draft-ietf-detnet-ip-07.txt   rfc8939.txt 
DetNet B. Varga, Ed. Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) B. Varga, Ed.
Internet-Draft J. Farkas Request for Comments: 8939 J. Farkas
Intended status: Standards Track Ericsson Category: Standards Track Ericsson
Expires: January 4, 2021 L. Berger ISSN: 2070-1721 L. Berger
D. Fedyk D. Fedyk
LabN Consulting, L.L.C. LabN Consulting, L.L.C.
S. Bryant S. Bryant
Futurewei Technologies Futurewei Technologies
July 3, 2020 November 2020
DetNet Data Plane: IP Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Data Plane: IP
draft-ietf-detnet-ip-07
Abstract Abstract
This document specifies the DetNet data plane operation for IP hosts This document specifies the Deterministic Networking (DetNet) data
and routers that provide DetNet service to IP encapsulated data. No plane operation for IP hosts and routers that provide DetNet service
DetNet-specific encapsulation is defined to support IP flows; instead to IP-encapsulated data. No DetNet-specific encapsulation is defined
the existing IP and higher layer protocol header information is used to support IP flows; instead, the existing IP-layer and higher-layer
to support flow identification and DetNet service delivery. This protocol header information is used to support flow identification
document builds on the DetNet Architecture and Data Plane Framework. and DetNet service delivery. This document builds on the DetNet
architecture (RFC 8655) and data plane framework (RFC 8938).
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This is an Internet Standards Track document.
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 This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference received public review and has been approved for publication by the
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.
This Internet-Draft will expire on January 4, 2021. Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8939.
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
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Terminology
2.1. Terms Used In This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.1. Terms Used in This Document
2.2. Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.2. Abbreviations
2.3. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.3. Requirements Language
3. DetNet IP Data Plane Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Overview of the DetNet IP Data Plane
4. DetNet IP Data Plane Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4. DetNet IP Data Plane Considerations
4.1. End System Specific Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4.1. End-System-Specific Considerations
4.2. DetNet Domain-Specific Considerations . . . . . . . . . . 8 4.2. DetNet Domain-Specific Considerations
4.3. Forwarding Sub-Layer Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.3. Forwarding Sub-Layer Considerations
4.3.1. Class of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.3.1. Class of Service
4.3.2. Quality of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.3.2. Quality of Service
4.3.3. Path Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4.3.3. Path Selection
4.4. DetNet Flow Aggregation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4.4. DetNet Flow Aggregation
4.5. Bidirectional Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 4.5. Bidirectional Traffic
5. DetNet IP Data Plane Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 5. DetNet IP Data Plane Procedures
5.1. DetNet IP Flow Identification Procedures . . . . . . . . 14 5.1. DetNet IP Flow Identification Procedures
5.1.1. IP Header Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 5.1.1. IP Header Information
5.1.2. Other Protocol Header Information . . . . . . . . . . 15 5.1.2. Other Protocol Header Information
5.2. Forwarding Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 5.2. Forwarding Procedures
5.3. DetNet IP Traffic Treatment Procedures . . . . . . . . . 17 5.3. DetNet IP Traffic Treatment Procedures
6. Management and Control Information Summary . . . . . . . . . 17 6. Management and Control Information Summary
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 7. Security Considerations
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 8. IANA Considerations
9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 9. References
10. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 9.1. Normative References
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 9.2. Informative References
11.1. Normative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Acknowledgements
11.2. Informative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Contributors
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Authors' Addresses
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
Deterministic Networking (DetNet) is a service that can be offered by Deterministic Networking (DetNet) is a service that can be offered by
a network to DetNet flows. DetNet provides these flows with a network to DetNet flows. DetNet provides these flows with
extremely low packet loss rates and assured maximum end-to-end extremely low packet loss rates and assured maximum end-to-end
delivery latency. General background and concepts of DetNet can be delivery latency. General background and concepts of DetNet can be
found in the DetNet Architecture [RFC8655]. found in the DetNet architecture [RFC8655].
This document specifies the DetNet data plane operation for IP hosts This document specifies the DetNet data plane operation for IP hosts
and routers that provide DetNet service to IP encapsulated data. No and routers that provide DetNet service to IP-encapsulated data. No
DetNet-specific encapsulation is defined to support IP flows; instead DetNet-specific encapsulation is defined to support IP flows;
the existing IP and higher layer protocol header information is used instead, the existing IP-layer and higher-layer protocol header
to support flow identification and DetNet service delivery. Common information is used to support flow identification and DetNet service
data plane procedures and control information for all DetNet data delivery. Common data plane procedures and control information for
planes can be found in [I-D.ietf-detnet-data-plane-framework]. all DetNet data planes can be found in [RFC8938].
The DetNet Architecture models the DetNet related data plane The DetNet architecture models the DetNet-related data plane
functions as two sub-layers: a service sub-layer and a forwarding functions as two sub-layers: a service sub-layer and a forwarding
sub-layer. The service sub-layer is used to provide DetNet service sub-layer. The service sub-layer is used to provide DetNet service
protection (e.g., by packet replication and packet elimination protection (e.g., by the Packet Replication Function (PRF) and Packet
functions) and reordering. The forwarding sub-layer is used to Elimination Function (PEF)) and reordering. The forwarding sub-layer
provide congestion protection (low loss, assured latency, and limited is used to provide congestion protection (low loss, assured latency,
out-of-order delivery). The service sub-layer generally requires and limited out-of-order delivery). The service sub-layer generally
additional header fields to provide its service; for example see requires additional header fields to provide its service; for
[I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls]. Since no DetNet-specific fields are added to example, see [DetNet-MPLS]. Since no DetNet-specific fields are
support DetNet IP flows, only the forwarding sub-layer functions are added to support DetNet IP flows, only the forwarding sub-layer
supported using the DetNet IP defined by this document. Service functions are supported using the DetNet IP defined by this document.
protection can be provided on a per sub-net basis using technologies Service protection can be provided on a per-sub-network basis using
such as MPLS [I-D.ietf-detnet-dp-sol-mpls] and Ethernet as specified technologies such as MPLS [DetNet-MPLS] and Ethernet, as specified by
in the IEEE 802.1 TSN (Time-Sensitive Networking) task group the IEEE 802.1 TSN (Time-Sensitive Networking) task group (referred
(referred to in this document simply as IEEE802.1 TSN). to in this document simply as "IEEE 802.1 TSN"). See
[IEEE802.1TSNTG].
This document provides an overview of the DetNet IP data plane in This document provides an overview of the DetNet IP data plane in
Section 3, and considerations that apply to providing DetNet services Section 3 and considerations that apply to providing DetNet services
via the DetNet IP data plane in Section 4. Section 5 provides the via the DetNet IP data plane in Section 4. Section 5 provides the
procedures for hosts and routers that support IP-based DetNet procedures for hosts and routers that support IP-based DetNet
services. Section 6 summarizes the set of information that is needed services. Section 6 summarizes the set of information that is needed
to identify an individual DetNet flow. to identify an individual DetNet flow.
2. Terminology 2. Terminology
2.1. Terms Used In This Document 2.1. Terms Used in This Document
This document uses the terminology and concepts established in the This document uses the terminology and concepts established in the
DetNet architecture [RFC8655], and the reader is assumed to be DetNet architecture [RFC8655], and it is assumed that the reader is
familiar with that document and its terminology. familiar with that document and its terminology.
2.2. Abbreviations 2.2. Abbreviations
The following abbreviations used in this document: The following abbreviations are used in this document:
CoS Class of Service CoS Class of Service
DetNet Deterministic Networking DetNet Deterministic Networking
DN DetNet DN DetNet
DiffServ Differentiated Services
Diffserv Differentiated Services
DSCP Differentiated Services Code Point DSCP Differentiated Services Code Point
L2 Layer-2 L2 Layer 2
L3 Layer-3 L3 Layer 3
LSP Label-switched path LSP Label Switched Path
MPLS Multiprotocol Label Switching MPLS Multiprotocol Label Switching
PREOF Packet Replication, Elimination and Ordering Function PEF Packet Elimination Function
PREOF Packet Replication, Elimination, and Ordering Functions
PRF Packet Replication Function
QoS Quality of Service QoS Quality of Service
TSN Time-Sensitive Networking, TSN is a Task Group of the TSN Time-Sensitive Networking. TSN is a task group of the
IEEE 802.1 Working Group. IEEE 802.1 Working Group.
2.3. Requirements Language 2.3. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here. capitals, as shown here.
3. DetNet IP Data Plane Overview 3. Overview of the DetNet IP Data Plane
This document describes how IP is used by DetNet nodes, i.e., hosts This document describes how IP is used by DetNet nodes, i.e., hosts
and routers, to identify DetNet flows and provide a DetNet service and routers, to identify DetNet flows and provide a DetNet service
using an IP data plane. From a data plane perspective, an end-to-end using an IP data plane. From a data plane perspective, an end-to-end
IP model is followed. As mentioned above, existing IP and higher IP model is followed. As mentioned above, existing IP-layer and
layer protocol header information is used to support flow higher-layer protocol header information is used to support flow
identification and DetNet service delivery. Common data plane identification and DetNet service delivery. Common data plane
procedures and control information for all DetNet data planes can be procedures and control information for all DetNet data planes can be
found in [I-D.ietf-detnet-data-plane-framework]. found in [RFC8938].
