--- 1/draft-ietf-detnet-dp-sol-00.txt 2018-01-29 15:13:09.107275694 -0800 +++ 2/draft-ietf-detnet-dp-sol-01.txt 2018-01-29 15:13:09.183277508 -0800 @@ -1,304 +1,216 @@ DetNet J. Korhonen, Ed. Internet-Draft Nordic Intended status: Standards Track L. Andersson -Expires: May 3, 2018 Y. Jiang +Expires: August 2, 2018 Y. Jiang N. Finn Huawei B. Varga J. Farkas Ericsson CJ. Bernardos UC3M T. Mizrahi Marvell L. Berger LabN - October 30, 2017 + January 29, 2018 DetNet Data Plane Encapsulation - draft-ietf-detnet-dp-sol-00 + draft-ietf-detnet-dp-sol-01 Abstract This document specifies Deterministic Networking data plane encapsulation solutions. The described data plane solutions can be applied over either IP or MPLS Packet Switched Networks. - Comment #1: SB> An overarching comment is that the early part of the - document is really fundamental architecture and perhaps belongs in - the arch draft, leaving this draft to be more specific about - solutions. Indeed if we cannot find a single solution that maps to - both IP and MPLS underlays I wonder if we should publish two - specialist RFCs? - - Discussion: One document at the beginning, split into two if/when - needed. Would be post adoption in any case. - - Comment #2: SB> Whilst I think we should look for a common solution - to IP and MPLS I do not think that this is where the DT ended up. - - Discussion: Agree. - Status of This Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." - This Internet-Draft will expire on May 3, 2018. + This Internet-Draft will expire on August 2, 2018. Copyright Notice - Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the + Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 - 2.1. Terms used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 - 2.2. Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 3. Requirements language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - 4. DetNet data plane overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - 4.1. DetNet data plane encapsulation requirements . . . . . . 10 - 5. DetNet data plane solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 - 5.1. DetNet specific packet fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 - 5.2. DetNet encapsulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 - 5.2.1. PseudoWire-based data plane encapsulation . . . . . . 13 - 5.2.2. Native IPv6-based data plane encapsulation . . . . . 15 - 5.3. DetNet flow identification for duplicate detection . . . 17 - 5.3.1. PseudoWire encapsulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 - 5.3.2. Native IPv6 encapsulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 - 6. PREF specific considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 - 6.1. PseudoWire-based data plane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 - 6.1.1. Forwarder clarifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 - 6.1.2. Edge node processing clarifications . . . . . . . . . 19 - 6.1.3. Relay node processing clarifications . . . . . . . . 21 - 6.2. Native IPv6-based data plane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 - 7. Other DetNet data plane considerations . . . . . . . . . . . 23 - 7.1. Class of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 + 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 + 2.1. Terms used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 + 2.2. Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 + 3. Requirements language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 + 4. DetNet data plane overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 + 4.1. DetNet data plane encapsulation requirements . . . . . . 8 + 4.2. Packet replication and elimination considerations . . . . 10 + 4.3. Packet reordering considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 + 5. MPLS-based DetNet data plane solution . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 + 5.1. DetNet specific packet fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 + 5.2. Data plane encapsulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 + 5.3. DetNet control word . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 + 5.4. Flow identification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 + 5.5. Service layer considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 + 5.5.1. Edge node processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 + 5.5.2. Relay node processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 + 5.5.3. End system processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 + 5.6. Transport node considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 + 5.6.1. Congestion protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 + 5.6.2. Explicit routes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 + 6. IPv6-based DetNet data plane solution . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 + 6.1. Data plane encapsulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 + 6.2. DetNet destination option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 + 6.3. Flow identification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 + 6.4. Service layer considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 + 6.4.1. Edge node processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 + 6.4.2. Relay node processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 + 6.4.3. End system processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 + 6.5. Transport node processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 + 6.5.1. Congestion protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 + 6.5.2. Explicit routes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 + 7. Other DetNet data plane considerations . . . . . . . . . . . 24 + 7.1. Class of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 7.2. Quality of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 - 7.3. Cross-DetNet flow resource aggregation . . . . . . . . . 25 - 7.4. Bidirectional traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 + 7.3. Cross-DetNet flow resource aggregation . . . . . . . . . 26 + 7.4. Bidirectional traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 7.5. Layer 2 addressing and QoS Considerations . . . . . . . . 27 - 7.6. Interworking between PW- and IPv6-based encapsulations . 27 - 8. Time synchronization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 - 9. Management and control considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 - 9.1. PW Label and IPv6 Flow Label assignment and distribution 29 - 9.2. Packet replication and elimination . . . . . . . . . . . 30 - 9.3. Explicit paths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 - 9.4. Congestion protection and latency control . . . . . . . . 30 - 9.5. Flow aggregation control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 - 10. Security considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 - 11. IANA considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 - 12. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 - 13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 - 13.1. Normative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 - 13.2. Informative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 - Appendix A. Example of DetNet data plane operation . . . . . . . 34 - Appendix B. Example of pinned paths using IPv6 . . . . . . . . . 35 - Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 + 7.6. Interworking between MPLS- and IPv6-based encapsulations 28 + 7.7. IPv4 considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 + 8. Time synchronization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 + 9. Management and control considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 + 9.1. MPLS-based data plane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 + 9.1.1. S-Label assignment and distribution . . . . . . . . . 30 + 9.1.2. Explicit routes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 + 9.2. IPv6-based data plane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 + 9.2.1. Flow Label assignment and distribution . . . . . . . 30 + 9.2.2. Explicit routes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 + 9.3. Packet replication and elimination . . . . . . . . . . . 31 + 9.4. Congestion protection and latency control . . . . . . . . 31 + 9.5. Flow aggregation control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 + 10. Security considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 + 11. IANA considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 + 12. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 + 13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 + 13.1. Normative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 + 13.2. Informative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 + Appendix A. Example of DetNet data plane operation . . . . . . . 35 + Appendix B. Example of pinned paths using IPv6 . . . . . . . . . 