draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-tsn-00.txt   draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-tsn-01.txt 
DetNet B. Varga, Ed. DetNet B. Varga, Ed.
Internet-Draft J. Farkas Internet-Draft J. Farkas
Intended status: Standards Track Ericsson Intended status: Standards Track Ericsson
Expires: November 6, 2019 A. Malis Expires: April 29, 2020 A. Malis
Independent
S. Bryant S. Bryant
Huawei Technologies Futurewei Technologies
J. Korhonen October 27, 2019
May 5, 2019
DetNet Data Plane: MPLS over IEEE 802.1 Time Sensitive Networking (TSN) DetNet Data Plane: MPLS over IEEE 802.1 Time Sensitive Networking (TSN)
draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-tsn-00 draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-tsn-01
Abstract Abstract
This document specifies the Deterministic Networking MPLS data plane This document specifies the Deterministic Networking MPLS data plane
when operating over a TSN network. when operating over a TSN sub-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 November 6, 2019. This Internet-Draft will expire on April 29, 2020.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 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
skipping to change at page 2, line 12 skipping to change at page 2, line 12
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.2. Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.3. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. DetNet MPLS Data Plane Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. DetNet MPLS Data Plane Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.1. Layers of DetNet Data Plane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4. DetNet MPLS Operation Over IEEE 802.1 TSN Sub-Networks . . . 5
4.2. DetNet MPLS Data Plane Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.1. Functions for DetNet Flow to TSN Stream Mapping . . . . . 7
4.3. Packet Flow Example with Service Protection . . . . . . . 9 4.2. TSN requirements of MPLS DetNet nodes . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. DetNet MPLS Data Plane Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.3. Service protection within the TSN sub-network . . . . . . 9
5.1. Sub-Network Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4.4. Aggregation during DetNet flow to TSN Stream mapping . . 9
6. DetNet MPLS Operation Over IEEE 802.1 TSN Sub-Networks . . . 12 5. Management and Control Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.1. Mapping of TSN Stream ID and Sequence Number . . . . . . 14 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.2. TSN Usage of FRER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.3. Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.4. Layer 2 Addressing and QoS Considerations . . . . . . . . 16 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7. Management and Control Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Appendix A. Example of DetNet Data Plane Operation . . . . . . . 23
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
[Editor's note: Introduction to be made specific to DetNet MPLS over
TSN scenario. May be similar to intro of DetNet IP over TSN.].
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 with a low a network to DetNet flows. DetNet provides these flows with a 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 General background and concepts of DetNet can be found in
[I-D.ietf-detnet-architecture]. [I-D.ietf-detnet-architecture].
The DetNet Architecture decomposes the DetNet related data plane The DetNet Architecture decomposes the DetNet related data plane
functions into two sub-layers: a service sub-layer and a forwarding functions into two sub-layers: a service sub-layer and a forwarding
sub-layer. The service sub-layer is used to provide DetNet service sub-layer. The service sub-layer is used to provide DetNet service
protection and reordering. The forwarding sub-layer is used to protection and reordering. The forwarding sub-layer is used to
provides congestion protection (low loss, assured latency, and provides congestion protection (low loss, assured latency, and
limited reordering) leveraging MPLS Traffic Engineering mechanisms. limited reordering) leveraging MPLS Traffic Engineering mechanisms.
This document specifies the DetNet data plane operation and the on- [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls] specifies the DetNet data plane operation for
wire encapsulation of DetNet flows over an MPLS-based Packet Switched MPLS-based Packet Switched Network (PSN). MPLS encapsulated DetNet
Network (PSN). The specified encapsulation provides the building flows can be carried over network technologies that can provide the
blocks to enable the DetNet service and forwarding sub-layer DetNet required level of service. This document focuses on the
functions and supports flow identification as described in the DetNet scenario where MPLS (DetNet) nodes are interconnected by a IEEE 802.1
Architecture. As part of the service sub-layer functions, this TSN sub-network.
document describes DetNet node data plane operation. It also
describes the function and operation of the Packet Replication (PRF)
Packet Elimination (PEF) and Packet Ordering (POF) functions with an
MPLS data plane. It also describes an MPLS-based DetNet forwarding
sub-layer that eliminates (or reduces) contention loss and provides
bounded latency for DetNet flows.
MPLS encapsulated DetNet flows can be carried over network
technologies that can provide the DetNet required level of service.
This document defines examples of such, specifically carrying DetNet
MPLS flows over IEEE 802.1 TSN sub-networks, and over DetNet IP PSN.
The intent is for this document to support different traffic types
being mapped over DetNet MPLS, but this is out side the scope of this
document. An example of such can be found in
[I-D.ietf-detnet-dp-sol-ip]. This document also allows for, but does
not define, associated controller plane and Operations,
Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) functions.
2. Terminology 2. Terminology
[Editor's note: Needs clean up.]. [Editor's note: Needs clean up.].
2.1. Terms Used in This Document 2.1. Terms Used in This Document
This document uses the terminology established in the DetNet This document uses the terminology established in the DetNet
architecture [I-D.ietf-detnet-architecture], and the reader is architecture [I-D.ietf-detnet-architecture] and
assumed to be familiar with that document and its terminology. [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls], and the reader is assumed to be familiar with
that document and its terminology.
The following terminology is introduced in this document:
F-Label A Detnet "forwarding" label that identifies the LSP
used to forward a DetNet flow across an MPLS PSN, e.g.,
a hop-by-hop label used between label switching routers
(LSR).
S-Label A DetNet "service" label that is used between DetNet
nodes that implement also the DetNet service sub-layer
functions. An S-Label is also used to identify a
DetNet flow at DetNet service sub-layer.
d-CW A DetNet Control Word (d-CW) is used for sequencing and
identifying duplicate packets of a DetNet flow at the
DetNet service sub-layer.
2.2. Abbreviations 2.2. Abbreviations
The following abbreviations are used in this document: The following abbreviations are used in this document:
AC Attachment Circuit.
CE Customer Edge equipment.
CoS Class of Service.
CW Control Word. CW Control Word.
DetNet Deterministic Networking. DetNet Deterministic Networking.
DF DetNet Flow. DF DetNet Flow.
DN-IWF DetNet Inter-Working Function. FRER Frame Replication and Elimination for Redundancy (TSN
function).
L2 Layer 2. L2 Layer 2.
L2VPN Layer 2 Virtual Private Network.
L3 Layer 3. L3 Layer 3.
LSR Label Switching Router. LSR Label Switching Router.