The DetNet IP data plane primarily uses 6-tuple based flow The DetNet IP data plane primarily uses 6-tuple-based flow
identification, where "6-tuple" refers to information carried in IP identification, where "6-tuple" refers to information carried in IP-
and higher layer protocol headers. The 6-tuple referred to in this layer and higher-layer protocol headers. The 6-tuple referred to in
document is the same as that defined in [RFC3290]. Specifically this document is the same as that defined in [RFC3290].
6-tuple is destination address, source address, IP protocol, source Specifically, the 6-tuple is destination address, source address, IP
port, destination port, and differentiated services (DiffServ) code protocol, source port, destination port, and DSCP. General
point (DSCP). General background on the use of IP headers, and background on the use of IP headers and 5-tuples to identify flows
5-tuples, to identify flows and support Quality of Service (QoS) can and support Quality of Service (QoS) can be found in [RFC3670].
be found in [RFC3670]. [RFC7657] also provides useful background on [RFC7657] also provides useful background on the delivery of Diffserv
the delivery of DiffServ and "tuple" based flow identification. Note and tuple-based flow identification. Note that a 6-tuple is composed
that a 6-tuple is composed of a 5-tuple plus the addition of a DSCP of a 5-tuple plus the addition of a DSCP component.
component.
For some of the protocols 5-tuples and 6-tuples cannot be used For some of the protocols, 5-tuples and 6-tuples cannot be used,
because the port information is not available (e.g., ICMP, IPSec because the port information is not available (e.g., ICMP, IPsec, and
ESP). This is also the case for flow aggregates. In such cases, Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP)). This is also the case for
using fewer fields is appropriate, e.g., a 3-tuple (2 IP addresses, flow aggregates. In such cases, using fewer fields is appropriate,
IP protocol) or even a 2-tuple (all IP traffic between two IP such as a 3-tuple (2 IP addresses, IP protocol) or even a 2-tuple
addresses). (all IP traffic between two IP addresses).
The DetNet IP data plane also allows for optional matching on the The DetNet IP data plane also allows for optional matching on the
IPv6 flow label field, as defined in [RFC8200]. IPv6 Flow Label field, as defined in [RFC8200].
Non-DetNet and DetNet IP packets have the same protocol header format Non-DetNet and DetNet IP packets have the same protocol header format
on the wire. Generally the fields used in flow identification are on the wire. Generally, the fields used in flow identification are
forwarded unmodified. However, standard modification of the DSCP forwarded unmodified. However, standard modification of the DSCP
field [RFC2474] is not precluded. field [RFC2474] is not precluded.
DetNet flow aggregation may be enabled via the use of wildcards, DetNet flow aggregation may be enabled via the use of wildcards,
masks, lists, prefixes and ranges. IP tunnels may also be used to masks, lists, prefixes, and ranges. IP tunnels may also be used to
support flow aggregation. In these cases, it is expected that support flow aggregation. In these cases, it is expected that
DetNet-aware intermediate nodes will provide DetNet service on the DetNet-aware intermediate nodes will provide DetNet service on the
aggregate through resource allocation and congestion control aggregate through resource allocation and congestion control
mechanisms. mechanisms.
The specific procedures that are required to be implemented by a The specific procedures that are required to be implemented by a
DetNet node supporting this document can be found in Section 5. The DetNet node supporting this document can be found in Section 5. The
DetNet controller plane, as defined in [RFC8655], is responsible for DetNet Controller Plane, as defined in [RFC8655], is responsible for
providing each node with the information needed to identify and providing each node with the information needed to identify and
handle each DetNet flow. handle each DetNet flow.
DetNet IP Relay Relay DetNet IP DetNet IP Relay Relay DetNet IP
End System Node Node End System End System Node Node End System
+----------+ +----------+ +----------+ +----------+
| Appl. |<------------ End to End Service ----------->| Appl. | | Appl. |<------------ End-to-End Service ----------->| Appl. |
+----------+ ............ ........... +----------+ +----------+ ............ ........... +----------+
| Service |<-: Service :-- DetNet flow --: Service :->| Service | | Service |<-: Service :-- DetNet flow --: Service :->| Service |
+----------+ +----------+ +----------+ +----------+ +----------+ +----------+ +----------+ +----------+
|Forwarding| |Forwarding| |Forwarding| |Forwarding| |Forwarding| |Forwarding| |Forwarding| |Forwarding|
+--------.-+ +-.------.-+ +-.---.----+ +-------.--+ +--------.-+ +-.------.-+ +-.---.----+ +-------.--+
: Link : \ ,-----. / \ ,-----. / : Link : \ ,-----. / \ ,-----. /
+......+ +----[ Sub ]----+ +-[ Sub ]-+ +......+ +----[ Sub- ]----+ +-[ Sub- ]-+
[Network] [Network] [Network] [Network]
`-----' `-----' `-----' `-----'
|<--------------------- DetNet IP --------------------->| |<--------------------- DetNet IP --------------------->|
Figure 1: A Simple DetNet (DN) Enabled IP Network Figure 1: A Simple DetNet-Enabled IP Network
Figure 1 illustrates a DetNet enabled IP network. The DetNet enabled Figure 1 illustrates a DetNet-enabled IP network. The DetNet-enabled
end systems originate IP encapsulated traffic that is identified end systems originate IP-encapsulated traffic that is identified
within the DetNet domain as DetNet flows based on IP header within the DetNet domain as DetNet flows based on IP header
information. Relay nodes understand the forwarding requirements of information. Relay nodes understand the forwarding requirements of
the DetNet flow and ensure that node, interface and sub-network the DetNet flow and ensure that node, interface, and sub-network
resources are allocated to ensure DetNet service requirements. The resources are allocated to ensure DetNet service requirements. The
dotted line around the Service component of the Relay Nodes indicates dotted line around the Service component of the Relay Nodes indicates
that the transit routers are DetNet service aware but do not perform that the transit routers are DetNet service aware but do not perform
any DetNet service sub-layer function, e.g., PREOF (Packet any DetNet service sub-layer function, e.g., PREOF.
Replication, Elimination and Ordering Function).
Note: The sub-network can represent a TSN, MPLS network or other | Note: The sub-network can represent a TSN, MPLS network, or
network technology that can carry DetNet IP traffic. | other network technology that can carry DetNet IP traffic.
IP Edge Edge IP IP Edge Edge IP
End System Node Node End System End System Node Node End System
+----------+ +.........+ +.........+ +----------+ +----------+ +.........+ +.........+ +----------+
| Appl. |<--:Svc Proxy:-- E2E Service---:Svc Proxy:-->| Appl. | | Appl. |<--:Svc Proxy:-- E2E Service---:Svc Proxy:-->| Appl. |
+----------+ +.........+ +.........+ +----------+ +----------+ +.........+ +.........+ +----------+
| IP |<--:IP : :Svc:---- IP flow ----:Svc: :IP :-->| IP | | IP |<--:IP : :Svc:---- IP flow ----:Svc: :IP :-->| IP |
+----------+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +----------+ +----------+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +----------+
|Forwarding| |Fwd| |Fwd| |Fwd| |Fwd| |Forwarding| |Forwarding| |Fwd| |Fwd| |Fwd| |Fwd| |Forwarding|
+--------.-+ +-.-+ +-.-+ +-.-+ +-.-+ +---.------+ +--------.-+ +-.-+ +-.-+ +-.-+ +-.-+ +---.------+
: Link : \ ,-----. / / ,-----. \ : Link : \ ,-----. / / ,-----. \
+.......+ +----[ Sub ]----+ +--[ Sub ]--+ +.......+ +----[ Sub- ]----+ +--[ Sub- ]--+
[Network] [Network] [network] [network]
`-----' `-----' `-----' `-----'
|<--- IP --->| |<------ DetNet IP ------>| |<--- IP --->| |<--- IP --->| |<------ DetNet IP ------>| |<--- IP --->|
Figure 2: Non-DetNet-aware IP end systems with DetNet IP Domain Figure 2: Non-DetNet-Aware IP End Systems with DetNet IP Domain
Figure 2 illustrates a variant of Figure 1 where the end systems are Figure 2 illustrates a variant of Figure 1 where the end systems are
not DetNet aware. In this case, edge nodes sit at the boundary of not DetNet aware. In this case, edge nodes sit at the boundary of
the DetNet domain and provide DetNet service proxies for the end the DetNet domain and provide DetNet service proxies for the end
applications by initiating and terminating DetNet service for the applications by initiating and terminating DetNet service for the
application's IP flows. The existing header information or an application's IP flows. The existing header information or an
approach such as described in Section 4.4 can be used to support approach such as described in Section 4.4 can be used to support
DetNet flow identification. DetNet flow identification.
Note that Figure 1 and Figure 2 can be collapsed, so IP DetNet End Note that Figures 1 and 2 can be collapsed, so IP DetNet end systems
Systems can communicate over a DetNet IP network with IP End Systems. can communicate over a DetNet IP network with IP end systems.
