DetNet B. Varga, Ed. Internet-Draft J. Farkas Intended status: Standards Track Ericsson Expires:November 6, 2019January 2, 2020 L. Berger LabN Consulting, L.L.C. A. Malis S. BryantHuaweiFuturewei Technologies J. KorhonenMay 5,July 1, 2019 DetNet Data Plane: MPLS overIP draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-udp-ip-00UDP/IP draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-udp-ip-01 Abstract This document specifies the MPLS Deterministic Networking data plane operation and encapsulation over an IP network. The approach is modeled on the operation of MPLS andPseudoWires (PW)overIP.UDP/IP packet switched networks. 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 onNovember 6, 2019.January 2, 2020. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2019 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.1. Terms Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.2. Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33.2.3. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .44.3. DetNet MPLS Operation over DetNet IP PSNs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45. Security Considerations4. DetNet Data Plane Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5. Management and Control Information Summary . . .6 6. IANA Considerations. . . . . . 6 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 7. Contributors. . . . 6 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .76 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .87 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .87 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .87 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .98 1. Introduction Deterministic Networking (DetNet) is a service that can be offered by a network to DetNet flows. DetNet provides these flows with a 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].The DetNet Architecture decomposes the DetNet related data plane functions into two sub-layers: a service sub-layer and a forwarding sub-layer. The service sub-layer is used to provide DetNet service protection and reordering. The forwarding sub-layer is used to provides congestion protection (low loss, assured latency, and limited reordering) leveraging MPLS Traffic Engineering mechanisms.This document specifies use of the MPLS DetNet encapsulation over an IP network. The approach is modeled on the operation of MPLSand PseudoWires (PW)over an IP Packet Switched Network (PSN)[RFC3985][RFC4385][RFC7510].[RFC7510]. It maps the MPLS data plane encapsulation described in [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls] to the DetNet IP data plane defined in [I-D.ietf-detnet-ip]. To carry DetNet flows with full functionality at the DetNet layer over an IP network, the following components are required (these are a subset of the requirements for MPLS encapsulation listed in [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls]): 1. A method of identifying the DetNet flow group to the processing element. 2. A method of carrying the DetNet sequence number. 3. A method of distinguishing DetNet OAM packets from DetNet data packets. 4. A method of carrying queuing and forwarding indication. These requirements are satisfied by the DetNet over MPLS Encapsulation described in[I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls].[I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls] and they are partly satisfied by the DetNet IP data plane defined in [I-D.ietf-detnet-ip] 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 reader is assumed to be familiar with that document and its terminology. 2.2. Abbreviations The following abbreviations are used in this document:CW Control Word.d-CW A DetNet Control Word (d-CW) is used for sequencing and identifying duplicate packets of a DetNet flow at the DetNet service sub-layer. DetNet Deterministic Networking. A-Label A special case of an S-Label, whose properties are known only at the aggregation and deaggregation end- points. F-Label A Detnet "forwarding" label that identifies the LSP used to forward a DetNet flow across an MPLS PSN, e.g., a hop-by-hop label used between label switchingrouters (LSR). LSR Label Switching Router.routers. MPLS Multiprotocol Label Switching. OAM Operations, Administration, and Maintenance. PEF Packet Elimination Function.PRF Packet Replication Function. PREOF Packet Replication, Elimination and Ordering Functions.POF Packet Ordering Function. PRF Packet Replication Function. PSN Packet Switched Network.PW PseudoWire.S-Label A DetNet "service" label that is used between DetNet nodes that implement also the DetNet service sub-layer functions. An S-Label is also used to