Clause 9 of IEEE 802.1CB
[IEEE8021CB]. IP Stream identification function provides a 6-tuple [IEEE8021CB]. IP Stream identification function provides a 6-tuple
match. match.
The Sequence encode/decode function MUST support the Redundancy tag The Sequence encode/decode function MUST support the Redundancy tag
(R-TAG) format as per Clause 7.8 of IEEE 802.1CB [IEEE8021CB]. (R-TAG) format as per Clause 7.8 of IEEE 802.1CB [IEEE8021CB].
7.2. TSN Usage of FRER 8.2. TSN Usage of FRER
TSN Streams supporting DetNet flows may use Frame Replication and TSN Streams supporting DetNet flows may use Frame Replication and
Elimination for Redundancy (FRER) [802.1CB] based on the loss service Elimination for Redundancy (FRER) [802.1CB] based on the loss service
requirements of the TSN Stream, which is derived from the DetNet requirements of the TSN Stream, which is derived from the DetNet
service requirements of the DetNet mapped flow. The specific service requirements of the DetNet mapped flow. The specific
operation of FRER is not modified by the use of DetNet and follows operation of FRER is not modified by the use of DetNet and follows
IEEE 802.1CB [IEEE8021CB]. IEEE 802.1CB [IEEE8021CB].
FRER function and the provided service recovery is available only FRER function and the provided service recovery is available only
within the TSN sub-network (as shown in Figure 6) as the Stream-ID 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. 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 An IP (DetNet) node represents a L3 border and as such it terminates
all related information elements encoded in the L2 frames. all related information elements encoded in the L2 frames.
7.3. Procedures 8.3. Procedures
[Editor's note: This section is TBD - covers required behavior of [Editor's note: This section is TBD - covers required behavior of a
DetNet node using a TSN underlay.] TSN-aware DetNet node using a TSN underlay.]
7.4. Management and Control Implications This section provides DetNet IP data plane procedures to interwork
with a TSN underlay sub-network when the IP (DetNet) node acts as a
TSN-aware Talker or Listener (see Figure 15). These procedures have
been divided into the following areas: flow identification, mapping
of a DetNet flow to a TSN Stream and ensure proper TSN encapsulation.
Flow identification procedures are described in Section 6.1. A TSN-
aware IP (DetNet) node SHALL support the Stream Identification TSN
components as per IEEE 802.1CB [IEEE8021CB].
Implementations of this document SHALL use management and control
information to map a DetNet flow to a TSN Stream. N:1 mapping
(aggregating DetNet flows in a single TSN Stream) SHALL be supported.
The management or control function that provisions flow mapping SHALL
ensure that adequate resources are allocated and configured to
provide proper service requirements of the mapped flows.
For proper TSN encapsulation implementations of this document SHALL
support active Stream Identification function as defined in chapter
6.6 in IEEE 802.1CB [IEEE8021CB].
A TSN-aware IP (DetNet) node SHALL support Ethernet encapsulation
with Redundancy tag (R-TAG) as per chapter 7.8 in IEEE 802.1CB
[IEEE8021CB].
Depending whether FRER functions are used in the TSN sub-network to
serve the mapped TSN Stream, a TSN-aware IP (DetNet) node SHALL
support Sequencing function and Sequence encode/decode function as
per chapter 7.4 and 7.6 in IEEE 802.1CB [IEEE8021CB]. Furthermore
when a TSN-aware IP (DetNet) node acting as a replication or
elimination point for FRER it SHALL implement the Stream splitting
function and the Individual recovery function as per chapter 7.7 and
7.5 in IEEE 802.1CB [IEEE8021CB].
8.4. Management and Control Implications
[Editor's note: This section is TBD Covers Creation, mapping, removal [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 DetNet flow and TSN Stream mapping related information are required
only for TSN-aware IP (DetNet) nodes. From the Data Plane
perspective there is no practical difference based on the origin of
flow mapping related information (management plane or control plane).
TSN-aware DetNet IP nodes are member of both the DetNet domain and
the TSN sub-network. Within the TSN sub-network the TSN-aware IP
(DetNet) node has a TSM-aware Talker/Listener role, so TSN specific
management and control plane functionalities must be implemented.
There are many similarities in the management plane techniques used
in DetNet and TSN, but that is not the case for the control plane
protocols. For example, RSVP-TE and MSRP behaves differently.
Therefore management and control plane design is an important aspect
of scenarios, where mapping between DetNet and TSN is required.
In order to use a TSN sub-network between DetNet nodes, DetNet
specific information must be converted to TSN sub-network specific
ones. DetNet flow ID and flow related parameters/requirements must
be converted to a TSN Stream ID and stream related parameters/
requirements. Note that, as the TSN sub-network is just a portion of
the end2end DetNet path (i.e., single hop from IP perspective), some
parameters (e.g., delay) may differ significantly. Other parameters
(like bandwidth) also may have to be tuned due to the L2
encapsulation used in the TSN sub-network.