MPLS Multiprotocol Label Switching. MPLS Multiprotocol Label Switching.
MPLS-TE Multiprotocol Label Switching - Traffic Engineering.
MPLS-TP Multiprotocol Label Switching - Transport Profile.
MS-PW Multi-Segment PseudoWire (MS-PW).
NSP Native Service Processing.
OAM Operations, Administration, and Maintenance.
PE Provider Edge. PE Provider Edge.
PEF Packet Elimination Function.
PRF Packet Replication Function.
PREOF Packet Replication, Elimination and Ordering Functions. PREOF Packet Replication, Elimination and Ordering Functions.
POF Packet Ordering Function.
PSN Packet Switched Network. PSN Packet Switched Network.
PW PseudoWire. PW PseudoWire.
QoS Quality of Service.
S-PE Switching Provider Edge. S-PE Switching Provider Edge.
T-PE Terminating Provider Edge. T-PE Terminating Provider Edge.
TSN Time-Sensitive Network. TSN Time-Sensitive Network.
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.
4. DetNet MPLS Data Plane Overview 3. DetNet MPLS Data Plane Overview
[Editor's note: simplify this section and highlight DetNet MPLS over
subnets scenario being the focus in the remaining part of the
document.].
4.1. Layers of DetNet Data Plane
This document describes how DetNet flows are carried over MPLS
networks. The DetNet Architecture, [I-D.ietf-detnet-architecture],
decomposes the DetNet data plane into two sub-layers: a service sub-
layer and a forwarding sub-layer. The basic approach defined in this
document supports the DetNet service sub-layer based on existing
pseudowire (PW) encapsulations and mechanisms, and supports the
DetNet forwarding sub-layer based on existing MPLS Traffic
Engineering encapsulations and mechanisms. Background on PWs can be
found in [RFC3985] and [RFC3031]. Background on MPLS Traffic
Engineering can be found in [RFC3272] and [RFC3209].
DetNet MPLS
.
.
+------------+
| Service | d-CW, S-Label
+------------+
| Forwarding | F-Label(s)
+------------+
.
.
Figure 1: DetNet Adaptation to MPLS Data Plane
The DetNet MPLS data plane approach defined in this document is shown The basic approach defined in [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls] supports the
in Figure 1. The service sub-layer is supported by a DetNet control DetNet service sub-layer based on existing pseudowire (PW)
word (d-CW) which conforms to the Generic PW MPLS Control Word encapsulations and mechanisms, and supports the DetNet forwarding
(PWMCW) defined in [RFC4385]. A d-CW identifying service label sub-layer based on existing MPLS Traffic Engineering encapsulations
(S-Label) is also used. and mechanisms.
A node operating on a DetNet flow in the Detnet service sub-layer, A node operating on a DetNet flow in the Detnet service sub-layer,
i.e. a node processing a DetNet packet which has the S-Label as top i.e. a node processing a DetNet packet which has the S-Label as top
of stack uses the local context associated with that S-Label, for of stack uses the local context associated with that S-Label, for
example a received F-Label, to determine what local DetNet example a received F-Label, to determine what local DetNet
operation(s) are applied to that packet. An S-Label may be unique operation(s) are applied to that packet. An S-Label may be unique
when taken from the platform label space [RFC3031], which would when taken from the platform label space [RFC3031], which would
enable correct DetNet flow identification regardless of which input enable correct DetNet flow identification regardless of which input
interface or LSP the packet arrives on. interface or LSP the packet arrives on. The service sub-layer
functions (i.e., PREOF) use a DetNet control word (d-CW).
The DetNet MPLS data plane builds on MPLS Traffic Engineering The DetNet MPLS data plane builds on MPLS Traffic Engineering
encapsulations and mechanisms to provide a forwarding sub-layer that encapsulations and mechanisms to provide a forwarding sub-layer that
is responsible for providing resource allocation and explicit routes. is responsible for providing resource allocation and explicit routes.
The forwarding sub-layer is supported by one or more forwarding The forwarding sub-layer is supported by one or more forwarding
labels (F-Labels). labels (F-Labels).
4.2. DetNet MPLS Data Plane Scenarios Edge Transit Relay
Node Node Node
[Editor's note: simplify this section and highlight DetNet MPLS over (T-PE) (LSR) (S-PE)
subnets scenario being the focus in the remaining part of the +---------+
document.]. <--|Svc Proxy|-- End to End Service ----------->
+---------+ +---------+
DetNet MPLS Relay Transit Relay DetNet MPLS |IP | |Svc|<-- DetNet flow ---| Service |--->
End System Node Node Node End System +---+ +---+ +---------+ +---------+
(T-PE) (S-PE) (LSR) (S-PE) (T-PE) |Fwd| |Fwd| | Fwd | |Fwd| |Fwd|
+----------+ +----------+ +-.-+ +-.-+ +--.----.-+ +-.-+ +-.-+
| Appl. |<------------ End to End Service ----------->| Appl. | : / ,-----. \ : Link : :
+----------+ +---------+ +---------+ +----------+ .....+ +-[TSN Sub]-+ +........+ +.....
| Service |<--| Service |-- DetNet flow --| Service |-->| Service | [Network]
+----------+ +---------+ +----------+ +---------+ +----------+ `-----'
|Forwarding| |Fwd| |Fwd| |Forwarding| |Fwd| |Fwd| |Forwarding| |<----------- LSP ---------->| |<--- LSP -->|
+-------.--+ +-.-+ +-.-+ +----.---.-+ +-.-+ +-.-+ +---.------+ |<------------- DetNet MPLS ------------
: Link : / ,-----. \ : Link : / ,-----. \
+........+ +-[ Sub ]-+ +......+ +-[ Sub ]-+
[Network] [Network]
`-----' `-----'
|<- LSP -->| |<-------- LSP -----------| |<--- LSP -->|
|<----------------- DetNet MPLS --------------------->|
Figure 2: A DetNet MPLS Network Figure 1: Part of a Simple DetNet MPLS Network using a TSN sub-net
Figure 2 illustrates a hypothetical DetNet MPLS-only network composed Figure 1 illustrates an extract of a DetNet enabled MPLS network.
of DetNet aware MPLS enabled end systems, operating over a DetNet Edge/relay nodes sit at MPLS LSP boundaries and transit nodes are
aware MPLS network. In this figure, relay nodes sit at MPLS LSP LSRs. In this figure, two MPLS nodes (the edge node and the transit
boundaries and transit nodes are LSRs. node) are interconnected by a TSN sub-network.