identify a DetNet flow at DetNet service sub-layer.3.2.3. Requirements Language The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.4.3. DetNet MPLS Operation over DetNet IP PSNs This document builds on the specification of MPLS over UDPand IPdefined in [RFC7510]. Itreplacesmay replace partly or entirely the F-Label(s) used in [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls] with UDP and IP headers. The UDP and IP header information is used to identify DetNet flows, including member flows, per [I-D.ietf-detnet-ip]. The resulting encapsulation is shown in Figure 1. There may be zero or more F-label(s) between the S-label and the UDP header. Note that this encapsulation works equally well with IPv4, IPv6, and IPv6-based Segment Routing [I-D.ietf-6man-segment-routing-header]. +---------------------------------+ | | | DetNet App-Flow | | Payload Packet | | | +---------------------------------+ <--\ | DetNet Control Word | | +---------------------------------+ +--> DetNet data plane | S-Label | | MPLS encapsulation +---------------------------------+ | | [ F-label(s) ] | | +---------------------------------+ <--+ | UDP Header | | +---------------------------------+ +--> DetNet data plane | IP Header | | IP encapsulation +---------------------------------+ <--/ | Data-Link | +---------------------------------+ | Physical | +---------------------------------+ Figure 1:IPUDP/IP Encapsulation of DetNet MPLSd-CW and andd-CW, S-Labels and zero or more F-Labels are used as defined in [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls] and are not modified by this document. In case of aggregates the A-Label is treated as an S-Label and it too is not modified. 4. DetNet Data Plane Procedures To support outgoing DetNet MPLS overIP,UDP/IP encapsulation, an implementation MUST support the provisioning ofIP/UDPUDP and IP header information in addition or in place ofsets of F-Labels. Note that multiple sets of F-Labels can be provisioned to support PRF on transmitted DetNet flows and therefore,F-Label(s). Note, when PRF issupported, multiple IP/UDP headers MAYperformed at the MPLS service sub-layer, there will beprovisioned. WhenmultipleIP/UDP headers are provisioned for a particular outgoing app-flow, a copy of the outgoing packet, includingmember flows, and each member flow will require thepushed S-Label, MUST be made for each.provisioning of their own UDP and IP header information. The headers for each outgoing packet MUST bebasedformatted on the configuration information and as defined in [RFC7510], with one exception.The one exception isNote that the UDP Source Port value MUST be set to uniquely identify the DetNet(forwarding sub-layer)flow. The packet MUST then be handed as a DetNet IP packet, per [I-D.ietf-detnet-ip]. This includes QoS related traffic treatment. To support receive processing an implementation MUST also support the provisioning of receivedIP/UDPUDP and IP header information.When S-Labels are taken from platform label space, all that is required is to provision that receiving IP/UDP encapsulated DetNet MPLS packets is permitted. Once the IP/UDP header is stripped, the S-label uniquely identifies the app-flow. When S-Labels are not taken from platform label space, IP/UDP header information MUST be provisioned. The provisioned information MUST then be usedThe provisioned information MUST be used to identify incomingapp- flowsapp-flows based on the combination of S-Label and incomingIP/UDP header.encapsulation header information. Normal receiveprocessing,processing as defined in [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls], includingPEOFPEF and POF, can then take place. 5. Management and Control Information Summary The following summarizes the set of information that is needed to configure DetNet MPLS over UDP/IP: o Label information (S-label or F-label) to be mapped to UDP/IP flow. Note that a single S-Label can map to multiple sets of UPD/ IP information when PREOF is used. o IPv4 and IPv6 source address field. o IPv4 and IPv6 destination address field. o IPv4 Type of Service and IPv6 Traffic Class Fields. o UDP Source Port. o UDP Destination Port. This information MUST be provisioned per DetNet flow via configuration, e.g., via the controller or management plane. It is the responsibility of the DetNet controller plane to properly provision both flow identification information and the flow specific resources needed to provided the traffic treatment needed to meet each flow's service requirements. This applies for aggregated and individual flows. 