36 + Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 1. Introduction Deterministic Networking (DetNet) is a service that can be offered by a network to DetNet flows. DetNet provides these flows extremely low packet loss rates and assured maximum end-to-end delivery latency. General background and concepts of DetNet can be found in [I-D.ietf-detnet-architecture]. - This document specifies the DetNet data plane. It defines how DetNet - traffic is encapsulated at the network layer, and how DetNet-aware - nodes can identity DetNet flows. Two data plane definitions are - given. - - o PW-based: One solution is based on PseudoWires (PW) [RFC3985] and - [RFC5036] and makes use of multi-segment pseudowires (MS-PW) - [RFC6073] to map DetNet Relay and Edge Nodes - [I-D.ietf-detnet-architecture] [I-D.ietf-detnet-dp-alt] to PW - architecture. The PW-based data plane can be run over an MPLS - [RFC4448] [RFC6658] Packet Switched Network (PSN). - - Comment #3: SB> This is really an MPLS one. The world of IP PWs is - a bit scruffy with some work in PWE3 and some in L2TPext which - really went their own ways. There is for example no MS-PW IP - design. The MS-PW approach needs to be examined more closely by - the WG and thus at this stage be marked as provisional. - - Discussion: Agree. "can be" -> "is". - - Comment #3.1 LB> EVPN-based encapsulation is also a potential - candidate. In general DetNet should look more closely to the - delevopment around EVPN. - - Discussion Agree. EVPN could be a potential solution and the on- - wire encapsuations are likely to be the same as PW-based - encapsulation would be. EVPN even recommends using Control Word - [RFC8214] (in the absence of entropy labels). - - o Native-IP: The other solution is based on IP header fields, namely - on the IPv6 Flow Label and a new DetNet Control Word extension - header option. It is targeted for native IPv6 networks. - - Comment #4: SB> The IP solution has not been properly examined by - the WG and needs to be marked as provisional. - - Discussion: IP vs. MPLS is a deployment choice. - - It is worth noting that while PWs are designed to work over IP PSNs - this document describes a native-IP solution that operates without - PWs. The primary reason for this is the benefit gained by enabling - the use of a normal application stack, where transport protocols such - as TCP or UDP are directly encapsulated in IP. + This document specifies the DetNet data plane and the on-wire + encapsulation of DetNet flows. The specified encapsulation provides + the building blocks to enable the DetNet service layer functions and + allow flow identification as described in the DetNet Architecture. + Two data plane definitions are given. - Comment #5: SB> We clearly need to look at the implications of - running this with a new IP header extension. Firstly we need input - from 6man, but we also need to understand what happens in middle - boxes, other components of the host stack etc. + 1. MPLS-based: The enacapsulation resembles PseudoWires (PW) with an + MPLS Packet Switched Network (PSN) [RFC3985][RFC4385]. - Discussion: A WG can develop their own extensions and then get - approval from 6man. Sometimes that ends up redoing extensions in - 6man but not always. + 2. Native-IP-based: The encapsulating protocol is IPv6 and the + solution relies on IP header fields, existing and DetNet specific + IPv6 eaxtension header options [RFC8200]. - This document specifies the encapsulation for DetNet flows, including - a DetNet Control Word (CW). Furthermore, it describes how DetNet - flows are identified, how DetNet Relay and Edge nodes work, and how - the Packet Replication and Elimination function (PREF) is implemented - with these two data plane solutions. This document does not define - the associated control plane functions, or Operations, - Administration, and Maintenance (OAM). It also does not specify - traffic handling capabilities required to deliver congestion - protection and latency control to DetNet flows as this is defined to - be provided by the underlying MPLS or IP network. + [Editor's note: MPLS- and IPv6-based solutions are likely to be + split into different documents.] - Comment #6: SB> OK, although I think that this may be a mistake. - There may well be some coupling needed between the Detnet DP and - the substrate/transport/underlay needed to make this work. If this - is a genuine technical layering we should talk about it. If this - is an artificial constraint imposed by the IESG we need to talk to - them. + It is worth noting that while MPLS-based solution can transport IP + packets a native-IP solution is meant for deployments where the + DetNet service layer functions are provided at the IP-layer rather + than the underlying transport network. The primary reason for this + is the benefit gained by enabling the use of a normal application + stack, where transport protocols such as TCP or UDP are directly + encapsulated in IP. - Discussion: The only interaction needed is that the flow - identification is possible. That needs to be available for lower - layers. + The DetNet transport layer functionality that provides congestion + protection for DetNet flows is assumed to be in place in a DetNet + node. - Comment #6.1: LA> Even though this document does not specify any OAM - functions, we will need to verify that the GACh (Generalized - Associate Channel) works correctly in a network that has - replication and elimination. + Furthermore, this document also describes how DetNet flows are + identified, how a DetNet Relay/Edge/Transit nodes work, and how the + Packet Replication and Elimination function (PREF) is implemented + with the two data plane solutions. - Discussion: -- + This document does not define the associated control plane functions, + or Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM). It also does + not specify traffic handling capabilities required to deliver + congestion protection and latency control for DetNet flows at the + DetNet transport layer. 2. Terminology 2.1. Terms used in this document This document uses the terminology established in the DetNet architecture [I-D.ietf-detnet-architecture] and the DetNet Data Plane Solution Alternatives [I-D.ietf-detnet-dp-alt]. - The following terms are also used in this document: - - DA-T-PE MPLS based DetNet edge node: a DetNet-aware PseudoWire - Terminating Provider Edge (T-PE). - - DA-S-PE MPLS based DetNet relay node: a DetNet-aware PseudoWire - Switching Provider Edge (S-PE). - - Comment #7 SB> We need to look at whether the S-PE concept is the - best fit, or whether we should use introduce a Detnet relay to do - this. An S-PE just swaps the PW label, but Detnet needs it to do - more and a better model might be a new construct. However we - could also discard the relay concept and run 1+n end to end, in - which case the S-PEs would retain heir original function. - - Discussion: Disagree of the dropping comment. However, the issues - are most likely terminology related. The relay concept is part of - the DetNet architecture A DA-S-PE was intended to be a DetNet - relay, which may do more than just swapping labels (PREF - functionality). Current text is quite biased to MS-PW, which was - the starting point for the DetNet relay in a MPLS PW network. - T-Label A label used to identify the LSP used to transport a DetNet flow across an MPLS PSN, e.g., a hop-by-hop label used between label switching routers (LSR). - S-Label A DetNet node to DetNet node "service" label that is - used between DA-*-PE devices. - - PW Label A PseudoWire label that is used to identify DetNet flow - related PW Instances within a PE node. + S-Label A DetNet "service" label that is used between DetNet + nodes that implment also the DetNet service layer + functions. An S-Label is also used to identify a + DetNet flow at DetNet service layer. Flow Label IPv6 header field that is used to identify a DetNet flow (together with the source IP address field). - Comment #8 SB> If this is the IPv6 Flow label I think caution is - needed as I don't think the handling of this is well defined or - consistently implemented in networking equipment. - - Discussion: DetNet specifies the use and discusses possible - interaction with RFC6347 in this I-D. - - local-ID An edge and relay node internal construct that uniquely - identifies a DetNet flow. It may be used to select - proper forwarding and/or DetNet specific service - function. - - Comment #9 SB> Is this really an internal construct, or is it an on - the wire construct? If it is needed end to end, I don't think it - is correct to describe it as an internal construct. When you say - "select" presumably you mean by potentially any DN aware node on - the path? - - Discussion: It is an internal construct, so yes. + Local-ID A DetNet Edge and Relay node internal construct that + uniquely identifies a DetNet flow within a node and + never appear on-wire. It may be used to select proper + forwarding and/or DetNet specific service function. PREF A Packet Replication and Elimination Function (PREF) does the replication and elimination processing of DetNet flow packets in edge or relay nodes. The replication function is essentially the existing 1+1 protection mechanism. The elimination function reuses and extends the existing duplicate detection mechanism to operate over multiple (separate) DetNet member flows of a DetNet compound flow. - Comment #10 SB> I wonder if 1+1 is the right way to go, or whether - 1+n is better. A bunch of new techniques have emerged over the - years and we really ought to look at creating paths with MRT. - - With 1+2 on main + the two MRT paths you have a two failure - resiliency as far as it is possible to construct such paths in the - underlying topology. - - Discussion: As observed above, actually 1+n would be closer to what - is needed. 1+1 was meant to be more an example showing there is - existing work that can be leveraged. + DetNet Control Word A control word used for sequencing and + identifying duplaicate packets at the DetNet service + layer. 2.2. Abbreviations The following abbreviations used in this document: AC Attachment Circuit. CE Customer Edge equipment. CoS Class of Service. @@ -338,55 +250,28 @@ TSN Time-Sensitive Network. 3. Requirements language The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. 4. DetNet data plane overview - Comment #11 I am not sure whether this is a DP overview, or an - architecture overview and hence whether this needs to be here or - in the architecture draft. - - Discussion: Overview is more of an editorial matter and its final - location can be discussed later on. Currently it is "no harm" to - have it here but there are no binding reasons to keep the text in - either. - This document describes how to use IP and/or MPLS to support a data plane method of flow identification and packet formwarding over layer-3. Two different cases are covered: (i) the inter-connect scenario, in which IEEE802.1 TSN is routed over a layer-3 network (i.e., to enlarge the layer-2 domain), and (ii) native connectivity - between DetNet-aware end systems. Figure 1 illustrates an exemplary - scenario. - - TSN Edge Transit Relay DetNet - End System Node Node Node End System - - +---------+ +.........