draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-udp-ip-04.txt		draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-udp-ip-05.txt
	DetNet B. Varga, Ed.		DetNet B. Varga, Ed.
	Internet-Draft J. Farkas		Internet-Draft J. Farkas
	Intended status: Standards Track Ericsson		Intended status: Standards Track Ericsson
	Expires: May 24, 2020 L. Berger		Expires: August 6, 2020 L. Berger
	LabN Consulting, L.L.C.		LabN Consulting, L.L.C.
	A. Malis		A. Malis
	Independent		Independent
	S. Bryant		S. Bryant
	Futurewei Technologies		Futurewei Technologies
	J. Korhonen		February 3, 2020
	November 21, 2019
	DetNet Data Plane: MPLS over UDP/IP		DetNet Data Plane: MPLS over UDP/IP
	draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-udp-ip-04		draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-udp-ip-05
	Abstract		Abstract
	This document specifies the MPLS Deterministic Networking data plane		This document specifies the MPLS Deterministic Networking data plane
	operation and encapsulation over an IP network. The approach is		operation and encapsulation over an IP network. The approach is
	modeled on the operation of MPLS and over UDP/IP packet switched		modeled on the operation of MPLS and over UDP/IP packet switched
	networks.		networks.
	Status of This Memo		Status of This Memo
	skipping to change at page 1, line 40 ¶		skipping to change at page 1, line 39 ¶
	Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering		Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
	Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute		Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
	working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-		working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
	Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.		Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
	Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months		Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
	and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any		and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
	time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference		time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
	material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."		material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
	This Internet-Draft will expire on May 24, 2020.		This Internet-Draft will expire on August 6, 2020.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2019 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
	skipping to change at page 2, line 24 ¶		skipping to change at page 2, line 23 ¶
	2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	2.1. Terms Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		2.1. Terms Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	2.2. Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		2.2. Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	2.3. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		2.3. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	3. DetNet MPLS Operation over DetNet		3. DetNet MPLS Operation over DetNet
	IP PSNs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		IP PSNs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	4. DetNet Data Plane Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		4. DetNet Data Plane Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	5. Management and Control Information Summary . . . . . . . . . 6		5. Management and Control Information Summary . . . . . . . . . 6
	6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		9. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
			10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	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 extremely low		a network to DetNet flows. DetNet provides these flows extremely low
	packet loss rates and assured maximum end-to-end delivery latency.		packet loss rates and assured maximum end-to-end delivery latency.
	General background and concepts of DetNet can be found in [RFC8655].		General background and concepts of DetNet can be found in [RFC8655].
	This document specifies use of the MPLS DetNet encapsulation over an		This document specifies use of the MPLS DetNet encapsulation over an
	skipping to change at page 3, line 12 ¶		skipping to change at page 3, line 12 ¶
	2. A method for carrying the DetNet sequence number.		2. A method for carrying the DetNet sequence number.
	3. A method for distinguishing DetNet OAM packets from DetNet data		3. A method for distinguishing DetNet OAM packets from DetNet data
	packets.		packets.
	4. A method for carrying queuing and forwarding indication.		4. A method for carrying queuing and forwarding indication.
	These requirements are satisfied by the DetNet over MPLS		These requirements are satisfied by the DetNet over MPLS
	Encapsulation described in [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls] and they are partly		Encapsulation described in [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls] and they are partly
	satisfied by the DetNet IP data plane defined in [I-D.ietf-detnet-ip]		satisfied (i.e., IP flows can be identified however no DetNet
			sequence number is carried) by the DetNet IP data plane defined in
			[I-D.ietf-detnet-ip]
	2. Terminology		2. Terminology
	2.1. Terms Used in This Document		2.1. Terms Used in This Document
	This document uses the terminology established in the DetNet		This document uses the terminology established in the DetNet
	architecture [RFC8655], and the reader is assumed to be familiar with		architecture [RFC8655], and the reader is assumed to be familiar with
	that document and its terminology.		that document and its terminology.