DetNet end system and relay nodes are DetNet service sub-layer aware, DetNet edge/relay nodes are DetNet service sub-layer aware,
understand the particular needs of DetNet flows and provide both understand the particular needs of DetNet flows and provide both
DetNet service and forwarding sub-layer functions. They add, remove DetNet service and forwarding sub-layer functions. They add, remove
and process d-CWs, S-Labels and F-labels as needed. MPLS enabled end and process d-CWs, S-Labels and F-labels as needed. MPLS enabled
system and relay nodes can enhance the reliability of delivery by DetNet nodes can enhance the reliability of delivery by enabling the
enabling the replication of packets where multiple copies, possibly replication of packets where multiple copies, possibly over multiple
over multiple paths, are forwarded through the DetNet domain. They paths, are forwarded through the DetNet domain. They can also
can also eliminate surplus previously replicated copies of DetNet eliminate surplus previously replicated copies of DetNet packets.
packets. DetNet MPLS nodes provide functionality similar to T-PEs MPLS (DetNet) nodes also include DetNet forwarding sub-layer
when they sit at the edge of an MPLS domain, and functionality functions, support for notably explicit routes, and resources
similar to S-PEs when they are in the middle of an MPLS domain, see allocation to eliminate (or reduce) congestion loss and jitter.
[RFC6073]. End system and relay nodes also include DetNet forwarding
sub-layer functions, support for notably explicit routes, and
resources allocation to eliminate (or reduce) congestion loss and
jitter.
DetNet transit nodes reside wholly within a DetNet domain, and also DetNet transit nodes reside wholly within a DetNet domain, and also
provide DetNet forwarding sub-layer functions in accordance with the provide DetNet forwarding sub-layer functions in accordance with the
performance required by a DetNet flow carried over an LSP. Unlike performance required by a DetNet flow carried over an LSP. Unlike
other DetNet node types, transit nodes provide no service sub-layer other DetNet node types, transit nodes provide no service sub-layer
processing. In a DetNet MPLS network, transit nodes may be DetNet processing.
service aware or may be DetNet unaware MPLS Label Switching Routers
(LSRs). In this latter case, such LSRs would be unaware of the
special requirements of the DetNet service sub-layer, but would still
provide traffic engineering services and the QoS need to ensure that
the (TE) LSPs meet the service requirements of the carried DetNet
flows.
The LSPs may be provided by any MPLS controller method. For example
they may be provisioned via a management plane, RSVP-TE, MPLS-TP, or
MPLS Segment Routing (when extended to support resource allocation).
[Editor's note: Figure 3. and surrunding text are candidates to
delete from this document.].
Figure 3 illustrates how an end to end MPLS-based DetNet service is
provided in a more detail. In this figure, the end systems, CE1 and
CE2, are able to send and receive MPLS encapsulated DetNet flows, and
R1, R2 and R3 are relay nodes as they sit in the middle of a DetNet
network. The 'X' in the end systems, and relay nodes represents
potential DetNet compound flow packet replication and elimination
points. In this example, service protection is supported over four
DetNet member flows and TE LSPs. For a unidirectional flow, R1
supports PRF, R2 supports PREOF and R3 supports PEF and POF. Note
that the relay nodes may change the underlying forwarding sub-layer,
for example tunneling MPLS over IEEE 802.1 TSN Section 6, or simply
over interconnect network links.
DetNet DetNet
MPLS Service Transit Transit Service MPLS
DetNet | |<-Tnl->| |<-Tnl->| | DetNet
End | V 1 V V 2 V | End
System | +--------+ +--------+ +--------+ | System
+---+ | | R1 |=======| R2 |=======| R3 | | +---+
| X...DFa...|._X_....|..DF1..|.__ ___.|..DF3..|...._X_.|.DFa..|.X |
|CE1|========| \ | | X | | / |======|CE2|
| | | | \_.|..DF2..|._/ \__.|..DF4..|._/ | | | |
+---+ | |=======| |=======| | +---+
^ +--------+ +--------+ +--------+ ^
| Relay Node Relay Node Relay Node |
| (S-PE) (S-PE) (S-PE) |
| |
|<---------------------- DetNet MPLS --------------------->|
| |
|<--------------- End to End DetNet Service -------------->|
-------------------------- Data Flow ------------------------->
X = Optional service protection (none, PRF, PREOF, PEF/POF)
DFx = DetNet member flow x over a TE LSP
Figure 3: MPLS-Based Native DetNet
As previously mentioned, this document specifies how MPLS is used to
support DetNet flows using an MPLS data plane as well as how such can
be mapped to IEEE 802.1 TSN and IP DetNet PSNs. An equally import
scenario is when IP is supported over DetNet MPLS and this is covered
in [I-D.ietf-detnet-dp-sol-ip]. Another important scenario is where
an Ethernet Layer 2 service is supported over DetNet MPLS and this is
covered in [TBD-TSN-OVER-DETNET].
4.3. Packet Flow Example with Service Protection
[Editor's note: this text might be relevant for the discussion of
FRER within the TSN sub-network. Needs revision.].
An example DetNet MPLS network fragment and packet flow is
illustrated in Figure 4.
1 1.1 1.1 1.2.1 1.2.1 1.2.2
CE1----EN1--------R1-------R2-------R3--------EN2-----CE2
\ 1.2.1 / /
\1.2 /-----+ /
+------R4------------------------+
1.2.2
Figure 4: Example Packet Flow in DetNet Enabled MPLS Network
In Figure 4 the numbers are used to identify the instance of a
packet. Packet 1 is the original packet, and packets 1.1, and 1.2
are two first generation copies of packet 1. Packet 1.2.1 is a
second generation copy of packet 1.2 etc. Note that these numbers
never appear in the packet, and are not to be confused with sequence
numbers, labels or any other identifier that appears in the packet.
They simply indicate the generation number of the original packet so
that its passage through the network fragment can be identified to
the reader.
Customer Equipment CE1 sends a packet into the DetNet enabled MPLS
network. This is packet (1). Edge Node EN1 encapsulates the packet
as a DetNet Packet and sends it to Relay node R1 (packet 1.1). EN1
makes a copy of the packet (1.2), encapsulates it and sends this copy
to Relay node R4.
Note that along the MPLS path from EN1 to R1 there may be zero or
more LSRs which, for clarity, are not shown. The same is true for
any other path between two DetNet entities shown in Figure 4.
