draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-udp-ip-07.txt   draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-udp-ip-08.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: April 14, 2021 L. Berger Expires: June 17, 2021 L. Berger
LabN Consulting, L.L.C. LabN Consulting, L.L.C.
A. Malis A. Malis
Malis Consulting Malis Consulting
S. Bryant S. Bryant
Futurewei Technologies Futurewei Technologies
October 11, 2020 December 14, 2020
DetNet Data Plane: MPLS over UDP/IP DetNet Data Plane: MPLS over UDP/IP
draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-udp-ip-07 draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-udp-ip-08
Abstract Abstract
This document specifies the MPLS Deterministic Networking data plane This document specifies the MPLS Deterministic Networking data plane
operation and encapsulation over an IP network. The approach is operation and encapsulation over an IP network. The approach is
modeled on the operation of MPLS and over UDP/IP packet switched based on the operation of MPLS-in-UDP technology.
networks.
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 14, 2021. This Internet-Draft will expire on June 17, 2021.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2020 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 49 skipping to change at page 2, line 48
(these are a subset of the requirements for MPLS encapsulation listed (these are a subset of the requirements for MPLS encapsulation listed
in [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls]): in [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls]):
1. A method for identifying DetNet flows to the processing element. 1. A method for identifying DetNet flows to the processing element.
2. A method for carrying the DetNet sequence number. 2. A method for carrying the DetNet sequence number.
3. A method for distinguishing DetNet OAM packets from DetNet data 3. A method for distinguishing DetNet OAM packets from DetNet data
packets. packets.
4. A method for carrying queuing and forwarding indication. 4. A method for carrying queueing and forwarding indication.
These requirements are satisfied by the DetNet over MPLS These requirements are satisfied by the DetNet over MPLS
Encapsulation described in [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls] and they are partly Encapsulation described in [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls] and they are partly
satisfied (i.e., IP flows can be identified however no DetNet satisfied (i.e., IP flows can be identified however no DetNet
sequence number is carried) by the DetNet IP data plane defined in sequence number is carried) by the DetNet IP data plane defined in
[I-D.ietf-detnet-ip] [I-D.ietf-detnet-ip]
This document specifies use of the MPLS DetNet encapsulation over an This document specifies use of the MPLS DetNet encapsulation over an
IP network. The approach is modeled on the operation of MPLS over an IP network. The approach is modeled on the operation of MPLS over an
IP Packet Switched Network (PSN) [RFC7510]. It maps the MPLS data IP Packet Switched Network (PSN) [RFC7510]. It maps the MPLS data
skipping to change at page 4, line 41 skipping to change at page 4, line 39
This document builds on the specification of MPLS over UDP defined in This document builds on the specification of MPLS over UDP defined in
[RFC7510]. It may replace partly or entirely the F-Label(s) used in [RFC7510]. It may replace partly or entirely the F-Label(s) used in
[I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls] with UDP and IP headers. The UDP and IP [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls] with UDP and IP headers. The UDP and IP
header information is used to identify DetNet flows, including member header information is used to identify DetNet flows, including member
flows, per [I-D.ietf-detnet-ip]. The resulting encapsulation is flows, per [I-D.ietf-detnet-ip]. The resulting encapsulation is
shown in Figure 1. There may be zero or more F-label(s) between the shown in Figure 1. There may be zero or more F-label(s) between the
S-label and the UDP header. S-label and the UDP header.
Note that this encapsulation works equally well with IPv4, IPv6, and Note that this encapsulation works equally well with IPv4, IPv6, and
IPv6-based Segment Routing [I-D.ietf-6man-segment-routing-header]. IPv6-based Segment Routing [RFC8754].
+---------------------------------+ +---------------------------------+
| | | |
| DetNet App-Flow | | DetNet App-Flow |
| Payload Packet | | Payload Packet |
| | | |
+---------------------------------+ <--\ +---------------------------------+ <--\
| DetNet Control Word | | | DetNet Control Word | |
+---------------------------------+ +--> DetNet data plane +---------------------------------+ +--> DetNet data plane
| S-Label | | MPLS encapsulation | S-Label | | MPLS encapsulation
skipping to change at page 5, line 36 skipping to change at page 5, line 36
Figure 1: UDP/IP Encapsulation of DetNet MPLS Figure 1: UDP/IP Encapsulation of DetNet MPLS
S-Labels, A-Labels (when present), d-CW and zero or more F-Labels are S-Labels, A-Labels (when present), d-CW and zero or more F-Labels are
used as defined in [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls] and are not modified by used as defined in [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls] and are not modified by
this document. this document.