+ +---------+ - | Appl. |<---:Svc Proxy:-- End to End Service ---------->| Appl. | - +---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+ - | TSN | |TSN| |Svc|<-- DetNet flow ---: Service :-->| Service | - +---------+ +---+ +---+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+ - |Transport| |Trp| |Trp| |Transport| |Trp| |Trp| |Transport| - +-------.-+ +-.-+ +-.-+ +--.----.-+ +-.-+ +-.-+ +---.-----+ - : Link : / ,-----. \ : Link : / ,-----. \ - +........+ +-[ Sub ]-+ +........+ +-[ Sub ]-+ - [Network] [Network] - `-----' `-----' - - Figure 1: A simple DetNet enabled network architecture + between DetNet-aware end systems. - Figure 2 illustrates how DetNet can provide services for IEEE + Figure 1 illustrates how DetNet can provide services for IEEE 802.1TSN end systems over a DetNet enabled network. The edge nodes insert and remove required DetNet data plane encapsulation. The 'X' in the edge and relay nodes represents a potential DetNet flow packet replication and elimination point. This conceptually parallels L2VPN services, and could leverage existing related solutions as discussed below. TSN |<---------- End to End DetNet Service ------>| TSN Service | Transit Transit | Service TSN (AC) | |<-Tunnel->| |<-Tnl->| | (AC) TSN @@ -395,52 +280,51 @@ +---+ | | E1 |==========| R1 |=======| E2 | | +---+ | |--|----|._X_....|..DetNet..|.._ _...|..DF3..|...._X_.|---|---| | |CE1| | | \ | Flow 1 | X | | / | | |CE2| | | | \_.|...DF2....|._/ \_..|..DF4..|._/ | | | +---+ | |==========| |=======| | +---+ ^ +--------+ +--------+ +--------+ ^ | Edge Node Relay Node Edge Node | | | |<----- Emulated Time Sensitive Networking (TSN) Service ---->| - Figure 2: IEEE 802.1TSN over DetNet + Figure 1: IEEE 802.1TSN over DetNet - Figure 3 illustrates how end to end PW-based DetNet service can be + Figure 2 illustrates how end to end MPLS-based DetNet service can be provided. In this case, the end systems are able to send and receive DetNet flows. For example, an end system sends data encapsulated in - PseudoWire (PW) and in MPLS. Like earlier the 'X' in the end - systems, edge and relay nodes represents potential DetNet flow packet - replication and elimination points. Here the relay nodes may change - the underlying transport, for example tunneling IP over MPLS, or - simply interconnect network segments. + MPLS. Like earlier the 'X' in the end systems, edge and relay nodes + represents potential DetNet flow packet replication and elimination + points. Here the relay nodes may change the underlying transport, + for example tunneling IP over MPLS, or simply interconnect network + segments. DetNet DetNet Service Transit Transit Service 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 | | | |<--------------- End to End DetNet Service -------------->| - Figure 3: PW-Based Native DetNet + Figure 2: MPLS-Based Native DetNet - Figure 4 illustrates how end to end IP-based DetNet service can be + Figure 3 illustrates how end to end IP-based DetNet service can be provided. In this case, the end systems are able to send and receive DetNet flows. [Editor's note: TBD] - NOTE: This figures is TBD DetNet DetNet Service Transit Transit Service DetNet | |<-Tnl->| |<-Tnl->| | DetNet End | V 1 V V 2 V | End System | +--------+ +--------+ +--------+ | System +---+ | | R1 |=======| R2 |=======| R3 | | +---+ | X...DFa...| | | | | | .|.X | | H1|========| | | | | |======| H2| @@ -444,21 +328,21 @@ +---+ | | R1 |=======| R2 |=======| R3 | | +---+ | X...DFa...| | | | | | .|.X | | H1|========| | | | | |======| H2| | | | | | | | | | | | | +---+ | |=======| |=======| | +---+ ^ +--------+ +--------+ +--------+ ^ | Relay Node Relay Node Relay Node | | | |<--------------- End to End DetNet Service -------------->| - Figure 4: IP-Based Native DetNet + Figure 3: IP-Based Native DetNet 4.1. DetNet data plane encapsulation requirements Two major groups of scenarios can be distinguished which require flow identification during transport: 1. DetNet function related scenarios: * Congestion protection and latency control: usage of allocated resources (queuing, policing, shaping). @@ -490,363 +374,193 @@ * troubleshooting (e.g., identify misbehaving flows, etc.) * recognize flow(s) for analytics (e.g., increase counters, etc.) * correlate events with flows (e.g., volume above threshold, etc.) * etc. - Each node (edge, relay and transit) use a local-ID of the DetNet- - (compound)-flow in order to accomplish its role during transport. - Recognizing the DetNet flow is more relaxed for edge and relay nodes, - as they are fully aware of both the DetNet service and transport - layers. The primary DetNet role of intermediate transport nodes is - limited to ensuring congestion protection and latency control for the - above listed DetNet functions. + Each DetNet node (edge, relay and transit) use an internal/ + implementation specific local-ID of the DetNet-(compound)-flow in + order to accomplish its role during transport. Recognizing the + DetNet flow is more relaxed for edge and relay nodes, as they are + fully aware of both the DetNet service and transport layers. The + primary DetNet role of intermediate transport nodes is limited to + ensuring congestion protection and latency control for the above + listed DetNet functions. The DetNet data plane allows for the aggregation of DetNet flows, e.g., via MPLS hierarchical LSPs, to improved scaling. When DetNet flows are aggregated, transit nodes may have limited ability to provide service on per-flow DetNet identifiers. Therefore, identifying each individual DetNet flow on a transit node may not be achieved in some network scenarios, but DetNet service can still be assured in these scenarios through resource allocation and control. Comment #14 You could introduce the concept of a flow group identified into the packet. You may also include a flow id at a lower layer. Discussion: Agree on the identification properties. Adding a specific id into actual on-wire formats is not necessarily needed. - On each node dealing with DetNet flows, a local-ID is assumed to - determine what local operation a packet goes through. Therefore, - local-IDs MUST be unique on each edge and relay nodes. Local-ID MUST - be unambiguously bound to the DetNet flow. + On each DetNet node dealing with DetNet flows, an internal local-ID + is assumed to determine what local operation a packet goes through. + Therefore, local-IDs has to be unique on each edge and relay nodes. + Local-ID is unambiguously bound to the DetNet flow. - Comment #15 I am confused as to what you mean by local ID. Is this - an internal construct which packet parameters map to, in which - case why is it being called up? IETF practise is to specify on - the wire behaviour but not internal behaviour of equipments. +4.2. Packet replication and elimination considerations - Discussion: Local-id is an internal construct, which was intended to - clarify the discussion in the I-D. Obviously it did not work as - intended. + DetNet service layer introduces packet replication and elimination + functionality (PREF) for use in DetNet edge and relay node and end + system packet processing. PREF MAY be enabled in a DetNet node and + the required processing is only applied to packets with a positive + flow identification at the DetNet service layer. PREF utilizes a + sequence number carried within a DetNet flow packets. -5. DetNet data plane solution + At a DetNet node level the output of the PREF elimination function is + always a single packet. The output of the PREF replication function + at a DetNet node level is always one or more packets (i.e., 1:M + replication). The replicated packets MUST share the same d-CW i.e., + the sequence number is the same for each member flow of the compound + flow. The location and mechanism on the packet processing pipeline + used for replication is implementation specific. -5.1. DetNet specific packet fields + The complex part of the DetNet PREF processing is tracking the + history of received packets for multiple DetNet member flows. These + ingress DetNet member flows (to a node) MUST have the same local-ID + if they belong to the same DetNet (compound) flow and share the same + sequence number counter and the history information. The location of + the packet elimination on the packet processing pipeline is + implementation specific. - The DetNet data plane encapsulation should include two DetNet - specific information element in each packet of a DetNet flow: (1) - flow identification and (2) sequence number. +4.3. Packet reordering considerations - Comment #16 should, SHOULD, must or MUST? + DetNet service layer introduces also packet reordering functionality + for use in DetNet edge and relay node and end system packet + processing. The reordering functionality MAY be enabled in a DetNet + node. The reordeing functionality relies on a presence of sequence + numbers in a DetNet (compound) flows. The reordering processing is + only applied to packets with a positive flow identification at the + DetNet service layer. - Discussion: SHOULD or MUST is ok. MUST is probably more - appropriate. +5. MPLS-based DetNet data plane solution + +5.1. DetNet specific packet fields + + The DetNet data plane encapsulation MUST include two DetNet specific + information elements in each packet of a DetNet flow: (1) a flow + identification and (2) a sequence number. The DetNet data plane encapsulation may consists further elements used for overlay tunneling, to distinguish between DetNet member flows of the same DetNet compound flow or to support OAM functions. -5.2. DetNet encapsulation - - This document specifies two encapsulations for the DetNet data plane: - (1) PseudoWire (PW) for MPLS PSN and (2) native IPv6 based - encapsulation for IP PSN. - -5.2.1. PseudoWire-based data plane encapsulation +5.2. Data plane encapsulation - Figure 5 illustrates a DetNet PW encapsulation over an MPLS PSN. The - PW-based encapsulation of the DetNet flows fits perfectly for the - Layer-2 interconnect deployment cases (see Figure 2). Furthermore, + Figure 4 illustrates a DetNet data plane MPLS encapsulation. The + MPLS-based encapsulation of the DetNet flows is a good fit for the + Layer-2 interconnect deployment cases (see Figure 1). Furthermore, end to end DetNet service i.e., native DetNet deployment (see - Figure 3) is also possible if DetNet-aware end systems are capable of - initiating and termination MPLS encapsulated PWs. It is also - possible use the same encapsulation format with a Packet PW over MPLS - [RFC6658]. Transport of IP encapsulated DetNet flows, see - Section 5.2.2, over DetNet PWs is also possible. Interworking - between PW- and IPv6-based encapsulations is discussed further in - Section 7.6. + Figure 2) is also possible if DetNet end systems are capable of + initiating and termination MPLS encapsulated packets. Transport of + IP encapsulated DetNet flows, see Section 6, over MPLS-based DetNet + data plane is also possible. Interworking between PW- and IPv6-based + encapsulations is discussed further in Section 7.6. - The PW-based DetNet data plane encapsulation consists of: + The MPLS-based DetNet data plane encapsulation consists of: o DetNet control word (d-CW) containing sequencing information for - packet replication and duplicate elimination purposes. There is a - separate sequence number space for each DetNet flow. + packet replication and duplicate elimination purposes. There MUST + a separate sequence number space for each DetNet flow. - o PseudoWire Label (PW Label) that is a standard PW label - identifying a DetNet flow and a PW Instance within a (DA-)T-PE or - (DA-)S-PE device. + o DetNet Label that identifies a DetNet flow within a DetNet Edge or + a Relay node. The DetNet label MUST be at the bottom of the label + stack. - o An optional S-Label that represents DetNet Service LSP used - between (DA-)T-PE or (DA-)S-PE nodes. One possible use of an - S-Label is to identify the different DetNet member flows used to - provide protection to a DetNet composite flow, perhaps even when + o An optional DetNet service lable (S-Label) that represents DetNet + Service LSP used between DetNet Egde and/or Relay nodes. One + possible use of an S-Label is to identify DetNet member flows used + to provide protection to a DetNet compound flow, perhaps even when both LSPs appear on the same link for some reason. - Comment #17 This needs some discussion by the WG. - - Discussion: Agree, specifically if the I-D becomes WG document. - - o MPLS transport LSP label(s) (T-label) which may be a hop-by-hop - label used between LSRs. - - Comment #18 Ordinarily this will of course be PHPed before arrival - at an x-PE. - - Discussion: In most cases yes - depends on the network - configuration. PHP is not mandatory and TP does not even have - PHP. - - RFC3985 Encapsulation DetNet PW Encapsulation - - +---------------------+ - | Payload | +---------------------------------+ - /=====================\ | | - H Payload Convergence H--. | DetNet Flow | - H---------------------H | | Payload Packet | - H Timing H +-\ | | - H---------------------H | \ /=================================\ - H Sequencing H--' \-->H DetNet Control Word H - \=====================/ \=================================/ - | PW Demultiplexer |--------->| PW Label | - +---------------------+ +---------------------------------+ - | PSN Convergence | .--->| Optional MPLS S-Label | - +---------------------+ | +---------------------------------+ - | PSN |-----+--->| MPLS T-Label(s) | - +---------------------+ +---------------------------------+ - | Data-Link | - +---------------------+ - | Physical | - +---------------------+ - - Figure 5: Encapsulation of a DetNet flow in a PW with MPLS(-TP) PSN - - The DetNet control word (d-CW) is identical to the control word - defined for Ethernet over MPLS networks in [RFC4448]. The DetNet - control word is illustrated in Figure 6. - - 0 1 2 3 - 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 - +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - |0 0 0 0| reserved - set to 0 | 16 bit Sequence Number | - +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - - Figure 6: DetNet Control Word - - Comment #19 We need to think about whether "identical is the correct - term. The Ethernet S/N skips zero (it uses zero to mean no S/N in - use). is that the behaviour that we want? - - Discussion: Good point. Identical is a wrong statement. The format - is the same the behaviour of SN is slightly different as 0 is - assumed to be a valid SN. - -5.2.2. Native IPv6-based data plane encapsulation - - Comment #20 SB> This part of the design needs to be marked as - provisional until it has a more thorough WG review. - - Discussion: Ok, however, this is still an individual I-D. - - Figure 7 illustrates a DetNet native IPv6 encapsulation. The native - IPv6 encapsulation is meant for end to end Detnet service use cases, - where the end stations are DetNet-aware (see Figure 4). Technically - it is possible to use the IPv6 encapsulation to tunnel any traffic - over a DetNet enabled network, which would make native IPv6 - encapsulation also a valid data plane choice for an interconnect use - case (see Figure 2). - - The native IPv6-based DetNet data plane encapsulation consists of: - - o IPv6 header as the transport protocol. - - o IPv6 header Flow Label that is used to help to identify a DetNet - flow (i.e., roughly an equivalent to the PW Label). A Flow Label - together with the IPv6 source address uniquely identifies a DetNet - flow. - - Comment #21 SB> Have we validated that it is unconditionally safe to - make this assumption about the use of the FL? - - Discussion: RFC6437 does not restrict such use and DetNet DP - solution can always define their own use of flow label. It should - be noted that a DetNet aware node will always contain new code and - is not a load balancer. - - o DetNet Control Word IPv6 Destination Option containing sequencing - information for packet replication and duplicate elimination - function (PREF) purposes. The DetNet Destination Option is - equivalent to the DetNet Control Word. - - A DetNet-aware end station (a host) or an intermediate node - initiating an IPv6 packet is responsible for setting the Flow Label, - adding the required DetNet Destination Option, and possibly adding a - routing header such as the segment routing option (for pre-defined - paths [I-D.ietf-6man-segment-routing-header]). The payload of the - native IPv6 encapsulation is any payload protocol that can be - identified using the Next Header field either in the IPv6 packet - header or in the last IPv6 extension header. - - Comment #22 SB> We will probably need to agree an option ordering, - and need to note that the 6man IPv6 solution already operates on - the edge of the ability of h/w to see that far into the packet. - - Discussion: RFC8200 describes extension header ordering - there is - not much to agree there. Agree on the hardware lookup challenges. - However, the issues of SR header are not this I-D to fix. - - Comment #23 SB> I am not sure the above is needed since it is by - definition correct. - - Discussion: (next header) agree. + One or more MPLS transport LSP label(s) (T-label) which may be a hop- + by-hop label used between LSR and MUST appear higher in the label + stack than S-labels. A top of stack T-label may be PHPed before + arriving at a DetNet node. In general T-labels should be considered + to be part of the underlying transport network rather the actual + DetNet data plane encapsulation. - A DetNet-aware end station (a host) or an intermediate node receiving - an IPv6 packet destined to it and containing a DetNet Destination - Option does the appropriate processing of the packet. This may - involve packet duplication and elimination (PREF processing), - terminating a tunnel or delivering the packet to the upper layers/ - Applications. + DetNet MPLS-based encapsulation +---------------------------------+ | | | DetNet Flow | - | Payload | + | Payload Packet | | | - /---------------------------------\ - H DetNet Control Word DstOpt Hdr H - \---------------------------------/ - | IPv6 header | - | (with set Flow label) | + +---------------------------------+ <--\ + | DetNet Control Word | | + +---------------------------------+ +--> DetNet data plane + | S-Label | | MPLS encapsulation + +---------------------------------+ <--/ + | T-Label(s) | + +---------------------------------+ + | Data-Link | + +---------------------------------+ + | Physical | +---------------------------------+ - Figure 7: Encapsulation of a native IPv6 DetNet flow + Figure 4: Encapsulation of a DetNet flow in an MPLS(-TP) PSN - A DetNet flow must carry sequencing information for packet - replication and elimination function (PREF) purposes. This document - specifies a new IPv6 Destination Option: the DetNet Destination - Option for that purpose. The format of the option is illustrated in - Figure 8. +5.3. DetNet control word - Comment #24 SB> Can an SR node look at a DO? + A DetNet control word (d-CW) conforms to the Generic PW MPLS Control + Word (PWMCW) defined in [RFC4385] and is illustrated in Figure 5. + The upper nibble of the d-CW MUST be set to zero (0). The effective + sequence number bit length is between 0 and 28 bits, and configured + either by a control plane or manually for each DetNet flow. The + sequence number is aligned to the right (least significant bits) and + unused bits MUST be set to zero (0). Each DetNet flow MUST have its + own sequence number counter. The sequence number is incremented by + one for each new packet. - Discussion: Yes. + The d-CW MUST always be present in a packet. In a case the sequence + number is not used (e.g., for DetNet-t-flows) the control plane or + the manual configuration has to define zero (0) bit length seqeunce + number and the value of the sequence number MUST be set to zero (0). 