Relay node R4 has been configured to send one copy of the packet to
Relay Node R2 (packet 1.2.1) and one copy to Edge Node EN2 (packet
1.2.2).
R2 receives packet copy 1.2.1 before packet copy 1.1 arrives, and,
having been configured to perform packet elimination on this DetNet
flow, forwards packet 1.2.1 to Relay Node R3. Packet copy 1.1 is of
no further use and so is discarded by R2.
Edge Node EN2 receives packet copy 1.2.2 from R4 before it receives
packet copy 1.2.1 from R2 via relay Node R3. EN2 therefore strips
any DetNet encapsulation from packet copy 1.2.2 and forwards the
packet to CE2. When EN2 receives the later packet copy 1.2.1 this is
discarded.
The above is of course illustrative of many network scenarios that
can be configured. Between a pair of relay nodes there may be one or
more transit nodes that simply forward the DetNet traffic, but these
are omitted for clarity.
5. DetNet MPLS Data Plane Considerations
[Editor's note: Sort out what data plane considerations are relevant
for sub-net scenarios.].
This section provides informative considerations related to providing
DetNet service to flows which are identified based on their header
information. At a high level, the following are provided on a per
flow basis:
Eliminating contention loss and jitter reduction:
Use of allocated resources (queuing, policing, shaping) to ensure
that the congestion-related loss and latency/jitter requirements
of a DetNet flow are met.
Explicit routes:
Use of a specific path for a flow. This limits misordering and
bounds latency.
Service protection:
Which in the case of this document primarily relates to
replication and elimination. Changing the explicit path after a
failure is detected in order to restore delivery of the required
DetNet service characteristics is also possible. Path changes,
even in the case of failure recovery, can lead to the out of order
delivery of data.
Load sharing:
Generally, distributing packets of the same DetNet flow over
multiple paths is not recommended. Such load sharing, e.g., via
ECMP or UCMP, impacts ordering and possibly jitter.
Troubleshooting:
For example, to support identification of misbehaving flows.
Recognize flow(s) for analytics:
For example, increase counters.
Correlate events with flows:
For example, unexpected loss.
The DetNet data plane also allows for the aggregation of DetNet 4. DetNet MPLS Operation Over IEEE 802.1 TSN Sub-Networks
flows, e.g., via MPLS hierarchical LSPs, to improved scaling. When
DetNet flows are aggregated, transit nodes provide service to the
aggregate and not on a per-DetNet flow basis. In this case, nodes
performing aggregation will ensure that per-flow service requirements
are achieved.
5.1. Sub-Network Considerations The DetNet WG collaborates with IEEE 802.1 TSN in order to define a
common architecture for both Layer 2 and Layer 3, what maintains
consistency across diverse networks. Both DetNet MPLS and TSN use
the same techniques to provide their deterministic service:
As shown in Figure 2, MPLS nodes are interconnected by different sub- o Service protection.
network technologies, which may include point-to-point links. Each
of these need to provide appropriate service to DetNet flows. In
some cases, e.g., on dedicated point-to-point links or TDM
technologies, all that is required is for a DetNet node to
appropriately queue its output traffic. In other cases, DetNet nodes
will need to map DetNet flows to the flow semantics (i.e.,
identifiers) and mechanisms used by an underlying sub-network
technology. Figure 5 shows several examples of header formats that
can be used to carry DetNet MPLS flows over different sub-network
technologies. L2 represent a generic layer-2 encapsulation that
might be used on a point-to-point link. TSN represents the
encapsulation used on an IEEE 802.1 TSN network, as described in
Section 6. UDP/IP represents the encapsulation used on a DetNet IP
PSN.
+------+ +------+ +------+ o Resource allocation.
App-Flow | X | | X | | X |
+-----+======+--+======+--+======+-----+
DetNet-MPLS | d-CW | | d-CW | | d-CW |
+------+ +------+ +------+
|Labels| |Labels| |Labels|
+-----+======+--+======+--+======+-----+
Sub-Network | L2 | | TSN | | UDP |
+------+ +------+ +------+
| IP |
+------+
| L2 |
+------+
Figure 5: Example DetNet MPLS Sub-Network Formats o Explicit routes.
6. DetNet MPLS Operation Over IEEE 802.1 TSN Sub-Networks As described in the DetNet architecture
[I-D.ietf-detnet-architecture] and also illustrated here in Figure 1
a sub-network provides from MPLS perspective a single hop connection
between MPLS (DetNet) nodes. Functions used for resource allocation
and explicit routes are treated as domain internal functions and does
not require function interworking across the DetNet MPLS network and
the TSN sub-network.
[Editor's note: this is a place holder section. A standalone section In case of the service protection function due to the similarities of
on MPLS over IEEE 802.1 TSN. Includes RFC2119 Language.] the DetNet PREOF and TSN FRER functions some level of interworking is
This section covers how DetNet MPLS flows operate over an IEEE 802.1 possible. However, such interworking is out-of-scope in this
TSN sub-network. Figure 6 illustrates such a scenario, where two document and left for further study.
MPLS (DetNet) nodes are interconnected by a TSN sub-network. Node-1
is single homed and Node-2 is dual-homed. MPLS nodes can be (1)
DetNet MPLS End System, (2) DetNet MPLS Edge or Relay node or (3)
MPLS Transit node.
Note: in case of MPLS Transit node there is no DetNet Service sub- Figure 2 illustrates a scenario, where two MPLS (DetNet) nodes are
layer processing. interconnected by a TSN sub-network. Node-1 is single homed and
Node-2 is dual-homed to the TSN sub-network.
MPLS (DetNet) MPLS (DetNet) MPLS (DetNet) MPLS (DetNet)
Node-1 Node-2 Node-1 Node-2
+----------+ +----------+ +----------+ +----------+
<--| Service* |-- DetNet flow ---| Service* |--> <--| Service* |-- DetNet flow ---| Service* |-->
+----------+ +----------+ +----------+ +----------+
|Forwarding| |Forwarding| |Forwarding| |Forwarding|
+--------.-+ <-TSN Str-> +-.-----.--+ +--------.-+ <-TSN Str-> +-.-----.--+
\ ,-------. / / \ ,-------. / /
+----[ TSN-Sub ]---+ / +----[ TSN-Sub ]---+ /
[ Network ]--------+ [ Network ]--------+
`-------' `-------'
<---------------- DetNet MPLS ---------------> <---------------- DetNet MPLS --------------->
Note: * no service sub-layer required for transit nodes Note: * no service sub-layer required for transit nodes
Figure 6: DetNet Enabled MPLS Network Over a TSN Sub-Network Figure 2: DetNet Enabled MPLS 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.