6. Security Considerations The security considerations of DetNet in general are discussed in [I-D.ietf-detnet-architecture] and[I-D.sdt-detnet-security]. Other[I-D.ietf-detnet-security]. MPLS and IP specific security considerationswill be addedare described ina future version of this draft. 6.[I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls] and [I-D.ietf-detnet-ip]. This draft does not have additional security considerations. 7. IANA Considerations This document makes no IANA requests.7. Contributors RFC7322 limits the number of authors listed on the front page of a draft to a maximum of 5, far fewer than the many individuals below who made important contributions to this draft. The editor wishes to thank and acknowledge each of the following authors for contributing text to this draft. See also Section 8. Loa Andersson Huawei Email: loa@pi.nu Yuanlong Jiang Huawei Email: jiangyuanlong@huawei.com Norman Finn Huawei 3101 Rio Way Spring Valley, CA 91977 USA Email: norman.finn@mail01.huawei.com Janos Farkas Ericsson Magyar Tudosok krt. 11. Budapest 1117 Hungary Email: janos.farkas@ericsson.com Carlos J. Bernardos Universidad Carlos III de Madrid Av. Universidad, 30 Leganes, Madrid 28911 Spain Email: cjbc@it.uc3m.es Tal Mizrahi Marvell 6 Hamada st. Yokneam Israel Email: talmi@marvell.com Lou Berger LabN Consulting, L.L.C. Email: lberger@labn.net Stewart Bryant Huawei Technologies Email: stewart.bryant@gmail.com Mach Chen Huawei Technologies Email: mach.chen@huawei.com Andrew G. Malis Huawei Technologies Email: agmalis@gmail.com8. Acknowledgements Theauthor(s) ACK and NACK. The following people were part of the DetNet Data Plane Solution Design Team: Jouni Korhonen Janos Farkasauthors wish to thank Pat Thaler, NormanFinn Balazs VargaFinn, LoaAnderssonAnderson, David Black, Rodney Cummings, Ethan Grossman, TalMizrahiMizrahi, DavidMozesMozes, Craig Gunther, George Swallow, Yuanlong JiangAndrew Malisand Carlos J. BernardosThe DetNet chairs serving during the DetNet Data Plane Solution Design Team: Lou Berger Pat Thalerfor their various contributions to this work. 9. References 9.1. Normative References [I-D.ietf-detnet-ip]Korhonen, J.,Varga, B., Farkas, J., Berger, L., Fedyk, D., Malis, A., Bryant, S., and J. Korhonen, "DetNet Data Plane: IP", draft-ietf-detnet-ip-00 (work in progress), May 2019. [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls]Korhonen, J.,Varga, B., Farkas, J., Berger, L., Fedyk, D., Malis, A., Bryant, S., and J. Korhonen, "DetNet Data Plane: MPLS", draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-00 (work in progress), May 2019. [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.[RFC4385] Bryant, S., Swallow, G., Martini, L., and D. McPherson, "Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) Control Word for Use over an MPLS PSN", RFC 4385, DOI 10.17487/RFC4385, February 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4385>.[RFC7510] Xu, X., Sheth, N., Yong, L., Callon, R., and D. Black, "Encapsulating MPLS in UDP", RFC 7510, DOI 10.17487/RFC7510, April 2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7510>. [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>. 9.2. Informative References [I-D.ietf-6man-segment-routing-header] Filsfils, C., Dukes, D., Previdi, S., Leddy, J., Matsushima, S., and d. daniel.voyer@bell.ca, "IPv6 Segment Routing Header (SRH)",draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header-18draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing- header-21 (work in progress),AprilJune 2019. [I-D.ietf-detnet-architecture] Finn, N., Thubert, P., Varga, B., and J. Farkas, "Deterministic Networking Architecture", draft-ietf-detnet-architecture-12detnet-architecture-13 (work in progress),MarchMay 2019.[I-D.sdt-detnet-security][I-D.ietf-detnet-security] Mizrahi, T., Grossman, E., Hacker, A., Das, S., Dowdell, J., Austad, H., Stanton, K., and N. Finn, "Deterministic Networking (DetNet) SecurityConsiderations, draft-sdt-detnet-security, work in progress", 2017. [RFC3985] Bryant, S., Ed. and P. Pate, Ed., "Pseudo Wire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) Architecture", RFC 3985, DOI 10.17487/RFC3985,Considerations", draft-ietf- detnet-security-04 (work in progress), March2005, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3985>.2019. Authors' Addresses Balazs Varga (editor) Ericsson Magyar Tudosok krt. 11. Budapest 1117 Hungary Email: balazs.a.varga@ericsson.com Janos Farkas Ericsson Magyar Tudosok krt. 11. Budapest 1117 Hungary Email: janos.farkas@ericsson.com Lou Berger LabN Consulting, L.L.C. Email: lberger@labn.net Andrew G. MalisHuaweiFuturewei Technologies Email: agmalis@gmail.com Stewart BryantHuaweiFuturewei Technologies Email: stewart.bryant@gmail.com Jouni Korhonen Email: jouni.nospam@gmail.com