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - | TBD1 | 4 | Reserved | + |0 0 0 0| Sequence Number | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - | 16 bit Sequence Number | - +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - - Figure 8: DetNet Destination Option - - The Option Type for the DetNet Destination Option is set to TBD1. - [To be removed from the final version of the document: The Option - Type MUST have the two most significant bits set to 10b] - -5.3. DetNet flow identification for duplicate detection - - Duplicate elimination depends on flow identification. Mapping - between packet fields and Local-ID may impact the implementation of - duplicate elimination. - Comment #25 SB> So I wonder if the right place to put the FI is in - the IPv6 FI, or in the IPv6 address itself? - - Discussion: Each flow having different address is challenging if we - want to terminate multiple flows into the same node with one - address or originate multiple flows from a node with one address - (note, we are aware of the one /64 per node discussion but cannot - assume it here, at least not yet). - -5.3.1. PseudoWire encapsulation - - RFC3985 Section 5.2.1. describes PW sequencing provides a duplicate - detection service among other things. This specification clarifies - this definition as follows: - - DetNet flows that need to undergo PREF processing MUST have the - same PW Label when they arrive at the DA-*-PE node. - - From the label stack processing point of view receiving the same - label from multiple sources is analogous to Fast Reroute backup - tunnel behavior [RFC4090]. The PW Label for a DetNet flow can be - different on each PW segment. - - Comment #26 SB> I am not sure of the utility of this reference. In - FRR you should not receive packets concurrently on two paths. It - seems fine to state the the requirement that a single label is - used for both paths. - - Discussion: OK with the same label comment. OK to remove the FRR - reference here. - -5.3.2. Native IPv6 encapsulation - - The DetNet flow identification is based on the IPv6 Flow Label and - the source address combination. The two fields uniquelly identify - the end to end native IPv6 encapsulated DetNet flow. Obviously, the - identification fails if any intermediate node modifies either the - source address or the Flow Label. - - Comment #27 SB> See earlier. If there are enough IPv6 addresses to - address video fragments, why not DN flows? Then this problem goes - away. - - Discussion: See the earlier comment #25 discussion. If nodes get - their addressies via DHCPv6 basically ruins this mechanism. Also - the assumption for this to work is that the node has a full /64 to - use, which is not always the case. Otherwise the idea is just - fine. - -6. PREF specific considerations - - This section applies equally to DetNet flows transported via IPv6 and - MPLS. While flow identification and some header related processing - will differ between the two, the considerations covered in this - section are common to both. - -6.1. PseudoWire-based data plane - -6.1.1. Forwarder clarifications + Figure 5: DetNet Control Word - The DetNet specific new functionality in an edge or relay node - processing is the packet replication and duplication elimination - function (PREF). This function is a part of the DetNet-aware - "extended" forwarder. The PREF processing is triggered by the - received packet of a DetNet flow. +5.4. Flow identification - Comment #28 SB> I am not sure what you mean by triggered here. - Hopefully we are not thinking of dataplane triggered - configuration? + DetNet flow identification at a DetNet service layer is realized by + an S-label. It maps a Detnet flow to a specific d-CW in a DetNet + node. The S-label used for flow identification MUST be bottom label + of the label stack for a DetNet-s- or DetNet-st-flow and MUST precede + the d-CW. - Discussion: "Initiated" is probably more appropriate wording. + An S-label for a single DetNet flow does not need to be unique DetNet + domain wide. As long as two or more different DetNet flows do not + errorneously map to a same d-CW in a DetNet node the labels may vary. - Basically the forwarding entry has to be extended with a "PREF - enabled" boolean configuration switch that is associated with the - normal forwarding actions (e.g., in case of MPLS a swap, push, pop, - ..). The output of the PREF elimination function is always a single - packet. The output of the PREF replication function is always one or - more packets (i.e., 1:M replication). The replicated packets MUST - share the same DetNet control word sequence number. +5.5. Service layer considerations - The complex part of the DetNet PREF processing is tracking the - history of received packets for multiple DetNet member flows. These - ingress DetNet member flows (to a node) MUST have the same local-ID - if they belong to the same DetNet-(compound)-flow and share the same - sequence number counter and the history information. + [Editor's note: quite a bit of unfinished and old text in the + following sections.] The edge and relay node internal procedures of the PREF are implementation specific. The order of a packet elimination or replication is out of scope in this specification. However, care should be taken that the replication function does not actually loopback packets as "replicas". Looped back packets include artificial delay when the node that originally initiated the packet receives it again. Also, looped back packets may make the network condition to look healthier than it actually is (in some cases link failures are not reflected properly because looped back packets make @@ -854,84 +568,76 @@ Comment #29: SB> There needs to be some text about preventing a node ever receiving its own replicated packets. Indeed that would suggest that the flow id should be changed and replication should only take place on configured flow IDs. I have a feeling that this would all be a lot safer if replication only happened at ingress and we managed the diversity of the paths. Discussion: Agree on hardening the loopback text considerations. -6.1.2. Edge node processing clarifications - - The DetNet data plane solution overloads the edge node with DetNet - Edge Node functions. Edge nodes are also aware of DetNet flows and - may need to operate upon those. Figure 9 illustrates the overall - edge device functions. The figure shows both physical attachment - circuit (AC) (e.g., Ethernet [RFC4448]) connecting to the edge node, - and a packet service connecting to the edge node via an embedded - router function (similarly as described e.g., in [RFC6658]). Whether - traffic flow from a client AC and PSN tunnel receives DetNet specific - treatment is up to a local configuration and policy. - - Comment #30: SB> Shouldn't the behaviour simply be a property of a - given PW? +5.5.1. Edge node processing - Discussion: Agree in principle. + TBD. + [Editor's note: Since we are not defining the inner workings and + implementation of the DetNet Egde node - rather only what goes in and + what comes out, and of course the on-wire details, then the figures + shown in the coming section would not need to detail the inner + architecture of a DetNet Node.] +---------------------------------------+ - | DetNet Edge Device | - +---------------------------------------+ Egress/ - | | Forwarder | | Ingress - | | | Single | member Inst. - Client PSN | "Packet o <-X-----> o Service o<----------> - tunnels | NSP" | | Repl. | Instance | - <---------->o | | Elim. +-------------+ Duplicate - | | : | | Egress - | | . | Single | member Inst. - | | +-> o Service o<----------> - | | | | Instance | - +-------------+ | +-------------+ Egress/ - | | | | | Ingress - Client AC | NSP | Repl. | | Single | member Inst. - <---------->o o <-----X-> o Service o<----------> - | | Elim. | Instance | - +-------------+ +-------------+ Egress/ - | | | | Ingress - Client AC | NSP | | Single | member Inst. - <---------->o o <-------> o Service o<----------> - | | | Instance | + | DetNet Edge Node | + +---------------------------------------+ + | | | | + | | | | + Client AC | +---o <-------> o o<----------> + | Elim. | | | | + <---------->o <-------| | +-------------+ + | | | | | + | +---o <-------> o | + | | | o<----------> + | | +-> o | + +-------------+ | +-------------+ + | | | | | + Client AC | | Repl. | | | + <---------->o o <-----X-> o o<----------> + | | Elim. | | + +-------------+ +-------------+ + | | | | + Client AC | | | | + <---------->o o <-------> o o<----------> + | | | | +---------------------------------------+ - Figure 9: DetNet Edge Node processing + Figure 6: DetNet Edge Node processing An edge node participates to the packet replication and duplication elimination. Required processing is done within an extended forwarder function. In the case the native service processing (NSP) is IEEE 802.1CB [IEEE8021CB] capable, the packet replication and duplicate elimination MAY entirely be done in the NSP and bypassing the DetNet flow encapsulation and logic entirely, and thus is able to operate over unmodified implementation and deployment. The NSP approach works only between edge nodes and cannot make use of relay - nodes (see Section 6.1.3). + nodes (see Section 5.5.2). Comment #31 SB> This would be a fine way to operate the PW system - edge to edge. Discussion: When it comes to use of NSPs, agree. Also for "island interconnect" this is a fine. However, when there is a need to do PREF in a middle, plain edge to edge is not enough. The DetNet-aware extended forwarder