	2.2. Abbreviations		2.2. Abbreviations
	skipping to change at page 5, line 28 ¶		skipping to change at page 5, line 28 ¶
	+---------------------------------+ +--> DetNet data plane		+---------------------------------+ +--> DetNet data plane
	| IP Header | | IP encapsulation		| IP Header | | IP encapsulation
	+---------------------------------+ <--/		+---------------------------------+ <--/
	| Data-Link |		| Data-Link |
	+---------------------------------+		+---------------------------------+
	| Physical |		| Physical |
	+---------------------------------+		+---------------------------------+
	Figure 1: UDP/IP Encapsulation of DetNet MPLS		Figure 1: UDP/IP Encapsulation of DetNet MPLS
	S-Labels, d-CW and zero or more F-Labels are used as defined in		S-Labels, A-Labels (when present), d-CW and zero or more F-Labels are
	[I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls] and are not modified by this document. In		used as defined in [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls] and are not modified by
	case of aggregates the A-Label is treated as an S-Label and it too is		this document.
	not modified.
	4. DetNet Data Plane Procedures		4. DetNet Data Plane Procedures
	To support outgoing DetNet MPLS over UDP/IP encapsulation, an		To support outgoing DetNet MPLS over UDP/IP encapsulation, an
	implementation MUST support the provisioning of UDP and IP header		implementation MUST support the provisioning of UDP and IP header
	information in addition or in place of F-Label(s). Note, when PRF is		information in addition or in place of F-Label(s). Note, when PRF is
	performed at the MPLS service sub-layer, there will be multiple		performed at the MPLS service sub-layer, there will be multiple
	member flows, and each member flow will require the provisioning of		member flows, and each member flow will require the provisioning of
	their own UDP and IP header information. The headers for each		their own UDP and IP header information. The headers for each
	outgoing packet MUST be formatted according to the configuration		outgoing packet MUST be formatted according to the configuration
	information and as defined in [RFC7510], with one exception. Note		information and as defined in [RFC7510], and the UDP Source Port
	that the UDP Source Port value MUST be set to uniquely identify the		value MUST be set to uniquely identify the DetNet flow. The packet
	DetNet flow. The packet MUST then be handed as a DetNet IP packet,		MUST then be handled as a DetNet IP packet, per [I-D.ietf-detnet-ip].
	per [I-D.ietf-detnet-ip]. This includes QoS related traffic		This includes QoS related traffic treatment.
	treatment.
	To support receive processing an implementation MUST also support the		To support the receive processing defined in this document, an
	provisioning of received UDP and IP header information. The		implementation MUST also support the provisioning of received UDP and
	provisioned information MUST be used to identify incoming app-flows		IP header information. The provisioned information MUST be used to
	based on the combination of S-Label and incoming encapsulation header		identify incoming app-flows based on the combination of S-Label and
	information. Normal receive processing as defined in		incoming encapsulation header information. Normal receive processing
	[I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls], including PEF and POF, can then take place.		as defined in [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls], including PEF and POF, can then
			take place.
	5. Management and Control Information Summary		5. Management and Control Information Summary
	The following summarizes the set of information that is needed to		The following summarizes the set of information that is needed to
	configure DetNet MPLS over UDP/IP:		configure DetNet MPLS over UDP/IP:
	o Label information (S-label or F-label) to be mapped to UDP/IP		o Label information (A-labels, S-labels and F-labels) to be mapped
	flow. Note that a single S-Label can map to multiple sets of UPD/		to UDP/IP flow. Note that for example, a single S-Label can map
	IP information when PREOF is used.		to multiple sets of UDP/IP information when PREOF is used.
	o IPv4 or IPv6 source address field.		o IPv4 or IPv6 source address field.
	o IPv4 or IPv6 destination address field.		o IPv4 or IPv6 destination address field.
	o IPv4 Type of Service or IPv6 Traffic Class Fields.		o DSCP Field in either IPv4 Type of Service or IPv6 Traffic Class
			Fields.
	o UDP Source Port.		o UDP Source Port.
	o UDP Destination Port.		o UDP Destination Port.
	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 [RFC8655] or management
			plane.
	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.