4. DetNet Data Plane Procedures 4. DetNet Data Plane Procedures
To support outgoing DetNet MPLS over UDP encapsulation, an To support outgoing DetNet MPLS over UDP encapsulation, an
implementation MUST support the provisioning of UDP and IP header implementation MUST support the provisioning of UDP and IP header
information in addition or in place of F-Label(s). Note, when PRF is information in addition to or in place of F-Label(s). Note, when PRF
performed at the MPLS service sub-layer, there will be multiple is performed at the MPLS service sub-layer, there will be multiple
member flows, and each member flow will require the provisioning of member flows, and each member flow will require the provisioning of
their own UDP and IP header information. The headers for each their own UDP and IP header information. The headers for each
outgoing packet MUST be formatted according to the configuration outgoing packet MUST be formatted according to the configuration
information and as defined in [RFC7510], and the UDP Source Port information and as defined in [RFC7510], and the UDP Source Port
value MUST be set to uniquely identify the DetNet flow. The packet value MUST be set to uniquely identify the DetNet flow. The packet
MUST then be handled as a DetNet IP packet, per [I-D.ietf-detnet-ip]. MUST then be handled as a DetNet IP packet, per [I-D.ietf-detnet-ip].
This includes QoS related traffic treatment. This includes QoS related traffic treatment.
To support the receive processing defined in this document, an To support the receive processing defined in this document, an
implementation MUST also support the provisioning of received UDP and implementation MUST also support the provisioning of received UDP and
IP header information. The provisioned information MUST be used to IP header information. The provisioned information MUST be used to
identify incoming app-flows based on the combination of S-Label and identify incoming app-flows based on the combination of S-Label and
incoming encapsulation header information. Normal receive processing incoming encapsulation header information. Normal receive processing
as defined in [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls], including PEF and POF, can then as defined in [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls], including PEF and POF, can then
take place. take place.
5. Management and Control Information Summary 5. Management and Control Information Summary
The following summarizes the set of information that is needed to The following summarizes the minimum set of information that is
configure DetNet MPLS over UDP/IP: needed to configure DetNet MPLS over UDP/IP:
o Label information (A-labels, S-labels and F-labels) to be mapped o Label information (A-labels, S-labels and F-labels) to be mapped
to UDP/IP flow. Note that for example, a single S-Label can map to UDP/IP flows. Note that for example, a single S-Label can map
to multiple sets of UDP/IP information when PREOF is used. to multiple sets of UDP/IP information when PREOF is used.
o IPv4 or IPv6 source address field. o IPv4 or IPv6 source address field.
o IPv4 or IPv6 destination address field. o IPv4 or IPv6 destination address field.
o DSCP Field in either IPv4 Type of Service or IPv6 Traffic Class o DSCP Field in either IPv4 Type of Service or IPv6 Traffic Class
Fields. Fields.
o UDP Source Port. o UDP Source Port.
o UDP Destination Port. o UDP Destination Port.
o Use/non-use of UDP checksum.
This information MUST be provisioned per DetNet flow via This information MUST be provisioned per DetNet flow via
configuration, e.g., via the controller [RFC8655] or management configuration, e.g., via the controller [RFC8655] or management
plane. plane. Not using the UDP checksum has to be evaluated on a case-by-
case basis for a given network scenario based on the exception
criteria's defined in [RFC7510], particularly when IPv6 is used.
It is the responsibility of the DetNet controller plane to properly It is the responsibility of the DetNet controller plane to properly
provision both flow identification information and the flow specific provision both flow identification information and the flow specific
resources needed to provide the traffic treatment needed to meet each resources needed to provide the traffic treatment needed to meet each
flow's service requirements. This applies for aggregated and flow's service requirements. This applies for aggregated and
individual flows. individual flows.
Note: In the presence of network (and port) address translation Note: In the presence of network (and port) address translation
devices/functions it would be up to the controller plane to determine devices/functions it would be up to the controller plane to determine
the appropriate information to ensure proper mapping at the sender/ the appropriate information to ensure proper mapping at the sender/
receiver. receiver.