As is the case for DetNet, a Layer 2 network node such as a bridge TSN capabilities of the TSN sub-network are made available for MPLS
may need to identify the specific DetNet flow to which a packet (DetNet) flows via the protocol interworking function defined in IEEE
belongs in order to provide the TSN/DetNet QoS for that packet. It 802.1CB [IEEE8021CB]. For example, applied on the TSN edge port it
also may need a CoS marking, such as the priority field of an IEEE can convert an ingress unicast MPLS (DetNet) flow to use a specific
Std 802.1Q VLAN tag, to give the packet proper service. Layer-2 multicast destination MAC address and a VLAN, in order to
direct the packet through a specific path inside the bridged network.
The challange for MPLS DeNet flows is that the protocol interworking A similar interworking function pair at the other end of the TSN sub-
function defined in IEEE 802.1CB [IEEE8021CB] works only for IP network would restore the packet to its original Layer-2 destination
flows. The aim of the protocol interworking function is to convert MAC address and VLAN.
an ingress flow to use a specific multicast destination MAC address
and VLAN, for example to direct the packets through a specific path
inside the bridged network. A similar interworking pair at the other
end of the TSN sub-network would restore the packet to its original
destination MAC address and VLAN.
As protocol interworking function defined in [IEEE8021CB] does not
work for MPLS labeled flows, the DetNet MPLS nodes MUST ensure proper
TSN sub-network specific Ethernet encapsulation of the DetNet MPLS
packets. For a given TSN Stream (i.e., DetNet flow) an MPLS (DetNet)
node MUST behave as a TSN-aware Talker or a Listener inside the TSN
sub-network.
6.1. Mapping of TSN Stream ID and Sequence Number
TSN capable MPLS (DetNet) nodes are TSN-aware Talker/Listener as
shown in Figure 7. MPLS (DetNet) node MUST provide the TSN sub-
network specific Ethernet encapsulation over the link(s) towards the
sub-network. An TSN-aware MPLS (DetNet) node MUST support the
following TSN components:
1. For recognizing flows:
* Stream Identification (MPLS-flow-aware) Placement of TSN functions depends on the TSN capabilities of nodes.
MPLS (DetNet) Nodes may or may not support TSN functions. For a
given TSN Stream (i.e., DetNet flow) an MPLS (DetNet) node is treated
as a Talker or a Listener inside the TSN sub-network.
2. For FRER used inside the TSN domain, additonaly: 4.1. Functions for DetNet Flow to TSN Stream Mapping
* Sequencing function (MPLS-flow-aware) Mapping of a DetNet MPLS flow to a TSN Stream is provided via the
combination of a passive and an active stream identification function
that operate at the frame level. The passive stream identification
function is used to catch the MPLS label(s) of a DetNet MPLS flow and
the active stream identification function is used to modify the
Ethernet header according to the ID of the mapped TSN Stream.
* Sequence encode/decode function IEEE P802.1CBdb [IEEEP8021CBdb] defines a Mask-and-Match Stream
identification function that can be used as a passive function for
MPLS DetNet flows.
3. For FRER when the node is a TSN replication or elimination point, IEEE 802.1CB [IEEE8021CB] defines an Active Destination MAC and VLAN
additionally: Stream identification function, what can replace some Ethernet header
fields namely (1) the destination MAC-address, (2) the VLAN-ID and
(3) priority parameters with alternate values. Replacement is
provided for the frame passed down the stack from the upper layers or
up the stack from the lower layers.
* Stream splitting function Active Destination MAC and VLAN Stream identification can be used
within a Talker to set flow identity or a Listener to recover the
original addressing information. It can be used also in a TSN bridge
that is providing translation as a proxy service for an End System.
* Individual recovery function 4.2. TSN requirements of MPLS DetNet nodes
[Editor's note: Should we added here requirements regarding IEEE This section covers required behavior of a TSN-aware MPLS (DetNet)
802.1Q C-VLAN component?] node using a TSN sub-network.
The Stream Identification and The Sequencing functions are slightly From the TSN sub-network perspective MPLS (DetNet) nodes are treated
modified for frames passed down the protocol stack from the upper as Talker or Listener, that may be (1) TSN-unaware or (2) TSN-aware.
layers.
Stream Identification MUST pair MPLS flows and TSN Streams and encode In cases of TSN-unaware MPLS DetNet nodes the TSN relay nodes within
that in data plane formats as well. The packet's stream_handle the TSN sub-network must modify the Ethernet encapsulation of the
subparameter (see IEEE 802.1CB [IEEE8021CB]) inside the Talker/ DetNet MPLS flow (e.g., MAC translation, VLAN-ID setting, Sequence
Listener is defined based on the Flow-ID used in the upper DetNet number addition, etc.) to allow proper TSN specific handling inside
MPLS layer. Stream Identification function MUST encode Ethernet the sub-network. There are no requirements defined for TSN-unaware
header fields namely (1) the destination MAC-address, (2) the VLAN-ID MPLS DetNet nodes in this document.
and (3) priority parameters with TSN sub-network specific values.
Encoding is provided for the frame passed down the stack from the
upper layers.
The sequence generation function resides in the Sequencing function. MPLS (DetNet) nodes being TSN-aware can be treated as a combination
It generates a sequence_number subparameter for each packet of a of a TSN-unaware Talker/Listener and a TSN-Relay, as shown in
Stream passed down to the lower layers. Sequencing function MUST Figure 3. In such cases the MPLS (DetNet) node must provide the TSN
copy sequence information from the MPLS d-CW of the packet to the sub-network specific Ethernet encapsulation over the link(s) towards
sequence_number subparameter for the frame passed down the stack from the sub-network.
the upper layers.
MPLS (DetNet) MPLS (DetNet)
Node-1 Node
<----------> <---------------------------------->
+----------+ +----------+
<--| Service |-- DetNet flow ------------------ <--| Service* |-- DetNet flow ------------------
+----------+ +----------+
|Forwarding| |Forwarding|
+----------+ +---------------+ +----------+ +---------------+
| L2 with |<---| L2 Relay with |---- TSN ---- | L2 | | L2 Relay with |<--- TSN ---
| TSN | | TSN function | Stream | | | TSN function | Stream
+-----.----+ +--.---------.--+ +-----.----+ +--.------.---.-+
\__________/ \______ \__________/ \ \______
\_________
TSN-aware TSN-unaware
Talker / TSN-Bridge Talker / TSN-Bridge
Listener Relay Listener Relay
<----- TSN Sub-network -----
<------- TSN-aware Tlk/Lstn ------->
<--------- TSN sub-network ------------ Note: * no service sub-layer required for transit nodes
Figure 7: MPLS (DetNet) Node with TSN Functions Figure 3: MPLS (DetNet) Node with TSN Functions
A TSN-aware MPLS (DetNet) node impementations MUST support the Stream
Identification TSN component for recognizing flows.