As non-DetNet and DetNet IP packets have the same protocol header As non-DetNet and DetNet IP packets have the same protocol header
format on the wire, from a data plane perspective, the only format on the wire, from a data plane perspective, the only
difference is that there is flow-associated DetNet information on difference is that there is flow-associated DetNet information on
each DetNet node that defines the flow related characteristics and each DetNet node that defines the flow-related characteristics and
required forwarding behavior. As shown above, edge nodes provide a required forwarding behavior. As shown above, edge nodes provide a
Service Proxy function that "associates" one or more IP flows with Service Proxy function that "associates" one or more IP flows with
the appropriate DetNet flow-specific information and ensures that the the appropriate DetNet flow-specific information and ensures that the
flow receives the proper traffic treatment within the domain. flow receives the proper traffic treatment within the domain.
Note: The operation of IEEE802.1 TSN end systems over DetNet enabled | Note: The operation of IEEE 802.1 TSN end systems over DetNet-
IP networks is not described in this document. TSN over MPLS is | enabled IP networks is not described in this document. TSN
described in [I-D.ietf-detnet-tsn-vpn-over-mpls]. | over MPLS is described in [DetNet-TSN-over-MPLS].
4. DetNet IP Data Plane Considerations 4. DetNet IP Data Plane Considerations
This section provides considerations related to providing DetNet This section provides considerations related to providing DetNet
service to flows which are identified based on their header service to flows that are identified based on their header
information. information.
4.1. End System Specific Considerations 4.1. End-System-Specific Considerations
Data-flows requiring DetNet service are generated and terminated on Data flows requiring DetNet service are generated and terminated on
end systems. This document deals only with IP end systems. The end systems. This document deals only with IP end systems. The
protocols used by an IP end system are specific to an application, protocols used by an IP end system are specific to an application,
and end systems peer with other end systems. DetNet's use of 6-tuple and end systems peer with other end systems. DetNet's use of 6-tuple
IP flow identification means that DetNet must be aware of not only IP flow identification means that DetNet must be aware of not only
the format of the IP header, but also of the next protocol value the format of the IP header, but also of the next protocol value
carried within an IP packet (see Section 5.1.1.3). carried within an IP packet (see Section 5.1.1.3).
For DetNet unaware IP end systems service-level proxy functions are For DetNet-unaware IP end systems, service-level proxy functions are
needed inside the DetNet domain. needed inside the DetNet domain.
When IP end systems are DetNet-aware, no application-level or When IP end systems are DetNet aware, no application-level or
service-level proxy functions are needed inside the DetNet domain. service-level proxy functions are needed inside the DetNet domain.
End systems need to ensure that DetNet service requirements are met End systems need to ensure that DetNet service requirements are met
when processing packets associated to a DetNet flow. When sending when processing packets associated to a DetNet flow. When sending
packets, this means that packets are appropriately shaped on packets, this means that packets are appropriately shaped on
transmission and receive appropriate traffic treatment on the transmission and receive appropriate traffic treatment on the
connected sub-network; see Section 4.3.2 and Section 4.2 for more connected sub-network; see Sections 4.3.2 and 4.2 for more details.
details. When receiving packets, this means that there are When receiving packets, this means that there are appropriate local
appropriate local node resources, e.g., buffers, to receive and node resources, e.g., buffers, to receive and process the packets of
process the packets of that DetNet flow. that DetNet flow.
An important additional consideration for DetNet-aware end systems is An important additional consideration for DetNet-aware end systems is
avoiding IP fragmentation. Full 6-tuple flow identification is not avoiding IP fragmentation. Full 6-tuple flow identification is not
possible on IP fragments as fragments don't include the transport possible on IP fragments, as fragments don't include the transport
headers or their port information. As such, it is important that headers or their port information. As such, it is important that
applications and/or end-systems use an IP packet size that will avoid applications and/or end systems use an IP packet size that will avoid
fragmentation within the network when sending DetNet flows. The fragmentation within the network when sending DetNet flows. The
maximum size can be learned via path MTU discovery, [RFC1192] and maximum size can be learned via Path MTU Discovery [RFC1191]
[RFC8201], or via the controller plane. Note that path MTU discovery [RFC8201] or via the Controller Plane. Note that Path MTU Discovery
relies on ICMP, which may not follow the same path as an individual relies on ICMP, which may not follow the same path as an individual
DetNet flow. DetNet flow.
In order to maximize reuse of existing mechanisms, DetNet-aware In order to maximize reuse of existing mechanisms, DetNet-aware
applications and end systems SHOULD NOT mix DetNet and non-DetNet applications and end systems SHOULD NOT mix DetNet and non-DetNet
traffic within a single 5-tuple. traffic within a single 5-tuple.
4.2. DetNet Domain-Specific Considerations 4.2. DetNet Domain-Specific Considerations
As a general rule, DetNet IP domains need to be able to forward any As a general rule, DetNet IP domains need to be able to forward any
DetNet flow identified by the IP 6-tuple. Doing otherwise would DetNet flow identified by the IP 6-tuple. Doing otherwise would
limit the number of 6-tuple flow ID combinations that could be used limit the number of 6-tuple flow ID combinations that could be used
by the end systems. From a practical standpoint this means that all by the end systems. From a practical standpoint, this means that all
nodes along the end-to-end path of DetNet flows need to agree on what nodes along the end-to-end path of DetNet flows need to agree on what
fields are used for flow identification. Possible consequences of fields are used for flow identification. Possible consequences of
not having such an agreement include some flows interfering with not having such an agreement include some flows interfering with
other flows, and the traffic treatment expected for a service not other flows, and the traffic treatment expected for a service not
being provided. being provided.
From a connection type perspective two scenarios are identified: From a connection-type perspective, two scenarios are identified:
1. DN attached: the end system is directly connected to an edge 1. DN attached: the end system is directly connected to an edge node
node, or the end system is behind a sub-network (See ES1 and ES2 or the end system is behind a sub-network. (See ES1 and ES2 in
in figure below) Figure 3.)
2. DN integrated: the end system is part of the DetNet domain. (See 2. DN integrated: the end system is part of the DetNet domain. (See
ES3 in figure below) ES3 in Figure 3.)
L3 (IP) end systems may use any of these connection types. A DetNet L3 (IP) end systems may use any of these connection types. A DetNet
domain allows communication between any end systems using the same domain allows communication between any end systems using the same
encapsulation format, independent of their connection type and DetNet encapsulation format, independent of their connection type and DetNet
capability. DN attached end systems have no knowledge about the capability. DN-attached end systems have no knowledge about the
DetNet domain and its encapsulation format. See Figure 3 for L3 end DetNet domain and its encapsulation format. See Figure 3 for L3 end
system connection examples. system connection examples.
____+----+ ____+----+
+----+ _____ / | ES3| +----+ _____ / | ES3|
| ES1|____ / \__/ +----+___ | ES1|____ / \__/ +----+___
+----+ \ / \ +----+ \ / \
+ | + |
____ \ _/ ____ \ _/
+----+ __/ \ +__ DetNet IP domain / +----+ __/ \ +__ DetNet IP domain /
| ES2|____/ L2/L3 |___/ \ __ __/ | ES2|____/ L2/L3 |___/ \ __ __/
+----+ \_______/ \_______/ \___/ +----+ \_______/ \_______/ \___/
Figure 3: Connection types of L3 end systems Figure 3: Connection Types of L3 End Systems
Within a DetNet domain, the DetNet-enabled IP Routers are Within a DetNet domain, the DetNet-enabled IP routers are
interconnected by links and sub-networks to support end-to-end interconnected by links and sub-networks to support end-to-end
delivery of DetNet flows. From a DetNet architecture perspective, delivery of DetNet flows. From a DetNet architecture perspective,
these routers are DetNet relays, as they must be DetNet service these routers are DetNet relays, as they must be DetNet service
aware. Such routers identify DetNet flows based on the IP 6-tuple, aware. Such routers identify DetNet flows based on the IP 6-tuple
and ensure that the DetNet service required traffic treatment is and ensure that the traffic treatment required by the DetNet service
provided both on the node and on any attached sub-network. is provided on both the node and any attached sub-network.
This solution provides DetNet functions end-to-end, but does so on a This solution provides DetNet functions end to end, but it does so on
per link and sub-network basis. Congestion protection and latency a per-link and per-sub-network basis. Congestion protection, latency
control and the resource allocation (queuing, policing, shaping) are control, and resource allocation (queuing, policing, shaping) are
supported using the underlying link/sub-network specific mechanisms. supported using the underlying link/sub-network-specific mechanisms.
However, service protection (packet replication and packet However, service protection (PRF and PEF) is not provided end to end
elimination functions) is not provided at the DetNet layer end-to- at the DetNet layer. Instead, service protection can be provided on
end. Instead service protection can be provided on a per underlying a per-link (underlying L2 link) and per-sub-network basis.
L2 link and sub-network basis.
The DetNet Service Flow is mapped to the link/sub-network specific The DetNet service flow is mapped to the link/sub-network-specific
resources using an underlying system-specific means. This implies resources using an underlying system-specific means. This implies
each DetNet-aware node on path looks into the forwarded DetNet that each DetNet-aware node on the path looks into the forwarded
Service Flow packet and utilize e.g., a 6-tuple to find out the DetNet service flow packet and utilizes, for example, a 6-tuple to
required mapping within a node. find out the required mapping within a node.
As noted earlier, service protection must be implemented within each As noted earlier, service protection must be implemented within each
link/sub-network independently, using the domain specific mechanisms. link/sub-network independently, using the domain-specific mechanisms.