In some case it may be challenging to determine some TSN Stream
related information. For example on a TSN-aware IP (DetNet) node
that acts as a Talker, it is quite obvious which DetNet node is the
Listener of the mapped TSN stream (i.e., the IP Next-Hop). However
it may be not trivial to locate the point/interface where that
Listener is connected to the TSN sub-network. Such attributes may
require interaction between control and management plane functions
and between DetNet and TSN domains.
Mapping between DetNet flow identifiers and TSN Stream identifiers,
if not provided explicitly, can be done by a TSN-aware IP (DetNet)
node locally based on information provided for configuration of the
TSN Stream identification functions (IP Stream identification and
active Stream identification function).
Triggering the setup/modification of a TSN Stream in the TSN sub-
network is an example where management and/or control plane
interactions are required between the DetNet and TSN sub-network.
TSN-unaware IP (DetNet) nodes make such a triggering even more
complicated as they are fully unaware of the sub-network and run
independently.
Configuration of TSN specific functions (e.g., FRER) inside the TSN
sub-network is a TSN specific decision and may not be visible in the
DetNet domain.
9. 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
draft. draft.
9. IANA considerations 10. IANA Considerations
TBD. TBD.
10. Contributors 11. Contributors
RFC7322 limits the number of authors listed on the front page of a RFC7322 limits the number of authors listed on the front page of a
draft to a maximum of 5, far fewer than the 20 individuals below who draft to a maximum of 5, far fewer than the 20 individuals below who
made important contributions to this draft. The editor wishes to made important contributions to this draft. The editor wishes to
thank and acknowledge each of the following authors for contributing thank and acknowledge each of the following authors for contributing
text to this draft. See also Section 11. text to this draft. See also Section 12.
Loa Andersson Loa Andersson
Huawei Huawei
Email: loa@pi.nu Email: loa@pi.nu
Yuanlong Jiang Yuanlong Jiang
Huawei Huawei
Email: jiangyuanlong@huawei.com Email: jiangyuanlong@huawei.com
Norman Finn Norman Finn
skipping to change at page 26, line 45 skipping to change at page 37, line 45
Marvell Marvell
6 Hamada st. 6 Hamada st.
Yokneam Yokneam
Israel Israel
Email: talmi@marvell.com Email: talmi@marvell.com
Lou Berger Lou Berger
LabN Consulting, L.L.C. LabN Consulting, L.L.C.
Email: lberger@labn.net Email: lberger@labn.net
11. Acknowledgements Andrew G. Malis
Huawei Technologies
Email: agmalis@gmail.com
12. Acknowledgements
The author(s) ACK and NACK. The author(s) ACK and NACK.
The following people were part of the DetNet Data Plane Solution The following people were part of the DetNet Data Plane Solution
Design Team: Design Team:
Jouni Korhonen Jouni Korhonen
Janos Farkas Janos Farkas
Norman Finn Norman Finn
Balazs Varga Balazs Varga
Loa Andersson Loa Andersson
Tal Mizrahi Tal Mizrahi
skipping to change at page 27, line 18 skipping to change at page 38, line 28
Balazs Varga Balazs Varga
Loa Andersson Loa Andersson
Tal Mizrahi Tal Mizrahi
David Mozes David Mozes
Yuanlong Jiang Yuanlong Jiang
Andrew Malis
Carlos J. Bernardos Carlos J. Bernardos
The DetNet chairs serving during the DetNet Data Plane Solution The DetNet chairs serving during the DetNet Data Plane Solution
Design Team: Design Team:
Lou Berger Lou Berger
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 13. References
12.1. Normative references 13.1. Normative references
[RFC0768] Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768, [RFC0768] Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768,
DOI 10.17487/RFC0768, August 1980, DOI 10.17487/RFC0768, August 1980,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc768>. <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, [RFC0793] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7,
skipping to change at page 29, line 32 skipping to change at page 40, line 42
[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 13.2. Informative references
[G.8275.1] [G.8275.1]
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 full timing support from the network", ITU-T with full timing support from the network", ITU-T
G.8275.1/Y.1369.1 G.8275.1, June 2016, G.8275.1/Y.1369.1 G.8275.1, June 2016,
<https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-G.8275.1/en>. <https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-G.8275.1/en>.
[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-08 (work in progress), September 2018. detnet-architecture-11 (work in progress), February 2019.
[I-D.ietf-detnet-dp-sol-mpls] [I-D.ietf-detnet-dp-sol-mpls]
Korhonen, J. and B. Varga, "DetNet MPLS Data Plane Korhonen, J. and B. Varga, "DetNet MPLS Data Plane
Encapsulation", draft-ietf-detnet-dp-sol-mpls-00 (work in Encapsulation", draft-ietf-detnet-dp-sol-mpls-01 (work in
progress), July 2018. progress), October 2018.
[I-D.ietf-detnet-flow-information-model] [I-D.ietf-detnet-flow-information-model]
Farkas, J., Varga, B., rodney.cummings@ni.com, r., Jiang, Farkas, J., Varga, B., Cummings, R., and Y. Jiang, "DetNet
Y., and Y. Zha, "DetNet Flow Information Model", draft- Flow Information Model", draft-ietf-detnet-flow-
ietf-detnet-flow-information-model-01 (work in progress), information-model-03 (work in progress), March 2019.
