draft-dt-detnet-dp-alt-02.txt		draft-dt-detnet-dp-alt-03.txt
	DetNet J. Korhonen, Ed.		DetNet J. Korhonen, Ed.
	Internet-Draft Broadcom		Internet-Draft Broadcom
	Intended status: Informational J. Farkas		Intended status: Informational J. Farkas
	Expires: February 5, 2017 G. Mirsky		Expires: February 18, 2017 G. Mirsky
	Ericsson		Ericsson
	P. Thubert		P. Thubert
	Cisco		Cisco
	Y. Zhuang		Y. Zhuang
	Huawei		Huawei
	L. Berger		L. Berger
	LabN		LabN
	August 4, 2016		August 17, 2016
	DetNet Data Plane Protocol and Solution Alternatives		DetNet Data Plane Protocol and Solution Alternatives
	draft-dt-detnet-dp-alt-02		draft-dt-detnet-dp-alt-03
	Abstract		Abstract
	This document identifies existing IP and MPLS, and other		This document identifies existing IP and MPLS, and other
	encapsulations that run over IP and/or MPLS data plane technologies		encapsulations that run over IP and/or MPLS data plane technologies
	that can be considered as the base line solution for deterministic		that can be considered as the base line solution for deterministic
	networking data plane definition.		networking data plane definition.
	Status of This Memo		Status of This Memo
	skipping to change at page 1, line 41 ¶		skipping to change at page 1, line 41 ¶
	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 http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.		Drafts is at http://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 February 5, 2017.		This Internet-Draft will expire on February 18, 2017.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2016 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
	(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of		(http://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 33, line 39 ¶		skipping to change at page 33, line 39 ¶
	This is a strong point of the solution. The solution enables to		This is a strong point of the solution. The solution enables to
	determine which is the current segment that a given packet is		determine which is the current segment that a given packet is
	expected to traverse, which node performed the replication and		expected to traverse, which node performed the replication and
	which should perform the elimination if any		which should perform the elimination if any
	#10 Technical maturity (W)		#10 Technical maturity (W)
	Some components of the technology are more mature, e.g. segment		Some components of the technology are more mature, e.g. segment
	routing and BIER. Yet, the overall solution has never been		routing and BIER. Yet, the overall solution has never been
	deployed as is not fully defined.		deployed as is not fully defined. It should be noted that the
			definition of the BIER-TE solution is outside the scope of the
			DetNet WG charter.
	5.1.5.3. Summary		5.1.5.3. Summary
	BIER-TE occupies a particular position in the DetNet data plane. In		BIER-TE occupies a particular position in the DetNet data plane. In
	the one hand it is optional, and only useful if replication and		the one hand it is optional, and only useful if replication and
	elimination is taking place. In the other hand, it has unique		elimination is taking place. In the other hand, it has unique
	capabilities to:		capabilities to:
	o control which replication take place on a per packet basis, so		o control which replication take place on a per packet basis, so
	that replication points can be configured but not actually		that replication points can be configured but not actually
	utilized		utilized
	o trace the replication activity and determine which node replicated		o trace the replication activity and determine which node replicated
	a particular packet		a particular packet
	o measure the quality of transmission of the actual data packet		o measure the quality of transmission of the actual data packet
	along the replication segments and use that in a control loop to		along the replication segments and use that in a control loop to
	adapt the setting of the bits and maintain the reliability.		adapt the setting of the bits and maintain the reliability.
			However, as noted earlier, BIER-TE is not yet fully specified and the
			required specification work is outside the scope of the current
			DetNet WG charter.
	5.2. DetNet Service layer technologies		5.2. DetNet Service layer technologies
	5.2.1. Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE)		5.2.1. Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE)
	5.2.1.1. Solution description		5.2.1.1. Solution description
	Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE) [RFC2784] provides an		Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE) [RFC2784] provides an
	encapsulation of an arbitrary network layer protocol over another		encapsulation of an arbitrary network layer protocol over another
	arbitrary network layer protocol. The encapsulation of a GRE packet		arbitrary network layer protocol. The encapsulation of a GRE packet
	can be found in Figure 13.		can be found in Figure 13.
	skipping to change at page 47, line 25 ¶		skipping to change at page 47, line 25 ¶
	| GRE | M | W | M/W | W/N | M | W | M |		| GRE | M | W | M/W | W/N | M | W | M |
	| PWE3 | M | M | M | W | M/W | M/W | M |		| PWE3 | M | M | M | W | M/W | M/W | M |
	| EVPN | M | W | M | M/W | M/W | M/W | M |		| EVPN | M | W | M | M/W | M/W | M/W | M |
	| RTP | M | M | M | M/W | M | M/W | M |		| RTP | M | M | M | M/W | M | M/W | M |
	+----------+----+----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+		+----------+----+----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
	Summarizing Service capabilities		Summarizing Service capabilities
	Table 7: DetNet Service Layer		Table 7: DetNet Service Layer
	PseudoWire (Section 5.2.3) is the technology that is mature and meets		PseudoWire (Section 5.2.3) is a technology that is mature and meets
	most of the criteria for the DetNet Service layer as shown in the		most of the criteria for the DetNet Service layer as shown in the
	table above. From upper layer protocols PWs or RTP can be a		table above. From upper layer protocols PWs or RTP can be a
	candidate for non-MPLS PSNs. The identified work for PWs is to		candidate for non-MPLS PSNs. The identified work for PWs is to
	figure out how to implement duplicate detection for these protocols		figure out how to implement duplicate detection for these protocols
	(e.g., based on [RFC3985]). In a case of RTP there is precedence of		(e.g., based on [RFC3985]). In a case of RTP there is precedence of
	implementing packet duplication and duplicate elimination		implementing packet duplication and duplicate elimination
	[ST20227][RFC7198].		[ST20227][RFC7198].
	PWs can be carried over MPLS or IP. MPLS is the most common		PWs can be carried over MPLS or IP. MPLS is the most common
	technology that is used as PSN for PseudoWires; furthermore, MPLS is		technology that is used as PSN for PseudoWires; furthermore, MPLS is
End of changes. 7 change blocks.
	6 lines changed or deleted		12 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.45. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/