A Stream identification component MUST be able to instantiate the
following functions (1) Active Destination MAC and VLAN Stream
identification function, (2) Mask-and-Match Stream identification
function and (3) the related managed objects in Clause 9 of IEEE
802.1CB [IEEE8021CB] and IEEE P802.1CBdb [IEEEP8021CBdb].
A TSN-aware MPLS (DetNet) node implementations MUST support the
Sequencing function and the Sequence encode/decode function as
defined in IEEE 802.1CB [IEEE8021CB] if FRER is used inside the TSN
sub-network.
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].
6.2. TSN Usage of FRER A TSN-aware MPLS (DetNet) node implementations MUST support the
Stream splitting function and the Individual recovery function as
defined in IEEE 802.1CB [IEEE8021CB] when the node is a replication
or elimination point for FRER.
4.3. Service protection within the TSN sub-network
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) as defined in IEEE 802.1CB
requirements of the TSN Stream, which is derived from the DetNet [IEEE8021CB] based on the loss service requirements of the TSN
service requirements of the DetNet mapped flow. The specific Stream, which is derived from the DetNet service requirements of the
operation of FRER is not modified by the use of DetNet and follows DetNet mapped flow. The specific operation of FRER is not modified
IEEE 802.1CB [IEEE8021CB]. by the use of DetNet and follows 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 however as the Stream-ID and the TSN within the TSN sub-network as the TSN Stream-ID and the TSN sequence
sequence number are paired with the MPLS flow parameters they can be number are not valid outside the sub-network. An MPLS (DetNet) node
combined with PREOF functions. represents a L3 border and as such it terminates all related
information elements encoded in the L2 frames.
6.3. Procedures As the Stream-ID and the TSN sequence number are paired with the
similar MPLS flow parameters, FRER can be combined with PREOF
functions. Such service protection interworking scenarios may
require to move sequence number fields among TSN (L2) and PW (MPLS)
encapsulations and they are left for further study.
[Editor's note: This section is TBD - covers required behavior of a 4.4. Aggregation during DetNet flow to TSN Stream mapping
TSN-aware DetNet node using a TSN underlay.]
6.4. Layer 2 Addressing and QoS Considerations 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.
[Editor's NOTE: review and simplify this section. May overlap with 5. Management and Control Implications
previous sections.]
The Time-Sensitive Networking (TSN) Task Group of the IEEE 802.1 [Editor's note: This section covers management/control plane related
Working Group have defined (and are defining) a number of amendments implications of creation, mapping, removal of TSN Stream IDs, their
to IEEE 802.1Q [IEEE8021Q] that provide zero congestion loss and related parameters and, when needed, the configuration of FRER.]
bounded latency in bridged networks. IEEE 802.1CB [IEEE8021CB] DetNet flow and TSN Stream mapping related information are required
defines packet replication and elimination functions that should only for TSN-aware MPLS (DetNet) nodes. From the Data Plane
prove both compatible with and useful to, DetNet networks. perspective there is no practical difference based on the origin of
flow mapping related information (management plane or control plane).
As is the case for DetNet, a Layer 2 network node such as a bridge TSN-aware MPLS DetNet nodes are member of both the DetNet domain and
may need to identify the specific DetNet flow to which a packet the TSN sub-network. Within the TSN sub-network the TSN-aware MPLS
belongs in order to provide the TSN/DetNet QoS for that packet. It (DetNet) node has a TSN-aware Talker/Listener role, so TSN specific
also will likely need a CoS marking, such as the priority field of an management and control plane functionalities must be implemented.
IEEE Std 802.1Q VLAN tag, to give the packet proper service. 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.
Although the flow identification methods described in IEEE 802.1CB In order to use a TSN sub-network between DetNet nodes, DetNet
[IEEE8021CB] are flexible, and in fact, include IP 5-tuple specific information must be converted to TSN sub-network specific
identification methods, the baseline TSN standards assume that every ones. DetNet flow ID and flow related parameters/requirements must
Ethernet frame belonging to a TSN stream (i.e. DetNet flow) carries be converted to a TSN Stream ID and stream related parameters/
a multicast destination MAC address that is unique to that flow requirements. Note that, as the TSN sub-network is just a portion of
within the bridged network over which it is carried. Furthermore, the end2end DetNet path (i.e., single hop from MPLS perspective),
IEEE 802.1CB [IEEE8021CB] describes three methods by which a packet some parameters (e.g., delay) may differ significantly. Other
sequence number can be encoded in an Ethernet frame. parameters (like bandwidth) also may have to be tuned due to the L2
encapsulation used within the TSN sub-network.
Ensuring that the proper Ethernet VLAN tag priority and destination In some case it may be challenging to determine some TSN Stream
MAC address are used on a DetNet/TSN packet may require further related information. For example, on a TSN-aware MPLS (DetNet) node
clarification of the customary L2/L3 transformations carried out by that acts as a Talker, it is quite obvious which DetNet node is the
routers and edge label switches. Edge nodes may also have to move Listener of the mapped TSN stream (i.e., the MPLS Next-Hop). However
sequence number fields among Layer 2, PW, and IP encapsulations. 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.
7. Management and Control Considerations Mapping between DetNet flow identifiers and TSN Stream identifiers,
if not provided explicitly, can be done by a TSN-aware MPLS (DetNet)
node locally based on information provided for configuration of the
TSN Stream identification functions (Mask-and-match Stream
identification and active Stream identification function).
[Editor's note: This section is TBD Covers Creation, mapping, removal Triggering the setup/modification of a TSN Stream in the TSN sub-
of TSN Stream IDs, related parameters and,when needed, configuration network is an example where management and/or control plane
of FRER. Supported by management/control plane. SEE sections in interactions are required between the DetNet and TSN sub-network.
removed text file.] TSN-unaware MPLS (DetNet) nodes make such a triggering even more
While management plane and control planes are traditionally complicated as they are fully unaware of the sub-network and run
considered separately, from the Data Plane perspective there is no independently.