This is due to the lack of unified end-to-end sequencing information This is due to the lack of unified end-to-end sequencing information
that could be used by the intermediate nodes. Therefore, service that could be used by the intermediate nodes. Therefore, service
protection (if enabled) cannot be provided end-to-end, only within protection (if enabled) cannot be provided end to end, only within
sub-networks. This is shown for a three sub-network scenario in sub-networks. This is shown for a scenario with three sub-networks
Figure 4, where each sub-network can provide service protection in Figure 4, where each sub-network can provide service protection
between its borders. "R" and "E" denote replication and elimination between its borders. "R" and "E" denote replication and elimination
points within the sub-network. points within the sub-network.
<-------------------- DenNet IP ------------------------> <-------------------- DetNet IP ------------------------>
______ ______
____ / \__ ____ / \__
____ / \__/ \___ ______ ____ / \__/ \___ ______
+----+ __/ +====+ +==+ \ +----+ +----+ __/ +====+ +==+ \ +----+
|src |__/ SubN1 ) | | \ SubN3 \____| dst| |src |__/ Sub-N1 ) | | \ Sub-N3\____| dst|
+----+ \_______/ \ Sub-Network2 | \______/ +----+ +----+ \_______/ \ Sub-network 2 | \______/ +----+
\_ _/ \_ _/
\ __ __/ \ __ __/
\_______/ \___/ \_______/ \___/
+---+ +---------E--------+ +-----+ +---+ +---------E--------+ +-----+
+----+ | | | | | | | +----+ +----+ | | | | | | | +----+
|src |----R E--------R +---+ E------R E------+ dst| |src |----R E--------R +---+ E------R E------+ dst|
+----+ | | | | | | | +----+ +----+ | | | | | | | +----+
+---+ +-----R------------+ +-----+ +---+ +-----R------------+ +-----+
Figure 4: Replication and elimination in sub-networks for DetNet IP Figure 4: Replication and Elimination in Sub-networks for DetNet
networks IP Networks
If end-to-end service protection is desired, it can be implemented, If end-to-end service protection is desired, it can be implemented --
for example, by the DetNet end systems using Layer-4 (L4) transport for example, by the DetNet end systems using Layer 4 (L4) transport
protocols or application protocols. However, these protocols are out protocols or application protocols. However, these protocols are out
of scope of this document. of the scope of this document.
Note that not mixing DetNet and non-DetNet traffic within a single Note that not mixing DetNet and non-DetNet traffic within a single
5-tuple, as described above, enables simpler 5-tuple filters to be 5-tuple, as described above, enables simpler 5-tuple filters to be
used (or re-used) at the edges of a DetNet network to prevent non- used (or reused) at the edges of a DetNet network to prevent non-
congestion-responsive DetNet traffic from escaping the DetNet domain. congestion-responsive DetNet traffic from escaping the DetNet domain.
4.3. Forwarding Sub-Layer Considerations 4.3. Forwarding Sub-Layer Considerations
4.3.1. Class of Service 4.3.1. Class of Service
Class of Service (CoS) for DetNet flows carried in IPv4 and IPv6 is Class of Service (CoS) for DetNet flows carried in IPv4 and IPv6 is
provided using the standard differentiated services (DSCP) field provided using the standard DSCP field [RFC2474] and related
[RFC2474] and related mechanisms. mechanisms.
One additional consideration for DetNet nodes which support CoS One additional consideration for DetNet nodes that support CoS
services is that they must ensure that the CoS service classes do not services is that they must ensure that the CoS service classes do not
impact the congestion protection and latency control mechanisms used impact the congestion protection and latency control mechanisms used
to provide DetNet QoS. This requirement is similar to the to provide DetNet QoS. This requirement is similar to the
requirement for MPLS LSRs that CoS LSPs cannot impact the resources requirement for MPLS Label Switching Routers (LSRs) that CoS LSPs
allocated to TE LSPs [RFC3473]. cannot impact the resources allocated to TE LSPs [RFC3473].
4.3.2. Quality of Service 4.3.2. Quality of Service
Quality of Service (QoS) for DetNet service flows carried in IP must Quality of Service (QoS) for DetNet service flows carried in IP must
be provided locally by the DetNet-aware hosts and routers supporting be provided locally by the DetNet-aware hosts and routers supporting
DetNet flows. Such support leverages the underlying network layer DetNet flows. Such support leverages the underlying network layer
such as 802.1 TSN. The node-internal traffic control mechanisms used such as 802.1 TSN. The node-internal traffic control mechanisms used
to deliver QoS for IP encapsulated DetNet flows are outside the scope to deliver QoS for IP-encapsulated DetNet flows are outside the scope
of this document. From an encapsulation perspective, the combination of this document. From an encapsulation perspective, the combination
of the 6-tuple (the typical 5-tuple enhanced with the DSCP) and of the 6-tuple (the typical 5-tuple enhanced with the DSCP) and
optionally the flow label uniquely identifies a DetNet IP flow. optionally the flow label uniquely identifies a DetNet IP flow.
Packets that are identified as part of a DetNet IP flow but that have Packets that are identified as part of a DetNet IP flow but that have
not been the subject of a completed reservation can disrupt the QoS not been the subject of a completed reservation can disrupt the QoS
offered to properly reserved DetNet flows by using resources offered to properly reserved DetNet flows by using resources
allocated to the reserved flows. Therefore, the network nodes of a allocated to the reserved flows. Therefore, the network nodes of a
DetNet network MUST ensure that no DetNet allocated resources, e.g., DetNet network MUST ensure that no DetNet-allocated resource, e.g.,
queue or shaper, is used by such flows. There are multiple methods queue or shaper, is used by such flows. There are multiple methods
that may be used by an implementation to defend service delivery to that may be used by an implementation to defend service delivery to
reserved DetNet flows, including but not limited to: reserved DetNet flows, including but not limited to:
o Treating packets associated with an incomplete reservation as non- * Treating packets associated with an incomplete reservation as non-
DetNet traffic. DetNet traffic.
o Discarding packets associated with an incomplete reservation. * Discarding packets associated with an incomplete reservation.
o Re-marking packets associated with an incomplete reservation. Re- * Re-marking packets associated with an incomplete reservation. Re-
marking can be accomplished by changing the value of the DSCP marking can be accomplished by changing the value of the DSCP
field to a value that results in the packet no longer matching any field to a value that results in the packet no longer matching any
other reserved DetNet IP flow. other reserved DetNet IP flow.
4.3.3. Path Selection 4.3.3. Path Selection
While path selection algorithms and mechanisms are out of scope of While path selection algorithms and mechanisms are out of the scope
the DetNet data plane definition, it is important to highlight the of the DetNet data plane definition, it is important to highlight the
implications of DetNet IP flow identification on path selection and implications of DetNet IP flow identification on path selection and
next hops. As mentioned above, the DetNet IP data plane identifies next hops. As mentioned above, the DetNet IP data plane identifies
flows using "6-tuple" header information as well as the optional flows using 6-tuple header information as well as the optional (flow
(flow label) header field. DetNet generally allows for both flow- label) header field. DetNet generally allows for both flow-specific
specific traffic treatment and flow-specific next-hops. traffic treatment and flow-specific next hops.
In non-DetNet IP forwarding, it is generally assumed that the same In non-DetNet IP forwarding, it is generally assumed that the same
series of next hops, i.e., the same path, will be used for a series of next hops, i.e., the same path, will be used for a
particular 5-tuple or, in some cases, e.g., [RFC5120], for a particular 5-tuple or, in some cases (e.g., [RFC5120]), for a
particular 6-tuple. Using different next hops for different 5-tuples particular 6-tuple. Using different next hops for different 5-tuples
does not take any special consideration for DetNet-aware does not take any special consideration for DetNet-aware
applications. applications.
Care should be taken when using different next hops for the same Care should be taken when using different next hops for the same
5-tuple. As discussed in [RFC7657], unexpected behavior can occur 5-tuple. As discussed in [RFC7657], unexpected behavior can occur
when a single 5-tuple application flow experiences reordering due to when a single 5-tuple application flow experiences reordering due to
being split across multiple next hops. Understanding of the being split across multiple next hops. Understanding of the
application and transport protocol impact of using different next application and transport protocol impact of using different next
hops for the same 5-tuple is required. Again, this impacts path hops for the same 5-tuple is required. Again, this only indirectly
selection for DetNet flows and this document only indirectly. impacts path selection for DetNet flows and this document.
4.4. DetNet Flow Aggregation 4.4. DetNet Flow Aggregation
As described in [I-D.ietf-detnet-data-plane-framework], the ability As described in [RFC8938], the ability to aggregate individual flows
to aggregate individual flows, and their associated resource control, and their associated resource control into a larger aggregate is an
into a larger aggregate is an important technique for improving important technique for improving scaling by reducing the state per
scaling by reducing the state per hop. DetNet IP data plane hop. DetNet IP data plane aggregation can take place within a single
aggregation can take place within a single node, when that node node, when that node maintains state about both the aggregated and
maintains state about both the aggregated and individual flows. It individual flows. It can also take place between nodes, when one
can also take place between nodes, where one node maintains state node maintains state about only flow aggregates while the other node
about only flow aggregates while the other node maintains state on maintains state on all or a portion of the component flows. In
all or a portion of the component flows. In either case, the either case, the management or control function that provisions the
management or control function that provisions the aggregate flows aggregate flows must ensure that adequate resources are allocated and
must ensure that adequate resources are allocated and configured to configured to provide the combined service requirements of the
provide combined service requirements of the individual flows. As individual flows. As DetNet is concerned about latency and jitter,
DetNet is concerned about latency and jitter, more than just more than just bandwidth needs to be considered.
bandwidth needs to be considered.