6. Security Considerations 6. Security Considerations
The solution defined in this document reuses mechanisms specified in The solution defined in this document reuses mechanisms specified in
other documents, and the security considerations in those documents other documents, and the security considerations in those documents
apply equally to this document. Notably [RFC7510], as this document apply equally to this document. Of particular note is [RFC7510], as
is primarily an application of MPLS-in-UDP. Additionally, the this document is primarily an application of MPLS-in-UDP.
security considerations of DetNet in general are discussed in
[RFC8655] and [I-D.ietf-detnet-security]. Finally,MPLS and IP
specific security considerations are described in
Additionally, the security considerations of DetNet in general are
discussed in [RFC8655] and [I-D.ietf-detnet-security]. Finally, MPLS
and IP specific security considerations are described in
[I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls] and [I-D.ietf-detnet-ip]. This draft does not [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls] and [I-D.ietf-detnet-ip]. This draft does not
have additional security considerations. have additional security considerations.
7. IANA Considerations 7. IANA Considerations
This document makes no IANA requests. This document makes no IANA requests.
8. Acknowledgements 8. Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank Pat Thaler, Norman Finn, Loa Anderson, The authors wish to thank Pat Thaler, Norman Finn, Loa Anderson,
skipping to change at page 7, line 37 skipping to change at page 7, line 40
10.1. Normative References 10.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-detnet-ip] [I-D.ietf-detnet-ip]
Varga, B., Farkas, J., Berger, L., Fedyk, D., and S. Varga, B., Farkas, J., Berger, L., Fedyk, D., and S.
Bryant, "DetNet Data Plane: IP", draft-ietf-detnet-ip-07 Bryant, "DetNet Data Plane: IP", draft-ietf-detnet-ip-07
(work in progress), July 2020. (work in progress), July 2020.
[I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls] [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls]
Varga, B., Farkas, J., Berger, L., Malis, A., Bryant, S., Varga, B., Farkas, J., Berger, L., Malis, A., Bryant, S.,
and J. Korhonen, "DetNet Data Plane: MPLS", draft-ietf- and J. Korhonen, "DetNet Data Plane: MPLS", draft-ietf-
detnet-mpls-12 (work in progress), September 2020. detnet-mpls-13 (work in progress), October 2020.
[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>.
[RFC7510] Xu, X., Sheth, N., Yong, L., Callon, R., and D. Black, [RFC7510] Xu, X., Sheth, N., Yong, L., Callon, R., and D. Black,
"Encapsulating MPLS in UDP", RFC 7510, "Encapsulating MPLS in UDP", RFC 7510,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7510, April 2015, DOI 10.17487/RFC7510, April 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7510>. <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>.
10.2. Informative References 10.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-6man-segment-routing-header]
Filsfils, C., Dukes, D., Previdi, S., Leddy, J.,
Matsushima, S., and D. Voyer, "IPv6 Segment Routing Header
(SRH)", draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header-26 (work in
progress), October 2019.
[I-D.ietf-detnet-security] [I-D.ietf-detnet-security]
Grossman, E., Mizrahi, T., and A. Hacker, "Deterministic Grossman, E., Mizrahi, T., and A. Hacker, "Deterministic
Networking (DetNet) Security Considerations", draft-ietf- Networking (DetNet) Security Considerations", draft-ietf-
detnet-security-12 (work in progress), October 2020. detnet-security-12 (work in progress), October 2020.
[RFC8655] Finn, N., Thubert, P., Varga, B., and J. Farkas, [RFC8655] Finn, N., Thubert, P., Varga, B., and J. Farkas,
"Deterministic Networking Architecture", RFC 8655, "Deterministic Networking Architecture", RFC 8655,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8655, October 2019, DOI 10.17487/RFC8655, October 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8655>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8655>.
[RFC8754] Filsfils, C., Ed., Dukes, D., Ed., Previdi, S., Leddy, J.,
Matsushima, S., and D. Voyer, "IPv6 Segment Routing Header
(SRH)", RFC 8754, DOI 10.17487/RFC8754, March 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8754>.
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
 End of changes. 17 change blocks. 
26 lines changed or deleted 28 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/