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., RSVP-TE [RFC3209] and [RFC3473], or by centralized network
management mechanisms, e.g., RestConf [RFC8040], YANG [RFC7950], and
the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller] or any combination
thereof. Specific considerations and requirements for the DetNet
Controller Plane are discussed below.
8. Security Considerations Configuration of TSN specific functions (e.g., FRER) inside the TSN
sub-network is a TSN domain specific decision and may not be visible
in the DetNet domain. Service protection interworking scenarios are
left for further study.
6. 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.sdt-detnet-security]. Other [I-D.ietf-detnet-architecture] and [I-D.ietf-detnet-security].
security considerations will be added in a future version of this DetNet IP data plane specific considerations are summarized in
draft. [I-D.ietf-detnet-ip]. Encryption may provided by an underlying sub-
net using MACSec [IEEE802.1AE-2018] for DetNet IP over TSN flows.
9. IANA Considerations 7. IANA Considerations
This document makes no IANA requests. This document makes no IANA requests.
10. Acknowledgements 8. Acknowledgements
Thanks for Norman Finn and Lou Berger for their comments and The authors wish to thank Norman Finn, Lou Berger, Craig Gunther,
contributions. Christophe Mangin and Jouni Korhonen for their various contributions
to this work.
11. References 9. References
11.1. Normative References 9.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC2211] Wroclawski, J., "Specification of the Controlled-Load
Network Element Service", RFC 2211, DOI 10.17487/RFC2211,
September 1997, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2211>.
[RFC2212] Shenker, S., Partridge, C., and R. Guerin, "Specification
of Guaranteed Quality of Service", RFC 2212,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2212, September 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2212>.
[RFC3031] Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., and R. Callon, "Multiprotocol [RFC3031] Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., and R. Callon, "Multiprotocol
Label Switching Architecture", RFC 3031, Label Switching Architecture", RFC 3031,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3031, January 2001, DOI 10.17487/RFC3031, January 2001,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3031>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3031>.
[RFC3032] Rosen, E., Tappan, D., Fedorkow, G., Rekhter, Y.,
Farinacci, D., Li, T., and A. Conta, "MPLS Label Stack
Encoding", RFC 3032, DOI 10.17487/RFC3032, January 2001,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3032>.
[RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
Tunnels", RFC 3209, DOI 10.17487/RFC3209, December 2001,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3209>.
[RFC3270] Le Faucheur, F., Wu, L., Davie, B., Davari, S., Vaananen,
P., Krishnan, R., Cheval, P., and J. Heinanen, "Multi-
Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Support of Differentiated
Services", RFC 3270, DOI 10.17487/RFC3270, May 2002,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3270>.
[RFC3443] Agarwal, P. and B. Akyol, "Time To Live (TTL) Processing
in Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Networks",
RFC 3443, DOI 10.17487/RFC3443, January 2003,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3443>.
[RFC3473] Berger, L., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-
Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3473, January 2003,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3473>.
[RFC4206] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Label Switched Paths (LSP)
Hierarchy with Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE)", RFC 4206,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4206, October 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4206>.
[RFC4385] Bryant, S., Swallow, G., Martini, L., and D. McPherson,
"Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) Control Word for
Use over an MPLS PSN", RFC 4385, DOI 10.17487/RFC4385,
February 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4385>.
[RFC5085] Nadeau, T., Ed. and C. Pignataro, Ed., "Pseudowire Virtual
Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV): A Control
Channel for Pseudowires", RFC 5085, DOI 10.17487/RFC5085,
December 2007, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5085>.
[RFC5129] Davie, B., Briscoe, B., and J. Tay, "Explicit Congestion
Marking in MPLS", RFC 5129, DOI 10.17487/RFC5129, January
2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5129>.
[RFC5462] Andersson, L. and R. Asati, "Multiprotocol Label Switching
(MPLS) Label Stack Entry: "EXP" Field Renamed to "Traffic
Class" Field", RFC 5462, DOI 10.17487/RFC5462, February
2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5462>.
[RFC7510] Xu, X., Sheth, N., Yong, L., Callon, R., and D. Black,
"Encapsulating MPLS in UDP", RFC 7510,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7510, April 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7510>.
[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>.
11.2. Informative References 9.2. 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-12 (work in progress), March 2019. detnet-architecture-13 (work in progress), May 2019.
[I-D.ietf-detnet-dp-sol-ip]
Korhonen, J., Varga, B., "DetNet IP Data Plane
Encapsulation", 2018.
[I-D.ietf-detnet-flow-information-model]
Farkas, J., Varga, B., Cummings, R., and Y. Jiang, "DetNet
Flow Information Model", draft-ietf-detnet-flow-
information-model-03 (work in progress), March 2019.
[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller] [I-D.ietf-detnet-ip]
Zhao, Q., Li, Z., Negi, M., and C. Zhou, "PCEP Procedures Varga, B., Farkas, J., Berger, L., Fedyk, D., Malis, A.,
and Protocol Extensions for Using PCE as a Central Bryant, S., and J. Korhonen, "DetNet Data Plane: IP",
Controller (PCECC) of LSPs", draft-ietf-pce-pcep- draft-ietf-detnet-ip-01 (work in progress), July 2019.
extension-for-pce-controller-01 (work in progress),
February 2019.
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls] [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls]
Bashandy, A., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Decraene, B., Varga, B., Farkas, J., Berger, L., Fedyk, D., Malis, A.,
Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment Routing with MPLS Bryant, S., and J. Korhonen, "DetNet Data Plane: MPLS",
data plane", draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls-22 draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-01 (work in progress), July 2019.
(work in progress), May 2019.
[I-D.sdt-detnet-security] [I-D.ietf-detnet-security]
Mizrahi, T., Grossman, E., Hacker, A., Das, S., Mizrahi, T., Grossman, E., Hacker, A., Das, S., Dowdell,
"Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Security J., Austad, H., Stanton, K., and N. Finn, "Deterministic
Considerations, draft-sdt-detnet-security, work in Networking (DetNet) Security Considerations", draft-ietf-
progress", 2017. detnet-security-05 (work in progress), August 2019.
[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.
[IEEE802.1AE-2018]
IEEE Standards Association, "IEEE Std 802.1AE-2018 MAC
Security (MACsec)", 2018,
<https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8585421>.