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-03 (work in progress), October 2018. detnet-security-04 (work in progress), March 2019.
[I-D.ietf-teas-pce-native-ip]
Wang, A., Zhao, Q., Khasanov, B., Chen, H., and R. Mallya,
"PCE in Native IP Network", draft-ietf-teas-pce-native-
ip-02 (work in progress), October 2018.
[IEEE1588] [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,
skipping to change at page 30, line 49 skipping to change at page 42, line 20
[RFC1122] Braden, R., Ed., "Requirements for Internet Hosts - [RFC1122] Braden, R., Ed., "Requirements for Internet Hosts -
Communication Layers", STD 3, RFC 1122, Communication Layers", STD 3, RFC 1122,
DOI 10.17487/RFC1122, October 1989, DOI 10.17487/RFC1122, October 1989,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1122>. <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>.
[RFC2386] Crawley, E., Nair, R., Rajagopalan, B., and H. Sandick, "A
Framework for QoS-based Routing in the Internet",
RFC 2386, DOI 10.17487/RFC2386, August 1998,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2386>.
[RFC3670] Moore, B., Durham, D., Strassner, J., Westerinen, A., and [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>.
[RFC5575] Marques, P., Sheth, N., Raszuk, R., Greene, B., Mauch, J.,
and D. McPherson, "Dissemination of Flow Specification
Rules", RFC 5575, DOI 10.17487/RFC5575, August 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5575>.
[RFC5654] Niven-Jenkins, B., Ed., Brungard, D., Ed., Betts, M., Ed.,
Sprecher, N., and S. Ueno, "Requirements of an MPLS
Transport Profile", RFC 5654, DOI 10.17487/RFC5654,
September 2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5654>.
[RFC5777] Korhonen, J., Tschofenig, H., Arumaithurai, M., Jones, M., [RFC5777] Korhonen, J., Tschofenig, H., Arumaithurai, M., Jones, M.,
Ed., and A. Lior, "Traffic Classification and Quality of Ed., and A. Lior, "Traffic Classification and Quality of
Service (QoS) Attributes for Diameter", RFC 5777, Service (QoS) Attributes for Diameter", RFC 5777,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5777, February 2010, DOI 10.17487/RFC5777, February 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5777>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5777>.
[RFC6434] Jankiewicz, E., Loughney, J., and T. Narten, "IPv6 Node [RFC6434] Jankiewicz, E., Loughney, J., and T. Narten, "IPv6 Node
Requirements", RFC 6434, DOI 10.17487/RFC6434, December Requirements", RFC 6434, DOI 10.17487/RFC6434, December
2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6434>. 2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6434>.
skipping to change at page 31, line 38 skipping to change at page 43, line 28
[RFC8040] Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and K. Watsen, "RESTCONF [RFC8040] Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and K. Watsen, "RESTCONF
Protocol", RFC 8040, DOI 10.17487/RFC8040, January 2017, Protocol", RFC 8040, DOI 10.17487/RFC8040, January 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8040>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8040>.
[RFC8169] Mirsky, G., Ruffini, S., Gray, E., Drake, J., Bryant, S., [RFC8169] Mirsky, G., Ruffini, S., Gray, E., Drake, J., Bryant, S.,
and A. Vainshtein, "Residence Time Measurement in MPLS and A. Vainshtein, "Residence Time Measurement in MPLS
Networks", RFC 8169, DOI 10.17487/RFC8169, May 2017, Networks", RFC 8169, DOI 10.17487/RFC8169, May 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8169>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8169>.
Appendix A. Example of DetNet data plane operation [RFC8283] Farrel, A., Ed., Zhao, Q., Ed., Li, Z., and C. Zhou, "An
Architecture for Use of PCE and the PCE Communication
Protocol (PCEP) in a Network with Central Control",
RFC 8283, DOI 10.17487/RFC8283, December 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8283>.
Appendix A. Example of DetNet Data Plane Operation
[Editor's note: Add a simplified example of DetNet data plane and how [Editor's note: Add a simplified example of DetNet data plane and how
labels etc work in the case of MPLS-based PSN and utilizing PREOF. labels etc work in the case of MPLS-based PSN and utilizing PREOF.
The figure is subject to change depending on the further DT decisions The figure is subject to change depending on the further DT decisions
on the label handling..] on the label handling..]
Appendix B. Example of pinned paths using IPv6 Appendix B. Example of Pinned Paths Using IPv6
TBD. TBD.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Jouni Korhonen (editor) Jouni Korhonen (editor)
Email: jouni.nospam@gmail.com Email: jouni.nospam@gmail.com
Balazs Varga (editor) Balazs Varga (editor)
Ericsson Ericsson
Magyar Tudosok krt. 11. Magyar Tudosok krt. 11.
Budapest 1117 Budapest 1117
Hungary Hungary
Email: balazs.a.varga@ericsson.com Email: balazs.a.varga@ericsson.com
 End of changes. 109 change blocks. 
292 lines changed or deleted 759 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/