From a single node perspective, the aggregation of IP flows impacts From a single node perspective, the aggregation of IP flows impacts
DetNet IP data plane flow identification and resource allocation. As DetNet IP data plane flow identification and resource allocation. As
discussed above, IP flow identification uses the IP "6-tuple" for discussed above, IP flow identification uses the IP 6-tuple for flow
flow identification. DetNet IP flows can be aggregated using any of identification. DetNet IP flows can be aggregated using any of the
the 6-tuple fields and optionally also by the flow label. The use of 6-tuple fields and optionally also by the flow label. The use of
prefixes, wildcards, lists, and value ranges allows a DetNet node to prefixes, wildcards, lists, and value ranges allows a DetNet node to
identify aggregate DetNet flows. From a resource allocation identify aggregate DetNet flows. From a resource allocation
perspective, DetNet nodes ought to provide service to an aggregate perspective, DetNet nodes ought to provide service to an aggregate
rather than on a component flow basis. rather than on a component flow basis.
It is the responsibility of the DetNet controller plane to properly It is the responsibility of the DetNet Controller Plane to properly
provision the use of these aggregation mechanisms. This includes provision the use of these aggregation mechanisms. This includes
ensuring that aggregated flows have compatible (e.g., the same or ensuring that aggregated flows have compatible (e.g., the same or
very similar) QoS and/or CoS characteristics, see Section 4.3.2. It very similar) QoS and/or CoS characteristics; see Section 4.3.2. It
also includes ensuring that per component-flow service requirements also includes ensuring that per-component-flow service requirements
are satisfied by the aggregate, see Section 5.3. are satisfied by the aggregate; see Section 5.3.
The DetNet controller plane MUST ensure that non-congestion- The DetNet Controller Plane MUST ensure that non-congestion-
responsive DetNet traffic is not forwarded outside a DetNet domain. responsive DetNet traffic is not forwarded outside a DetNet domain.
4.5. Bidirectional Traffic 4.5. Bidirectional Traffic
While the DetNet IP data plane must support bidirectional DetNet While the DetNet IP data plane must support bidirectional DetNet
flows, there are no special bidirectional features within the data flows, there are no special bidirectional features within the data
plane. The special case of co-routed bidirectional DetNet flows are plane. The special case of co-routed bidirectional DetNet flows is
solely represented at the management and control plane levels, solely represented at the management and control plane levels,
without specific support or knowledge within the DetNet data plane. without specific support or knowledge within the DetNet data plane.
Fate sharing and associated or co-routed bidirectional flows can be Fate sharing and associated or co-routed bidirectional flows can be
managed at the control level. managed at the control level.
Control and management mechanisms need to support bidirectional Control and management mechanisms need to support bidirectional
flows, but the specification of such mechanisms are out of scope of flows, but the specification of such mechanisms is out of the scope
this document. An example control plane solution for MPLS can be of this document. An example control plane solution for MPLS can be
found in [RFC7551]. found in [RFC7551].
5. DetNet IP Data Plane Procedures 5. DetNet IP Data Plane Procedures
This section provides DetNet IP data plane procedures. These This section provides DetNet IP data plane procedures. These
procedures have been divided into the following areas: flow procedures have been divided into the following areas: flow
identification, forwarding and traffic treatment. Flow identification, forwarding, and traffic treatment. Flow
identification includes those procedures related to matching IP and identification includes those procedures related to matching IP-layer
higher layer protocol header information to DetNet flow (state) and higher-layer protocol header information to DetNet flow (state)
information and service requirements. Flow identification is also information and service requirements. Flow identification is also
sometimes called Traffic classification; for example see [RFC5777]. sometimes called "traffic classification"; for example, see
Forwarding includes those procedures related to next hop selection [RFC5777]. Forwarding includes those procedures related to next-hop
and delivery. Traffic treatment includes those procedures related to selection and delivery. Traffic treatment includes those procedures
providing an identified flow with the required DetNet service. related to providing an identified flow with the required DetNet
service.
DetNet IP data plane establishment and operational procedures also DetNet IP data plane establishment and operational procedures also
have requirements on the control and management systems for DetNet have requirements on the control and management systems for DetNet
flows and these are referred to in this section. Specifically this flows, and these are referred to in this section. Specifically, this
section identifies a number of information elements that require section identifies a number of information elements that require
support via the management and control interfaces supported by a support via the management and control interfaces supported by a
DetNet node. The specific mechanism used for such support is out of DetNet node. The specific mechanism used for such support is out of
the scope of this document. A summary of the requirements for the scope of this document. A summary of the requirements for
management and control related information is included. Conformance management- and control-related information is included. Conformance
language is not used in the summary since it applies to future language is not used in the summary, since it applies to future
mechanisms such as those that may be provided in YANG models mechanisms such as those that may be provided in YANG models
[I-D.ietf-detnet-yang]. [DetNet-YANG].
5.1. DetNet IP Flow Identification Procedures 5.1. DetNet IP Flow Identification Procedures
IP and higher layer protocol header information is used to identify IP-layer and higher-layer protocol header information is used to
DetNet flows. All DetNet implementations that support this document identify DetNet flows. All DetNet implementations that support this
MUST identify individual DetNet flows based on the set of information document MUST identify individual DetNet flows based on the set of
identified in this section. Note that additional flow identification information identified in this section. Note that additional
requirements, e.g., to support other higher layer protocols, may be requirements for flow identification, e.g., to support other higher-
defined in the future. layer protocols, may be defined in the future.
The configuration and control information used to identify an The configuration and control information used to identify an
individual DetNet flow MUST be ordered by an implementation. individual DetNet flow MUST be ordered by an implementation.
Implementations MUST support a fixed order when identifying flows, Implementations MUST support a fixed order when identifying flows and
and MUST identify a DetNet flow by the first set of matching flow MUST identify a DetNet flow by the first set of matching flow
information. information.
Implementations of this document MUST support DetNet flow Implementations of this document MUST support DetNet flow
identification when the implementation is acting as a DetNet end identification when the implementation is acting as a DetNet end
systems, a relay node, or as an edge node. system, a relay node, or an edge node.
5.1.1. IP Header Information 5.1.1. IP Header Information
Implementations of this document MUST support DetNet flow Implementations of this document MUST support DetNet flow
identification based on IP header information. The IPv4 header is identification based on IP header information. The IPv4 header is
defined in [RFC0791] and the IPv6 is defined in [RFC8200]. defined in [RFC0791], and the IPv6 is defined in [RFC8200].
5.1.1.1. Source Address Field 5.1.1.1. Source Address Field
Implementations of this document MUST support DetNet flow Implementations of this document MUST support DetNet flow
identification based on the Source Address field of an IP packet. identification based on the Source Address field of an IP packet.
Implementations SHOULD support longest prefix matching for this field Implementations SHOULD support longest prefix matching for this field
(see [RFC1812] and [RFC7608].) Note that a prefix length of zero (0) (see [RFC1812] and [RFC7608]). Note that a prefix length of zero (0)
effectively means that the field is ignored. effectively means that the field is ignored.
5.1.1.2. Destination Address Field 5.1.1.2. Destination Address Field
Implementations of this document MUST support DetNet flow Implementations of this document MUST support DetNet flow
identification based on the Destination Address field of an IP identification based on the Destination Address field of an IP
packet. Implementations SHOULD support longest prefix matching for packet. Implementations SHOULD support longest prefix matching for
this field (see [RFC1812] and [RFC7608].) Note that a prefix length this field (see [RFC1812] and [RFC7608]). Note that a prefix length
of zero (0) effectively means that the field is ignored. of zero (0) effectively means that the field is ignored.
Note: Any IP address value is allowed, including an IP multicast | Note: Any IP address value is allowed, including an IP
destination address. | multicast destination address.
5.1.1.3. IPv4 Protocol and IPv6 Next Header Fields 5.1.1.3. IPv4 Protocol and IPv6 Next Header Fields
Implementations of this document MUST support DetNet flow Implementations of this document MUST support DetNet flow
identification based on the IPv4 Protocol field when processing IPv4 identification based on the IPv4 Protocol field when processing IPv4
packets, and the IPv6 Next Header Field when processing IPv6 packets. packets and the IPv6 Next Header field when processing IPv6 packets.
This includes the next protocol values defined in Section 5.1.2 and This includes the next protocol values defined in Section 5.1.2 and
any other value, including zero. Implementations SHOULD allow for any other value, including zero. Implementations SHOULD allow for
these fields to be ignored for a specific DetNet flow. these fields to be ignored for a specific DetNet flow.
5.1.1.4. IPv4 Type of Service and IPv6 Traffic Class Fields 5.1.1.4. IPv4 Type of Service and IPv6 Traffic Class Fields
These fields are used to support Differentiated Services [RFC2474] These fields are used to support differentiated services [RFC2474]
[RFC2475]. Implementations of this document MUST support DetNet flow [RFC2475]. Implementations of this document MUST support DetNet flow
identification based on the DSCP field in the IPv4 Type of Service identification based on the DSCP field in the IPv4 Type of Service
field when processing IPv4 packets, and the DSCP field in the IPv6 field when processing IPv4 packets and the DSCP field in the IPv6
Traffic Class Field when processing IPv6 packets. Implementations Traffic Class field when processing IPv6 packets. Implementations
MUST support list-based matching of DSCP values, where the list is MUST support list-based matching of DSCP values, where the list is
composed of possible field values that are to be considered when composed of possible field values that are to be considered when
identifying a specific DetNet flow. Implementations SHOULD allow for identifying a specific DetNet flow. Implementations SHOULD allow for
this field to be ignored for a specific DetNet flow. this field to be ignored for a specific DetNet flow.