[IEEE8021CB] [IEEE8021CB]
Finn, N., "Draft Standard for Local and metropolitan area Finn, N., "Draft Standard for Local and metropolitan area
networks - Seamless Redundancy", IEEE P802.1CB networks - Seamless Redundancy", IEEE P802.1CB
/D2.1 P802.1CB, December 2015, /D2.1 P802.1CB, December 2015,
<http://www.ieee802.org/1/files/private/cb-drafts/ <http://www.ieee802.org/1/files/private/cb-drafts/d2/802-
d2/802-1CB-d2-1.pdf>. 1CB-d2-1.pdf>.
[IEEE8021Q] [IEEE8021Q]
IEEE 802.1, "Standard for Local and metropolitan area IEEE 802.1, "Standard for Local and metropolitan area
networks--Bridges and Bridged Networks (IEEE Std 802.1Q- networks--Bridges and Bridged Networks (IEEE Std 802.1Q-
2014)", 2014, <http://standards.ieee.org/about/get/>. 2014)", 2014, <http://standards.ieee.org/about/get/>.
[RFC2205] Braden, R., Ed., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and S. [IEEEP8021CBdb]
Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1 Mangin, C., "Extended Stream identification functions",
Functional Specification", RFC 2205, DOI 10.17487/RFC2205, IEEE P802.1CBdb /D0.2 P802.1CBdb, August 2019,
September 1997, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2205>. <http://www.ieee802.org/1/files/private/cb-drafts/d2/802-
1CB-d2-1.pdf>.
[RFC2474] Nichols, K., Blake, S., Baker, F., and D. Black,
"Definition of the Differentiated Services Field (DS
Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers", RFC 2474,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2474, December 1998,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2474>.
[RFC3272] Awduche, D., Chiu, A., Elwalid, A., Widjaja, I., and X.
Xiao, "Overview and Principles of Internet Traffic
Engineering", RFC 3272, DOI 10.17487/RFC3272, May 2002,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3272>.
[RFC3985] Bryant, S., Ed. and P. Pate, Ed., "Pseudo Wire Emulation
Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) Architecture", RFC 3985,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3985, March 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3985>.
[RFC4448] Martini, L., Ed., Rosen, E., El-Aawar, N., and G. Heron,
"Encapsulation Methods for Transport of Ethernet over MPLS
Networks", RFC 4448, DOI 10.17487/RFC4448, April 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4448>.
[RFC4872] Lang, J., Ed., Rekhter, Y., Ed., and D. Papadimitriou,
Ed., "RSVP-TE Extensions in Support of End-to-End
Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)
Recovery", RFC 4872, DOI 10.17487/RFC4872, May 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4872>.
[RFC4873] Berger, L., Bryskin, I., Papadimitriou, D., and A. Farrel,
"GMPLS Segment Recovery", RFC 4873, DOI 10.17487/RFC4873,
May 2007, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4873>.
[RFC4875] Aggarwal, R., Ed., Papadimitriou, D., Ed., and S.
Yasukawa, Ed., "Extensions to Resource Reservation
Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) for Point-to-
Multipoint TE Label Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 4875,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4875, May 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4875>.
[RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation
Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, March 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5440>.
[RFC5586] Bocci, M., Ed., Vigoureux, M., Ed., and S. Bryant, Ed.,
"MPLS Generic Associated Channel", RFC 5586,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5586, June 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5586>.
[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>.
[RFC5921] Bocci, M., Ed., Bryant, S., Ed., Frost, D., Ed., Levrau,
L., and L. Berger, "A Framework for MPLS in Transport
Networks", RFC 5921, DOI 10.17487/RFC5921, July 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5921>.
[RFC6003] Papadimitriou, D., "Ethernet Traffic Parameters",
RFC 6003, DOI 10.17487/RFC6003, October 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6003>.
[RFC6006] Zhao, Q., Ed., King, D., Ed., Verhaeghe, F., Takeda, T.,
Ali, Z., and J. Meuric, "Extensions to the Path
Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) for
Point-to-Multipoint Traffic Engineering Label Switched
Paths", RFC 6006, DOI 10.17487/RFC6006, September 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6006>.
[RFC6073] Martini, L., Metz, C., Nadeau, T., Bocci, M., and M.
Aissaoui, "Segmented Pseudowire", RFC 6073,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6073, January 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6073>.
[RFC6387] Takacs, A., Berger, L., Caviglia, D., Fedyk, D., and J.
Meuric, "GMPLS Asymmetric Bandwidth Bidirectional Label
Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 6387, DOI 10.17487/RFC6387,
September 2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6387>.
[RFC6790] Kompella, K., Drake, J., Amante, S., Henderickx, W., and
L. Yong, "The Use of Entropy Labels in MPLS Forwarding",
RFC 6790, DOI 10.17487/RFC6790, November 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6790>.
[RFC7551] Zhang, F., Ed., Jing, R., and R. Gandhi, Ed., "RSVP-TE
Extensions for Associated Bidirectional Label Switched
Paths (LSPs)", RFC 7551, DOI 10.17487/RFC7551, May 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7551>.
[RFC7950] Bjorklund, M., Ed., "The YANG 1.1 Data Modeling Language",
RFC 7950, DOI 10.17487/RFC7950, August 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7950>.
[RFC8040] Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and K. Watsen, "RESTCONF
Protocol", RFC 8040, DOI 10.17487/RFC8040, January 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8040>.
[RFC8169] Mirsky, G., Ruffini, S., Gray, E., Drake, J., Bryant, S.,
and A. Vainshtein, "Residence Time Measurement in MPLS
Networks", RFC 8169, DOI 10.17487/RFC8169, May 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8169>.
Appendix A. Example of DetNet Data Plane Operation
[Editor's note: Add a simplified example of DetNet data plane and how
labels etc work in the case of MPLS-based PSN and utilizing PREOF.
The figure is subject to change depending on the further DT decisions
on the label handling..]
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
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
Janos Farkas Janos Farkas
Ericsson Ericsson
Magyar Tudosok krt. 11. Magyar Tudosok krt. 11.
Budapest 1117 Budapest 1117
Hungary Hungary
Email: janos.farkas@ericsson.com Email: janos.farkas@ericsson.com
Andrew G. Malis Andrew G. Malis
Huawei Technologies Independent
Email: agmalis@gmail.com Email: agmalis@gmail.com
Stewart Bryant Stewart Bryant
Huawei Technologies Futurewei Technologies
Email: stewart.bryant@gmail.com Email: stewart.bryant@gmail.com
Jouni Korhonen
Email: jouni.nospam@gmail.com
 End of changes. 87 change blocks. 
742 lines changed or deleted 293 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/