selects the egress DetNet member flow based on the DetNet forwarding rules. In both "normal AC" and "Packet AC" cases there may be no DetNet encapsulation header - available yet as it is the case with relay nodes (see Section 6.1.3). + available yet as it is the case with relay nodes (see Section 5.5.2). It is the responsibility of the extended forwarder within the edge node to push the DetNet specific encapsulation (if not already present) to the packet before forwarding it to the appropriate egress DetNet member flow instance(s). Comment #32 SB> I am not convinced of the wisdom of having a mid- point node convert a flow into a DN flow, which is what you are implying here. This seems like an ingress function. @@ -939,31 +645,23 @@ edge. The extended forwarder MAY copy the sequencing information from the native DetNet packet into the DetNet sequence number field and vice versa. If there is no existing sequencing information available in the native packet or the forwarder chose not to copy it from the native packet, then the extended forwarder MUST maintain a sequence number counter for each DetNet flow (indexed by the DetNet flow identification). -6.1.3. Relay node processing clarifications - - The DetNet data plane solution overloads a relay node with DetNet - Relay node functions. Relay node is aware of DetNet flows and may - operate upon those. Figure 10 illustrates the overall DetNet relay - device functions. - - Comment #33 SB> I don't think that a relay node in not a normal - construct so I am not sure "overload" is the right term here. +5.5.2. Relay node processing - Discussion: Agree. There is a terminology issue here. + TBD. A DetNet Relay node participates to the packet replication and duplication elimination. This processing is done within an extended forwarder function. Whether an ingress DetNet member flow receives DetNet specific processing depends on how the forwarding is programmed. For some DetNet member flows the relay node can act as a normal relay node and for some apply the DetNet specific processing (i.e., PREF). Comment #34 SB> Again relay node is not a normal term, so am not @@ -985,57 +683,371 @@ DetNet member flow segment to egress DetNet member flow segment may be statically or dynamically configured. Additionally the DetNet- aware forwarder does duplicate frame elimination based on the flow identification and the sequence number combination. The packet replication is also done within the DetNet-aware forwarder. During elimination and the replication process the sequence number of the DetNet member flow MUST be preserved and copied to the egress DetNet member flow. +---------------------------------------+ - | DetNet Relay Device | + | DetNet Relay Node | Ingress +---------------------------------------+ - member | | Forwarder | | Egress - instance | Single | | Single | member Inst. - ----------->o Service o --X-----> o Service o-----------> - | Instance | | Elim. | Instance | - Ingress +-------------+ | +-------------+ Duplicate - member | | | | | Egress - instance | Single | | | Single | member Inst. - ----------->o Service o --+ +-> o Service o-----------> - | Instance | | | Instance | + | | | | Egress + | o---------> o--+ Elim. | + ----------->o | | +--------->o-----------> + | | +-----> o--+ | Ingress +-------------+ | +-------------+ - member | | | | | Egress - instance | Single | Repl. | | Single | member Inst. - ----------->o Service o ------X-> o Service o-----------> - | Instance | | Instance | + | | | | | Egress + | | | | | + ----------->o o --+ +-> o o-----------> + | | | | | + Ingress +-------------+ | +-------------+ + | | | | | Egress + | | Repl. | | | + ----------->o o ------+-> o o-----------> + | | | | Ingress +-------------+ +-------------+ - member | | | | Egress - instance | Single | | Single | member Inst. - ----------->o Service o --------> o Service o-----------> - | Instance | | Instance | + | | | | Egress + | | | | + ----------->o o --------> o o-----------> + | | | | +---------------------------------------+ - Figure 10: DetNet Relay Node processing + Figure 7: DetNet Relay Node processing Comment #35 SB> Somewhere in the dp document there needs to be a note of the requirement for interfaces to do fast exchange of counter state, and a note to those planning the network and designing the control plane that they need to provide support for this. Discussion: We kinf of agree but also think the above exchange or synchronization of counter states is not in our scope to solve. -6.2. Native IPv6-based data plane +5.5.3. End system processing - [Editor's note: this section is TBD.] + TBD. + +5.6. Transport node considerations + +5.6.1. Congestion protection + + TBD. + +5.6.2. Explicit routes + + TBD. + +6. IPv6-based DetNet data plane solution + +6.1. Data plane encapsulation + + Figure 8 illustrates a DetNet native IPv6 encapsulation. The native + IPv6 encapsulation is meant for end to end Detnet service use cases, + where the end stations are DetNet-aware (see Figure 3). Technically + it is possible to use the IPv6 encapsulation to tunnel any traffic + over a DetNet enabled network, which would make native IPv6 + encapsulation also a valid data plane choice for an interconnect use + case (see Figure 1). + + The native IPv6-based DetNet data plane encapsulation consists of: + + o IPv6 header as the transport protocol. + + o IPv6 header Flow Label that is used to help to identify a DetNet + flow (i.e., roughly an equivalent to an S-Label for the MPLS + encapsulation). A Flow Label together with the IPv6 source + address uniquely identifies a DetNet flow. + + Comment #21 SB> Have we validated that it is unconditionally safe to + make this assumption about the use of the FL? + + Discussion: RFC6437 does not restrict such use and DetNet DP + solution can always define their own use of flow label. It should + be noted that a DetNet aware node will always contain new code and + is not a load balancer. + + o Zero, one or two DetNet Destination Options containing sequencing + information for packet replication and duplicate elimination + function (PREF), and/or packet reordering purposes. The DetNet + Destination Option is equivalent to the DetNet Control Word. If + PREF or packet reordering is not needed for the DetNet flow then + no DetNet Destination Option is inserted into the IPv6 header. + + A DetNet-aware end station (a host) or an intermediate Detnet node + initiating an (or adding a tunnelling) IPv6 packet is responsible for + setting the Flow Label, adding the optional DetNet Destination + Option(s) for DetNet-s- or DetNet-st-flows, and possibly adding a + routing header such as the segment routing option (e.g., for pre- + defined paths [I-D.ietf-6man-segment-routing-header]). If a routing + header is inserted into the IPv6 packet for DetNet-s- or DetNet-st- + flows then a second instance of the DetNet Destination Option MUST be + added before the routing header (see Section 4.1 of [RFC8200]). + + A DetNet-aware end station (a host) or an intermediate node receiving + an IPv6 packet destined to it and containing a DetNet Destination + Option does the appropriate processing of the packet. This may + involve packet duplication and elimination (PREF processing), + terminating a tunnel or delivering the packet to the upper layers/ + Applications. + + +---------------------------------+ + | | + | DetNet Flow | + | Payload | + | | + /---------------------------------\ + H Optional DetNet DstOpt Hdr H + \---------------------------------/ + | IPv6 header | + | (with set Flow label) | + +---------------------------------+ + + Figure 8: Encapsulation of a native IPv6 DetNet-s- or DetNet-st-flow + without a routing header + + Figure 9 illustrates an IPv6 packet for the case where a routing + header has been added into the packet by a DetNet-aware end system + (again assuming DetNet-s- or DetNet-st-flows). Note that the use of + routing header such as the one with the segment routing option is not + mandatory for explicit routes. Similar functionality can be arranged + using other means as well (e.g., using policy routing or layer-2 + means). + + +---------------------------------+ + | | + | DetNet Flow | + | Payload | + | | + /---------------------------------\ + H DetNet DstOpt Hdr H + \---------------------------------/ + | Routing header | + /---------------------------------\ + H DetNet DstOpt Hdr H + \---------------------------------/ + | IPv6 header | + | (with set Flow label) | + +---------------------------------+ + + Figure 9: Encapsulation of a native IPv6 DetNet-s- or DetNet-st-flows + with routing header + + IPv6 extension headers can only be inserted by a node that initiated + the IPv6 packet. IPv6 extension headers, except for the Hop-by-Hop + Option headers, can only be processed by an IPv6 node that is + identified by the Destination Address field of the IPv6 header (see + Section 0 of [RFC8200]. Therefore, if a DetNet-aware end system only + inserted the DetNet Destination Option into the IPv6 but e.g., a + DetNet Edge node is configured to enforce an explicit route for the + IPv6 packet using a source routing header, then it has no other + possibility than add an outer tunneling IPv6 header with required + extension headers in it. The processing of IPv6 packets in a DetNet + Edge node is discussed further in Section 6.4.1. + +6.2. DetNet destination option + + A DetNet flow must carry sequencing information for packet + replication and elimination function (PREF) purposes. This document + specifies a new IPv6 Destination Option: the DetNet Destination + Option for that purpose. The format of the option is illustrated in + Figure 10. + + 0 1 2 3 + 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | TBD1 | 4 | 0 | 28 bit sequence + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + number | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + + Figure 10: DetNet Destination Option + + The Option Type for the