5.1.1.5. IPv6 Flow Label Field 5.1.1.5. IPv6 Flow Label Field
Implementations of this document SHOULD support identification of Implementations of this document SHOULD support identification of
DetNet flows based on the IPv6 Flow Label field. Implementations DetNet flows based on the IPv6 Flow Label field. Implementations
that support matching based on this field MUST allow for it to be that support matching based on this field MUST allow for it to be
ignored for a specific DetNet flow. When this field is used to ignored for a specific DetNet flow. When this field is used to
identify a specific DetNet flow, implementations MAY exclude the IPv6 identify a specific DetNet flow, implementations MAY exclude the IPv6
Next Header field and next header information as part of DetNet flow Next Header field and next header information as part of DetNet flow
identification. identification.
5.1.2. Other Protocol Header Information 5.1.2. Other Protocol Header Information
Implementations of this document MUST support DetNet flow Implementations of this document MUST support DetNet flow
identification based on header information identified in this identification based on header information identified in this
section. Support for TCP, UDP, ICMP and IPsec flows is defined. section. Support for TCP, UDP, ICMP, and IPsec flows is defined.
Future documents are expected to define support for other protocols. Future documents are expected to define support for other protocols.
5.1.2.1. TCP and UDP 5.1.2.1. TCP and UDP
DetNet flow identification for TCP [RFC0793] and UDP [RFC0768] is DetNet flow identification for TCP [RFC0793] and UDP [RFC0768] is
achieved based on the Source and Destination Port fields carried in achieved based on the Source and Destination Port fields carried in
each protocol's header. These fields share a common format and each protocol's header. These fields share a common format and
common DetNet flow identification procedures. common DetNet flow identification procedures.
The rules defined in this section only apply when the IPv4 Protocol The rules defined in this section only apply when the IPv4 Protocol
or IPv6 Next Header Field contains the IANA defined value for UDP or or IPv6 Next Header field contains the IANA-defined value for UDP or
TCP. TCP.
5.1.2.1.1. Source Port Field 5.1.2.1.1. Source Port Field
Implementations of this document MUST support DetNet flow Implementations of this document MUST support DetNet flow
identification based on the Source Port field of a TCP or UDP packet. identification based on the Source Port field of a TCP or UDP packet.
Implementations MUST support flow identification based on a Implementations MUST support flow identification based on a
particular value carried in the field, i.e., an exact value. particular value carried in the field, i.e., an exact value.
Implementations SHOULD support range-based port matching. Implementations SHOULD support range-based port matching.
Implementation MUST also allow for the field to be ignored for a Implementation MUST also allow for the field to be ignored for a
skipping to change at page 16, line 48 skipping to change at line 720
DetNet flow identification for ICMP [RFC0792] is achieved based on DetNet flow identification for ICMP [RFC0792] is achieved based on
the protocol number in the IP header. Note that ICMP type is not the protocol number in the IP header. Note that ICMP type is not
included in the flow definition. included in the flow definition.
5.1.2.3. IPsec AH and ESP 5.1.2.3. IPsec AH and ESP
IPsec Authentication Header (AH) [RFC4302] and Encapsulating Security IPsec Authentication Header (AH) [RFC4302] and Encapsulating Security
Payload (ESP) [RFC4303] share a common format for the Security Payload (ESP) [RFC4303] share a common format for the Security
Parameters Index (SPI) field. Implementations MUST support flow Parameters Index (SPI) field. Implementations MUST support flow
identification based on a particular value carried in the field, identification based on a particular value carried in the field,
i.e., an exact value. Implementation SHOULD also allow for the field i.e., an exact value. Implementations SHOULD also allow for the
to be ignored for a specific DetNet flow. field to be ignored for a specific DetNet flow.
The rules defined in this section only apply when the IPv4 Protocol The rules defined in this section only apply when the IPv4 Protocol
or IPv6 Next Header Field contains the IANA defined value for AH or or IPv6 Next Header field contains the IANA-defined value for AH or
ESP. ESP.
5.2. Forwarding Procedures 5.2. Forwarding Procedures
General requirements for IP nodes are defined in [RFC1122], [RFC1812] General requirements for IP nodes are defined in [RFC1122],
and [RFC8504], and are not modified by this document. The typical [RFC1812], and [RFC8504] and are not modified by this document. The
next-hop selection process is impacted by DetNet. Specifically, typical next-hop selection process is impacted by DetNet.
implementations of this document SHALL use management and control Specifically, implementations of this document SHALL use management
information to select the one or more outgoing interfaces and next and control information to select the one or more outgoing interfaces
hops to be used for a packet associated with a DetNet flow. Specific and next hops to be used for a packet associated with a DetNet flow.
management and control information will be defined in future Specific management and control information will be defined in future
documents, e.g., [I-D.ietf-detnet-yang]. documents, e.g., [DetNet-YANG].
The use of multiple paths or links, e.g., ECMP, to support a single The use of multiple paths or links, e.g., ECMP, to support a single
DetNet flow is NOT RECOMMENDED. ECMP MAY be used for non-DetNet DetNet flow is NOT RECOMMENDED. ECMP MAY be used for non-DetNet
flows within a DetNet domain. flows within a DetNet domain.
The above implies that management and control functions will be The above implies that management and control functions will be
defined to support this requirement, e.g., see defined to support this requirement, e.g., see [DetNet-YANG].
[I-D.ietf-detnet-yang].
5.3. DetNet IP Traffic Treatment Procedures 5.3. DetNet IP Traffic Treatment Procedures
Implementations of this document must ensure that a DetNet flow Implementations of this document must ensure that a DetNet flow
receives the traffic treatment that is provisioned for it via receives the traffic treatment that is provisioned for it via
configuration or the controller plane, e.g., via configuration or the Controller Plane, e.g., via [DetNet-YANG].
[I-D.ietf-detnet-yang]. General information on DetNet service can be General information on DetNet service can be found in
found in [I-D.ietf-detnet-flow-information-model]. Typical [DetNet-Flow-Info]. Typical mechanisms used to provide different
mechanisms used to provide different treatment to different flows treatment to different flows include the allocation of system
includes the allocation of system resources (such as queues and resources (such as queues and buffers) and provisioning of related
buffers) and provisioning of related parameters (such as shaping, and parameters (such as shaping and policing). Support can also be
policing). Support can also be provided via an underlying network provided via an underlying network technology such as MPLS
technology such as MPLS [I-D.ietf-detnet-ip-over-mpls] or IEEE802.1 [DetNet-IP-over-MPLS] or IEEE 802.1 TSN [DetNet-IP-over-TSN]. Other
TSN [I-D.ietf-detnet-ip-over-tsn]. Other mechanisms than the ones mechanisms than the ones used in the TSN case are outside the scope
used in the TSN case are outside the scope of this document. of this document.
6. Management and Control Information Summary 6. Management and Control Information Summary
The following summarizes the set of information that is needed to The following summarizes the set of information that is needed to
identify individual and aggregated DetNet flows: identify individual and aggregated DetNet flows:
o IPv4 and IPv6 source address field. * IPv4 and IPv6 Source Address field.
o IPv4 and IPv6 source address prefix length, where a zero (0) value * IPv4 and IPv6 source address prefix length, where a zero (0) value
effectively means that the address field is ignored. effectively means that the Source Address field is ignored.
o IPv4 and IPv6 destination address field. * IPv4 and IPv6 Destination Address field.
o IPv4 and IPv6 destination address prefix length, where a zero (0) * IPv4 and IPv6 destination address prefix length, where a zero (0)
effectively means that the address field is ignored. value effectively means that the Destination Address field is
ignored.
o IPv4 protocol field. A limited set of values is allowed, and the * IPv4 Protocol field. A limited set of values is allowed, and the
ability to ignore this field is desirable. ability to ignore this field is desirable.
o IPv6 next header field. A limited set of values is allowed, and * IPv6 Next Header field. A limited set of values is allowed, and
the ability to ignore this field is desirable. the ability to ignore this field is desirable.
o For the IPv4 Type of Service and IPv6 Traffic Class Fields: * For the IPv4 Type of Service and IPv6 Traffic Class fields:
* Whether or not the DSCP field is used in flow identification. - Whether or not the DSCP field is used in flow identification.
Use of the DSCP field for flow identification is optional. Use of the DSCP field for flow identification is optional.