DetNet Destination Option is set to TBD1. + [To be removed from the final version of the document: The Option + Type MUST have the two most significant bits set to 10b] + + If an IPv6 packet gets dropped due the DetNet Service layer + processing based on the DetNet Destination Option an ICMPv6 packet of + any type MUST NOT be sent back to the source of the packet. + +6.3. Flow identification + + The DetNet flow identification is based on the IPv6 Flow Label and + the source address combination. The two fields uniquelly identify + the end to end native IPv6 encapsulated DetNet flow. Obviously, the + identification fails if any intermediate node modifies either the + source address or the Flow Label. + + Comment #27 SB> See earlier. If there are enough IPv6 addresses to + address video fragments, why not DN flows? Then this problem goes + away. + + Discussion: See the earlier comment #25 discussion. If nodes get + their addressies via DHCPv6 basically ruins this mechanism. Also + the assumption for this to work is that the node has a full /64 to + use, which is not always the case. Otherwise the idea is just + fine. + +6.4. Service layer considerations + + [Editor's note: this section is TBD. It will detail the PREF + functionality.] + + o PREF - requires both flow identification and sequence numbering. + + o Packet reordeing - requires both flow identification and sequence + numbering. + + A DetNet service layer processing can be done at each DetNet node + that matches the IPv6 header's Destination Address. Then, if the + DetNet flow identification provides a positive match for the DetNet + flow that the node has a service layer state installed e.g., for PREF + or packet reordering purposes, further service layer processing takes + place. In a case of PREF or packet reordering that means processing + the DetNet Destination Option for the identified DetNet flow. + +6.4.1. Edge node processing + + [Editor's note: This is the start of the IPv6 handling text - there + are errors and bad language. The founding assumption is the use of + source routing when intermediate nodes (relays/edges) need to modify + packets. This is due the text in RFC8200 and the fact that without + hph options only routing+dsthdr is usable with intermediates under + strict RFC8200.. ] + + [Editor's note: Regrading the source routing and the "example" SRv6 + approach. Current text is based on the assumption that intermediates + cannot add/delete extension headers such as the SRv6. That said + adding adding a header implies adding a tunneling outer IPv6 header + and deleting a header implies a tunnel decapsulation. This is not + probably desired due to the involved overhead and to be discussed + whether it is possible/acceptable to just "process" the Application + flow packets.] + + For a DetNet Edge node there are several scenarios that involve + modifications to the DetNet flow IPv6 packets. The assumption is + that a DetNet-aware end system has always set the IPv6 header flow + label properly for the flow identification purposes. A DetNet- or + DetNet-t-flow does not include the DetNet Destination Option. + Following cases have been identified: + + 1. A DetNet App-flow or a DetNet-t-flow packet arrives at an ingress + DetNet Edge node and DetNet service layer functions are done only + at DetNet Edge nodes. Possible explicit routes between edge + nodes are arranged by other than IPv6 specific means. + + 2. A DetNet App-flow or a DetNet-t-flow packet arrives at an ingress + DetNet Edge node and multiple DetNet Relay nodes may process + DetNet flow packets before reaching an egress DetNet Edge node. + Explicit routes between edge nodes has to be arranged by IPv6 + specific means. + + 3. A DetNet-s- or a DetNet-st-flow packet arrives at an ingress + DetNet Edge node and DetNet service layer functions are done only + at DetNet Edge nodes. Possible explicit routes between edge + nodes are arranged by other than IPv6 specific means. + + 4. A DetNet-s- or a DetNet-st-flow packet arrives at an ingress + DetNet Edge node and multiple DetNet Relay nodes may process + DetNet flow packets before reaching an egress DetNet Edge node. + Explicit routes between edge nodes has to be arranged by IPv6 + specific means. + + A generic DetNet IPv6 encapsulation for a DetNet flow packet between + DetNet Edge nodes is shown in Figure 11. Essentially every time an + igress DetNet Edge node has to insert something into the DetNet flow + packet it has to add an outer tunneling IPv6 header, which then + contain possible additional extension headers. + + +---------------------------------+ + | | + | DetNet Flow | + | Payload | + | | + +---------------------------------+ + | Optional DetNet DstOpt Hdr (1) | + +---------------------------------+ + | Inner IPv6 header | + | (with set Flow label) (1) | + +---------------------------------+ <--+ + | Optional Routing header | | + +---------------------------------+ | + | Optional DetNet DstOpt Hdr (2) | +-- Added/removed by + +---------------------------------+ | DetNet Edge node + | Outer IPv6 header | | + | (with set Flow label) (2) | | + +---------------------------------+ <--+ + + Figure 11: Encapsulation of a DetNet-flow IPv6 packet at the DetNet + Edge node + +6.4.1.1. Ingress DetNet Edge node processing + + Case 1) MAY require an addition of the DetNet Destination Option if + packet reordering is requested at the egress DetNet Edge node. + Otherwise, no modifications except rewriting the IPv6 header flow + label to the packet is done. If modifications are required then: + + o The outer IPv6 header is added with the Source Address set to the + ingress DetNet Edge node address and the Destination Address set + to the egress DetNet Edge node address. + + o The flow label of the outer IPv6 header SHOULD be set to a value + maintained by the edge node. + + o The DetNet Destination Option with the edge node managed per + DetNet flow sequence number value is inserted into the outer IPv6 + header. + + Case 2) requires an addition of the DetNet Destination Option unless + neither packet reordeing or PREF is enable at any DetNet Edge/Relay + node. A source routing header has to be added for the explicit route + purposes. An example of the source routing header is the Segment + Routing header. The following modifications to DetNet flow IPv6 + packets are required: + + o An outer IPv6 header is added with the Source Address set to the + ingress DetNet Edge node address and the Destination Address set + to the egress DetNet Edge node address. + + o The flow label of the outer IPv6 header SHOULD be set to a value + maintained by the edge node. + + o The DetNet Destination Option with the edge node managed per + DetNet flow sequence number value MAY be inserted into the outer + IPv6 header. + + o A source routing header with addresses of those DetNet Relay nodes + that must be traversed is inserted into the outer IPv6 header. + + Case 3) ...[Editor's note: is it OK if the sequece number added here + by the edge node has only local significance between the edge nodes + and not end to end between end systems? ] + + Case 4) ... + +6.4.1.2. Engress DetNet Edge node processing + +6.4.2. Relay node processing + + TBD. + +6.4.3. End system processing + + TBD. + +6.5. Transport node processing + +6.5.1. Congestion protection +6.5.2. Explicit routes 7. Other DetNet data plane considerations 7.1. Class of Service Class and quality of service, i.e., CoS and QoS, are terms that are often used interchangeably and confused. In the context of DetNet, CoS is used to refer to mechanisms that provide traffic forwarding treatment based on aggregate group basis and QoS is used to refer to mechanisms that provide traffic forwarding treatment based on a @@ -1073,67 +1085,56 @@ treatment typically includes a guarantee/agreement for the service, and allocation of resources to support the service. Example QoS mechanisms include discrete resource allocation, admission control, flow identification and isolation, and sometimes path control, traffic protection, shaping, policing and remarking. Example protocols that support QoS control include Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) [RFC2205] (RSVP) and RSVP-TE [RFC3209] and [RFC3473]. The existing MPLS mechanisms defined to support CoS [RFC3270] can also be used to reserve resources for specific traffic classes. - In addition to path pinning and packet replication and elimination, - described in Section 5 above, DetNet provides zero congestion loss - and bounded latency and jitter. - - Comment #36 SB> I just searched from the beginning of the document - and this was the the first reference I found to pinning. - - Discussion: Terminology isssue. Should use, for example, explicit - paths which is used in the architecture I-D. - - As described in [I-D.ietf-detnet-architecture], there are different - mechanisms that maybe used separately or in combination to deliver a - zero congestion loss service. These mechanisms are provided by the - either the MPLS or IP layers, and may be combined with the mechanisms - defined by the underlying network layer such as 802.1TSN. + In addition to explicit routes, and packet replication and + elimination, described in Section 5 above, DetNet provides zero + congestion loss and bounded latency and jitter. As described in + [I-D.ietf-detnet-architecture], there are different mechanisms that + maybe used separately or in combination to deliver a zero congestion + loss service. These mechanisms are provided by the either the MPLS + or IP layers, and may be combined with the mechanisms defined by the + underlying network layer such as 802.1TSN. A baseline set of QoS capabilities for DetNet flows carried in PWs and MPLS can provided by MPLS with Traffic Engineering (MPLS-TE) [RFC3209] and [RFC3473]. TE LSPs can also support explicit routes (path pinning). Current service definitions for packet TE LSPs can be found in "Specification of the Controlled Load Quality of Service", [RFC2211], "Specification of Guaranteed Quality of Service", [RFC2212], and "Ethernet Traffic Parameters", [RFC6003]. Additional service definitions are expected in future documents to support the full range of DetNet services. In all cases, the existing label-based marking mechanisms defined for TE-LSPs and even E-LSPs are use to support the identification of flows requiring DetNet QoS. QoS for DetNet flows carried in IPv6 MUST be provided locally by the DetNet-aware hosts and routers supporting DetNet flows. Such support will leverage the underlying network layer such as 802.1TSN. The traffic control mechanisms used to deliver QoS for IP encapsulated DetNet flows are expected to be defined in a future document. From - an encapsulation perspective, and as defined in Section 5.2.2, the + an encapsulation perspective, and as defined in Section 6, the combination of the Flow Label together with the IP source address uniquely identifies a DetNet flow. Packets that are marked with a DetNet Class of Service value, but that have not been the subject of a completed reservation, can disrupt the QoS offered to properly reserved DetNet flows by using resources allocated to the reserved flows. Therefore, the network - nodes of a DetNet network SHOULD: - - Comment #37 SB> Why not MUST? - - Discussion: OK with MUST. + nodes of a DetNet network MUST: o Defend the DetNet QoS by discarding or remarking (to a non-DetNet CoS) packets received that are not the subject of a completed reservation. 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 DetNet Class of Service marker. 7.3. Cross-DetNet flow resource aggregation @@ -1238,32 +1239,38 @@ within the bridged network over which it is carried. Furthermore, IEEE 802.1CB [IEEE8021CB] describes three methods by which a packet sequence number can be encoded in an Ethernet frame. Ensuring that the proper Ethernet VLAN tag priority and destination MAC address are used on a DetNet/TSN packet may require further clarification of the customary L2/L3 transformations carried out by routers and edge label switches. Edge nodes may also have to move sequence number fields among Layer 2, PW, and IPv6 encapsulations. -7.6. Interworking between PW- and IPv6-based encapsulations +7.6. Interworking between MPLS- and IPv6-based encapsulations - [Editor's note: add considerations for interworking between PW-based - and native IPv6-based DetNet encapsuations.] + [Editor's note: add considerations for interworking between MPLS- + based and native IPv6-based DetNet encapsuations.] + +7.7. IPv4 considerations + + [Editor's note: The fact is that there are and will be deployments + using IPv4. Neglecting it entirely is not feasible.] 8. Time synchronization Comment #39 SB> This section should point the reader to RFC8169 (residence time in MPLS n/w. We need to consider if we need to introduce the same concept in IP. - Discussion: agree. + Discussion: Agree. For IP we could reference to PTPv2 or v3 over + UDP/IP, since it measures residence time among other things. [Editor's note: describe a bit of issues and deployment considerations related to time-synchronization within DetNet. Refer to DT discussion and the slides that summarize different approaches and rough synchronization performance numbers. Finally, scope time- synchronization solution outside data plane.] When DetNet is used, there is an underlying assumption that the applicaton(s) require clock synchronization such as the Precision Time Protocol (PTP) [IEEE1588]. The relay nodes may or may not @@ -1313,57 +1320,81 @@ Comment #40 SB> I am not sure why we sould not use PREP. We should explain to the reader. Discussion: Agree that a this can be opened a bit more in detail. The issue is explained briefly in the last sentence but it could be more clear. 9. Management and control considerations + [Editor's note: This section needs to be different for MPLS and IPv6 + solutions. Most solutions are technology dependant,] + While management plane and control planes are traditionally considered 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 what kind of enhancements are needed for DetNet and specifically for PREF and DetNet zero congest loss and latency control. Need to cover both traffic control (queuing) and connection control (control plane).] -9.1. PW Label and IPv6 Flow Label assignment and distribution +9.1. MPLS-based data plane - The PW label distribution follows the same mechanisms specified for - MS-PW [RFC6073]. The details of the control plane protocol solution - required for the label distribution and the management of the label - number space are out of scope of this document. +9.1.1. S-Label assignment and distribution + + [Editor's note: Outdated and MPLS specific.. and needs more work.] + + The DetNet S-Label distribution follows the same mechanisms specified + for XYZ . The details of the control plane protocol solution required + for the label distribution and the management of the label number + space are out of scope of this document. + +9.1.2. Explicit routes + + [Editor's note: Outdated.. and needs more work.] + + [TBD: based on MPLS TE and possibly IPv6 SR] + +9.2. IPv6-based data plane + +9.2.1. Flow Label assignment and distribution + + [Editor's note: Outdated and IPv6 Specific.. and needs more work.] The IPv6 Flow Label distribution and the label number space are out of scope of this document. However, it should be noted that the combination of the IPv6 source address and the IPv6 Flow Label is assumed to be unique within the DetNet-enabled network. Therefore, as long as each node is able to assign unique Flow Labels for the source address(es) it is using the DetNet-enabled network wide flow identification uniqueness is guaranteed. -9.2. Packet replication and elimination +9.2.2. Explicit routes - The control plane protocol solution required for managing the PREF - processing is outside the scope of this document. + [Editor's note: Outdated.. and needs more work.] -9.3. Explicit paths + [TBD: What we have there for IPv6 and explicit routes] - [TBD: based on MPLS TE and SR.] +9.3. Packet replication and elimination + + [Editor's note: Outdated and at the functional level technology + independent.. but needs more work.] + + The control plane protocol solution required for managing the PREF + processing is outside the scope of this document. 9.4. Congestion protection and latency control [TBD] 9.5. Flow aggregation control [TBD] 10. Security considerations @@ -1463,62 +1494,63 @@ Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, DOI 10.17487/RFC3473, January 2003, . [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, . - [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, - . + [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, . [RFC5129] Davie, B., Briscoe, B., and J. Tay, "Explicit Congestion Marking in MPLS", RFC 5129, DOI 10.17487/RFC5129, January 2008, . [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, . [RFC6003] Papadimitriou, D., "Ethernet Traffic Parameters", RFC 6003, DOI 10.17487/RFC6003, October 2010, . [RFC6073] Martini, L., Metz, C., Nadeau, T., Bocci, M., and M. Aissaoui, "Segmented Pseudowire", RFC 6073, DOI 10.17487/RFC6073, January 2011, . - [RFC6658] Bryant, S., Ed., Martini, L., Swallow, G., and A. Malis, - "Packet Pseudowire Encapsulation over an MPLS PSN", - RFC 6658, DOI 10.17487/RFC6658, July 2012, - . + [RFC8200] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 + (IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200, + DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017, + . 13.2. Informative references [I-D.ietf-6man-segment-routing-header] - Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Raza, K., Leddy, J., Field, B., - daniel.voyer@bell.ca, d., daniel.bernier@bell.ca, d., - Matsushima, S., Leung, I., Linkova, J., Aries, E., Kosugi, - T., Vyncke, E., Lebrun, D., Steinberg, D., and R. Raszuk, - "IPv6 Segment Routing Header (SRH)", draft-ietf-6man- - segment-routing-header-07 (work in progress), July 2017. + Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Raza, K., Dukes, D., Leddy, J., + Field, B., daniel.voyer@bell.ca, d., + daniel.bernier@bell.ca, d., Matsushima, S., Leung, I., + Linkova, J., Aries, E., Kosugi, T., Vyncke, E., Lebrun, + D., Steinberg, D., and R. Raszuk, "IPv6 Segment Routing + Header (SRH)", draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header-08 + (work in progress), January 2018. [I-D.ietf-detnet-architecture] Finn, N., Thubert, P., Varga, B., and J. Farkas, "Deterministic Networking Architecture", draft-ietf- - detnet-architecture-03 (work in progress), August 2017. + detnet-architecture-04 (work in progress), October 2017. [I-D.ietf-detnet-dp-alt] Korhonen, J., Farkas, J., Mirsky, G., Thubert, P., Zhuangyan, Z., and L. Berger, "DetNet Data Plane Protocol and Solution Alternatives", draft-ietf-detnet-dp-alt-00 (work in progress), October 2016. [I-D.sdt-detnet-security] Mizrahi, T., Grossman, E., Hacker, A., Das, S., "Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Security @@ -1545,29 +1577,20 @@ [RFC2205] Braden, R., Ed., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and S. Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1 Functional Specification", RFC 2205, DOI 10.17487/RFC2205, September 1997, . [RFC3985] Bryant, S., Ed. and P. Pate, Ed., "Pseudo Wire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) Architecture", RFC 3985, DOI 10.17487/RFC3985, March 2005, . - [RFC4090] Pan, P., Ed., Swallow, G., Ed., and A. Atlas, Ed., "Fast - Reroute Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Tunnels", RFC 4090, - DOI 10.17487/RFC4090, May 2005, - . - - [RFC5036] Andersson, L., Ed., Minei, I., Ed., and B. Thomas, Ed., - "LDP Specification", RFC 5036, DOI 10.17487/RFC5036, - October 2007, . - [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, . [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, .