* If the DSCP field is used to identify a flow, then the flow - If the DSCP field is used to identify a flow, then the flow
identification information (for that flow) includes a list of identification information (for that flow) includes a list of
DSCPs used by that flow. DSCPs used by that flow.
o IPv6 flow label field. This field can be optionally used for * IPv6 Flow Label field. This field can be optionally used for
matching. When used, this field can be used instead of matching matching. When used, this field can be used instead of matching
against the Next Header field. against the Next Header field.
o TCP and UDP Source Port. Support for both exact and wildcard * TCP and UDP Source Port. Support for both exact and wildcard
matching is required. Port ranges can optionally be used. matching is required. Port ranges can optionally be used.
o TCP and UDP Destination Port. Support for both exact and wildcard * TCP and UDP Destination Port. Support for both exact and wildcard
matching is required. Port ranges can optionally be used. matching is required. Port ranges can optionally be used.
o IPsec Header SPI field. Exact matching is required. Support for * IPsec Header SPI field. Exact matching is required. Support for
wildcard matching is recommended. wildcard matching is recommended.
o For end systems, an optional maximum IP packet size that should be * For end systems, an optional maximum IP packet size that should be
used for that outgoing DetNet IP flow. used for that outgoing DetNet IP flow.
This information MUST be provisioned per DetNet flow via This information MUST be provisioned per DetNet flow via
configuration, e.g., via the controller or management plane. configuration, e.g., via the Controller Plane or the management
plane.
An implementation MUST support ordering of the set of information An implementation MUST support ordering of the set of information
information used to identify an individual DetNet flow. This can, used to identify an individual DetNet flow. This can, for example,
for example, be used to provide a DetNet service for a specific UDP be used to provide a DetNet service for a specific UDP flow, with
flow, with unique Source and Destination Port field values, while unique Source and Destination Port field values, while providing a
providing a different service for the aggregate of all other flows different service for the aggregate of all other flows with that same
with that same UDP Destination Port value. UDP Destination Port value.
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 provided the traffic treatment needed to meet resources needed to provide the traffic treatment needed to meet each
each flow's service requirements. This applies for aggregated and flow's service requirements. This applies for aggregated and
individual flows. individual flows.
7. Security Considerations 7. Security Considerations
Detailed security considerations for DetNet are cataloged in Detailed security considerations for DetNet are cataloged in
[I-D.ietf-detnet-security], and more general security considerations [DetNet-Security], and more general security considerations are
are described in [RFC8655]. This section considers exclusively described in [RFC8655]. This section exclusively considers security
security considerations which are specific to the DetNet IP data considerations that are specific to the DetNet IP data plane.
plane.
Security aspects which are unique to DetNet are those whose aim is to Security aspects that are unique to DetNet are those whose aim is to
provide the specific quality of service aspects of DetNet, which are provide the specific QoS aspects of DetNet, which are primarily to
primarily to deliver data flows with extremely low packet loss rates deliver data flows with extremely low packet loss rates and bounded
and bounded end-to-end delivery latency. Achieving such loss rates end-to-end delivery latency. Achieving such loss rates and bounded
and bounded latency may not be possible in the face of a highly latency may not be possible in the face of a highly capable
capable adversary, such as the one envisioned by the Internet Threat adversary, such as the one envisioned by the Internet Threat Model of
Model of BCP 72 that can arbitrarily drop or delay any or all BCP 72 [RFC3552] that can arbitrarily drop or delay any or all
traffic. In order to present meaningful security considerations, we traffic. In order to present meaningful security considerations, we
consider a somewhat weaker attacker who does not control the physical consider a somewhat weaker attacker who does not control the physical
links of the DetNet domain, but may have the ability to control a links of the DetNet domain but may have the ability to control a
network node within the boundary of the DetNet domain. network node within the boundary of the DetNet domain.
The primary consideration for the DetNet data plane is to maintain The primary consideration for the DetNet data plane is to maintain
integrity of data and delivery of the associated DetNet service integrity of data and delivery of the associated DetNet service
traversing the DetNet network. Since no DetNet-specific fields are traversing the DetNet network. Since no DetNet-specific fields are
available in the DetNet IP data plane, the integrity and available in the DetNet IP data plane, the integrity and
confidentiality of application flows can be protected through confidentiality of application flows can be protected through
whatever means are provided by the underlying technology. For whatever means are provided by the underlying technology. For
example, encryption may be used, such as that provided by IPSec example, encryption may be used, such as that provided by IPsec
[RFC4301] for IP flows and/or by an underlying sub-net using MACSec [RFC4301] for IP flows and/or by an underlying sub-network using
[IEEE802.1AE-2018] for IP over Ethernet (Layer-2) flows. MACsec [IEEE802.1AE-2018] for IP over Ethernet (Layer 2) flows.
From a data plane perspective this document does not add or modify From a data plane perspective, this document does not add or modify
any header information. any header information.
At the management and control level DetNet flows are identified on a At the management and control level, DetNet flows are identified on a
per-flow basis, which may provide controller plane attackers with per-flow basis, which may provide Controller Plane attackers with
additional information about the data flows (when compared to additional information about the data flows (when compared to
controller planes that do not include per-flow identification). This Controller Planes that do not include per-flow identification). This
is an inherent property of DetNet which has security implications is an inherent property of DetNet that has security implications that
that should be considered when determining if DetNet is a suitable should be considered when determining if DetNet is a suitable
technology for any given use case. technology for any given use case.
To provide uninterrupted availability of the DetNet service, To provide uninterrupted availability of the DetNet service,
provisions can be made against DOS attacks and delay attacks. To provisions can be made against DoS attacks and delay attacks. To
protect against DOS attacks, excess traffic due to malicious or protect against DoS attacks, excess traffic due to malicious or
malfunctioning devices can be prevented or mitigated, for example malfunctioning devices can be prevented or mitigated -- for example,
through the use of existing mechanism such as policing and shaping through the use of existing mechanisms such as policing and shaping
applied at the input of a DetNet domain or within an edge IEEE802.1 applied at the input of a DetNet domain or within an edge IEEE 802.1
TSN domain. To prevent DetNet packets from being delayed by an TSN domain. To prevent DetNet packets from being delayed by an
entity external to a DetNet domain, DetNet technology definition can entity external to a DetNet domain, DetNet technology definitions can
allow for the mitigation of Man-In-The-Middle attacks, for example allow for the mitigation of man-in-the-middle attacks -- for example,
through use of authentication and authorization of devices within the through the use of authentication and authorization of devices within
DetNet domain. the DetNet domain.
8. IANA Considerations 8. IANA Considerations
This document does not require an action from IANA. This document has no IANA actions.
9. Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank Pat Thaler, Norman Finn, Loa Anderson,
David Black, Rodney Cummings, Ethan Grossman, Tal Mizrahi, David
Mozes, Craig Gunther, George Swallow, Yuanlong Jiang and Carlos J.
Bernardos for their various contributions to this work. David Black
served as technical advisor to the DetNet working group during the
development of this document and provided many valuable comments.
IESG comments were provided by Murray Kucherawy, Roman Danyliw,
Alvaro Retana, Benjamin Kaduk, Rob Wilton, and Erik Vyncke.
10. Contributors
RFC7322 limits the number of authors listed on the front page of a
draft to a maximum of 5. The editor wishes to thank and acknowledge
the follow authors for contributing text to this draft.
Jouni Korhonen
Email: jouni.nospam@gmail.com
Andrew G. Malis
Malis Consulting
Email: agmalis@gmail.com
11. References
11.1. Normative references 9. References
[I-D.ietf-detnet-data-plane-framework] 9.1. Normative References
Varga, B., Farkas, J., Berger, L., Malis, A., and S.
Bryant, "DetNet Data Plane Framework", draft-ietf-detnet-
data-plane-framework-06 (work in progress), May 2020.
[RFC0768] Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768, [RFC0768] Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768,
DOI 10.17487/RFC0768, August 1980, DOI 10.17487/RFC0768, August 1980,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc768>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc768>.
[RFC0791] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791, [RFC0791] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791,
DOI 10.17487/RFC0791, September 1981, DOI 10.17487/RFC0791, September 1981,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc791>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc791>.
[RFC0792] Postel, J., "Internet Control Message Protocol", STD 5, [RFC0792] Postel, J., "Internet Control Message Protocol", STD 5,
skipping to change at page 22, line 19 skipping to change at line 946
[RFC8200] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 [RFC8200] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200, (IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017, DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8200>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8200>.
[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>.
11.2. Informative references [RFC8938] Varga, B., Ed., Farkas, J., Berger, L., Malis, A., and S.
Bryant, "Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Data Plane
Framework", RFC 8938, DOI 10.17487/RFC8938, November 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8938>.
[I-D.ietf-detnet-dp-sol-mpls] 9.2. Informative References
Korhonen, J. and B. Varga, "DetNet MPLS Data Plane
Encapsulation", draft-ietf-detnet-dp-sol-mpls-02 (work in
progress), March 2019.
[I-D.ietf-detnet-flow-information-model] [DetNet-Flow-Info]
Varga, B., Farkas, J., Cummings, R., Jiang, Y., and D. Varga, B., Farkas, J., Cummings, R., Jiang, Y., and D.
Fedyk, "DetNet Flow Information Model", draft-ietf-detnet- Fedyk, "DetNet Flow Information Model", Work in Progress,
flow-information-model-10 (work in progress), May 2020. Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-detnet-flow-information-model-
11, 21 October 2020, <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-
ietf-detnet-flow-information-model-11>.
[I-D.ietf-detnet-ip-over-mpls] [DetNet-IP-over-MPLS]
Varga, B., Berger, L., Fedyk, D., Bryant, S., and J. Varga, B., Ed., Berger, L., Fedyk, D., Bryant, S., and J.
Korhonen, "DetNet Data Plane: IP over MPLS", draft-ietf- Korhonen, "DetNet Data Plane: IP over MPLS", Work in
detnet-ip-over-mpls-06 (work in progress), May 2020. Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-detnet-ip-over-mpls-
09, 11 October 2020, <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-
ietf-detnet-ip-over-mpls-09>.
[I-D.ietf-detnet-ip-over-tsn] [DetNet-IP-over-TSN]
Varga, B., Farkas, J., Malis, A., and S. Bryant, "DetNet Varga, B., Ed., Farkas, J., Malis, A., and S. Bryant,
Data Plane: IP over IEEE 802.1 Time Sensitive Networking "DetNet Data Plane: IP over IEEE 802.1 Time Sensitive
(TSN)", draft-ietf-detnet-ip-over-tsn-03 (work in Networking (TSN)", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
progress), June 2020. draft-ietf-detnet-ip-over-tsn-04, 2 November 2020,
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-detnet-ip-over-
tsn-04>.
[I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls] [DetNet-MPLS]
Varga, B., Farkas, J., Berger, L., Malis, A., Bryant, S., Varga, B., Ed., Farkas, J., Berger, L., Malis, A., Bryant,
and J. Korhonen, "DetNet Data Plane: MPLS", draft-ietf- S., and J. Korhonen, "DetNet Data Plane: MPLS", Work in
detnet-mpls-07 (work in progress), June 2020. Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-13, 11
October 2020,
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-13>.
[I-D.ietf-detnet-security] [DetNet-Security]
Mizrahi, T. and E. Grossman, "Deterministic Networking Grossman, E., Ed., Mizrahi, T., and A. Hacker,
(DetNet) Security Considerations", draft-ietf-detnet- "Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Security
security-10 (work in progress), May 2020. Considerations", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
ietf-detnet-security-12, 2 October 2020,
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-detnet-security-
12>.
[I-D.ietf-detnet-tsn-vpn-over-mpls] [DetNet-TSN-over-MPLS]
Varga, B., Farkas, J., Malis, A., Bryant, S., and D. Varga, B., Ed., Farkas, J., Malis, A., Bryant, S., and D.
Fedyk, "DetNet Data Plane: IEEE 802.1 Time Sensitive Fedyk, "DetNet Data Plane: IEEE 802.1 Time Sensitive
Networking over MPLS", draft-ietf-detnet-tsn-vpn-over- Networking over MPLS", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
mpls-03 (work in progress), June 2020. draft-ietf-detnet-tsn-vpn-over-mpls-04, 2 November 2020,
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-detnet-tsn-vpn-
over-mpls-04>.
[I-D.ietf-detnet-yang] [DetNet-YANG]
Geng, X., Chen, M., Ryoo, Y., Li, Z., Rahman, R., and D. Geng, X., Chen, M., Ryoo, Y., Fedyk, D., Rahman, R., and
Fedyk, "Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Configuration Z. Li, "Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Configuration
YANG Model", draft-ietf-detnet-yang-06 (work in progress), YANG Model", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-
June 2020. detnet-yang-09, 16 November 2020,
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-detnet-yang-09>.
[IEEE802.1AE-2018] [IEEE802.1AE-2018]
IEEE Standards Association, "IEEE Std 802.1AE-2018 MAC IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area
Security (MACsec)", 2018, networks-Media Access Control (MAC) Security", IEEE
<https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8585421>. 802.1AE-2018, DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2018.8585421, December
2018, <https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8585421>.
[IEEE802.1TSNTG]
IEEE, "Time-Sensitive Networking (TSN) Task Group",
<https://1.ieee802.org/tsn/>.
[RFC1122] Braden, R., Ed., "Requirements for Internet Hosts - [RFC1122] Braden, R., Ed., "Requirements for Internet Hosts -
Communication Layers", STD 3, RFC 1122, Communication Layers", STD 3, RFC 1122,
DOI 10.17487/RFC1122, October 1989, DOI 10.17487/RFC1122, October 1989,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1122>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1122>.
[RFC1192] Kahin, B., "Commercialization of the Internet summary [RFC1191] Mogul, J. and S. Deering, "Path MTU discovery", RFC 1191,
report", RFC 1192, DOI 10.17487/RFC1192, November 1990, DOI 10.17487/RFC1191, November 1990,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1192>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1191>.
[RFC2475] Blake, S., Black, D., Carlson, M., Davies, E., Wang, Z., [RFC2475] Blake, S., Black, D., Carlson, M., Davies, E., Wang, Z.,
and W. Weiss, "An Architecture for Differentiated and W. Weiss, "An Architecture for Differentiated
Services", RFC 2475, DOI 10.17487/RFC2475, December 1998, Services", RFC 2475, DOI 10.17487/RFC2475, December 1998,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2475>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2475>.
[RFC3290] Bernet, Y., Blake, S., Grossman, D., and A. Smith, "An [RFC3290] Bernet, Y., Blake, S., Grossman, D., and A. Smith, "An
Informal Management Model for Diffserv Routers", RFC 3290, Informal Management Model for Diffserv Routers", RFC 3290,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3290, May 2002, DOI 10.17487/RFC3290, May 2002,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3290>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3290>.
[RFC3473] Berger, L., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label [RFC3473] Berger, L., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol- Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-
Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3473, January 2003, DOI 10.17487/RFC3473, January 2003,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3473>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3473>.
[RFC3552] Rescorla, E. and B. Korver, "Guidelines for Writing RFC
Text on Security Considerations", BCP 72, RFC 3552,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3552, July 2003,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3552>.
[RFC3670] Moore, B., Durham, D., Strassner, J., Westerinen, A., and [RFC3670] Moore, B., Durham, D., Strassner, J., Westerinen, A., and
W. Weiss, "Information Model for Describing Network Device W. Weiss, "Information Model for Describing Network Device
QoS Datapath Mechanisms", RFC 3670, DOI 10.17487/RFC3670, QoS Datapath Mechanisms", RFC 3670, DOI 10.17487/RFC3670,
January 2004, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3670>. January 2004, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3670>.
[RFC5120] Przygienda, T., Shen, N., and N. Sheth, "M-ISIS: Multi [RFC5120] Przygienda, T., Shen, N., and N. Sheth, "M-ISIS: Multi
Topology (MT) Routing in Intermediate System to Topology (MT) Routing in Intermediate System to
Intermediate Systems (IS-ISs)", RFC 5120, Intermediate Systems (IS-ISs)", RFC 5120,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5120, February 2008, DOI 10.17487/RFC5120, February 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5120>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5120>.
skipping to change at page 24, line 36 skipping to change at line 1081
[RFC8201] McCann, J., Deering, S., Mogul, J., and R. Hinden, Ed., [RFC8201] McCann, J., Deering, S., Mogul, J., and R. Hinden, Ed.,
"Path MTU Discovery for IP version 6", STD 87, RFC 8201, "Path MTU Discovery for IP version 6", STD 87, RFC 8201,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8201, July 2017, DOI 10.17487/RFC8201, July 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8201>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8201>.
[RFC8504] Chown, T., Loughney, J., and T. Winters, "IPv6 Node [RFC8504] Chown, T., Loughney, J., and T. Winters, "IPv6 Node
Requirements", BCP 220, RFC 8504, DOI 10.17487/RFC8504, Requirements", BCP 220, RFC 8504, DOI 10.17487/RFC8504,
January 2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8504>. January 2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8504>.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank Pat Thaler, Norman Finn, Loa Andersson,
David Black, Rodney Cummings, Ethan Grossman, Tal Mizrahi, David
Mozes, Craig Gunther, George Swallow, Yuanlong Jiang, and Carlos
J. Bernardos for their various contributions to this work. David
Black served as technical advisor to the DetNet working group during
the development of this document and provided many valuable comments.
IESG comments were provided by Murray Kucherawy, Roman Danyliw,
Alvaro Retana, Benjamin Kaduk, Rob Wilton, and Érik Vyncke.
Contributors
The editor of this document wishes to thank and acknowledge the
following people who contributed substantially to the content of this
document and should be considered coauthors:
Jouni Korhonen
Email: jouni.nospam@gmail.com
Andrew G. Malis
Malis Consulting
Email: agmalis@gmail.com
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Balazs Varga (editor) Balázs Varga (editor)
Ericsson Ericsson
Budapest
Magyar Tudosok krt. 11. Magyar Tudosok krt. 11.
Budapest 1117 1117
Hungary Hungary
Email: balazs.a.varga@ericsson.com Email: balazs.a.varga@ericsson.com
Janos Farkas
János Farkas
Ericsson Ericsson
Budapest
Magyar Tudosok krt. 11. Magyar Tudosok krt. 11.
Budapest 1117 1117
Hungary Hungary
Email: janos.farkas@ericsson.com Email: janos.farkas@ericsson.com
Lou Berger Lou Berger
LabN Consulting, L.L.C. LabN Consulting, L.L.C.
Email: lberger@labn.net Email: lberger@labn.net
Don Fedyk Don Fedyk
LabN Consulting, L.L.C. LabN Consulting, L.L.C.
Email: dfedyk@labn.net Email: dfedyk@labn.net
Stewart Bryant Stewart Bryant
Futurewei Technologies Futurewei Technologies
Email: stewart.bryant@gmail.com Email: sb@stewartbryant.com
 End of changes. 164 change blocks. 
411 lines changed or deleted 435 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/