	6. Security Considerations		6. Security Considerations
	The security considerations of DetNet in general are discussed in		The security considerations of DetNet in general are discussed in
	[RFC8655] and [I-D.ietf-detnet-security]. MPLS and IP specific		[RFC8655] and [I-D.ietf-detnet-security]. MPLS and IP specific
	security considerations are described in [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls] and		security considerations are described in [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls] and
	[I-D.ietf-detnet-ip]. This draft does not have additional security		[I-D.ietf-detnet-ip]. This draft does not have additional security
	considerations.		considerations.
	skipping to change at page 7, line 7 ¶		skipping to change at page 7, line 12 ¶
	This document makes no IANA requests.		This document makes no IANA requests.
	8. Acknowledgements		8. Acknowledgements
	The authors wish to thank Pat Thaler, Norman Finn, Loa Anderson,		The authors wish to thank Pat Thaler, Norman Finn, Loa Anderson,
	David Black, Rodney Cummings, Ethan Grossman, Tal Mizrahi, David		David Black, Rodney Cummings, Ethan Grossman, Tal Mizrahi, David
	Mozes, Craig Gunther, George Swallow, Yuanlong Jiang and Carlos J.		Mozes, Craig Gunther, George Swallow, Yuanlong Jiang and Carlos J.
	Bernardos for their various contributions to this work.		Bernardos for their various contributions to this work.
	9. References		9. Contributors
	9.1. Normative References		This document is derived from an earlier draft that was edited by
			Jouni Korhonen (jouni.nospam@gmail.com) and as such, he contributed
			to and authored text in this document.
			10. References
			10.1. Normative References
	[I-D.ietf-detnet-ip]		[I-D.ietf-detnet-ip]
	Varga, B., Farkas, J., Berger, L., Fedyk, D., Malis, A.,		Varga, B., Farkas, J., Berger, L., Fedyk, D., Malis, A.,
	Bryant, S., and J. Korhonen, "DetNet Data Plane: IP",		Bryant, S., and J. Korhonen, "DetNet Data Plane: IP",
	draft-ietf-detnet-ip-03 (work in progress), October 2019.		draft-ietf-detnet-ip-04 (work in progress), November 2019.
	[I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls]		[I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls]
	Varga, B., Farkas, J., Berger, L., Fedyk, D., Malis, A.,		Varga, B., Farkas, J., Berger, L., Fedyk, D., Malis, A.,
	Bryant, S., and J. Korhonen, "DetNet Data Plane: MPLS",		Bryant, S., and J. Korhonen, "DetNet Data Plane: MPLS",
	draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-03 (work in progress), October		draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-04 (work in progress), November
	2019.		2019.
	[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate		[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
	Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,		Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,		DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
	[RFC7510] Xu, X., Sheth, N., Yong, L., Callon, R., and D. Black,		[RFC7510] Xu, X., Sheth, N., Yong, L., Callon, R., and D. Black,
	"Encapsulating MPLS in UDP", RFC 7510,		"Encapsulating MPLS in UDP", RFC 7510,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC7510, April 2015,		DOI 10.17487/RFC7510, April 2015,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7510>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7510>.
	[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC		[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
	2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,		2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
	May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.		May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
	9.2. Informative References		10.2. Informative References
	[I-D.ietf-6man-segment-routing-header]		[I-D.ietf-6man-segment-routing-header]
	Filsfils, C., Dukes, D., Previdi, S., Leddy, J.,		Filsfils, C., Dukes, D., Previdi, S., Leddy, J.,
	Matsushima, S., and D. Voyer, "IPv6 Segment Routing Header		Matsushima, S., and D. Voyer, "IPv6 Segment Routing Header
	(SRH)", draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header-26 (work in		(SRH)", draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header-26 (work in
	progress), October 2019.		progress), October 2019.
	[I-D.ietf-detnet-security]		[I-D.ietf-detnet-security]
	Mizrahi, T., Grossman, E., Hacker, A., Das, S., Dowdell,		Mizrahi, T., Grossman, E., Hacker, A., Das, S., Dowdell,
	J., Austad, H., and N. Finn, "Deterministic Networking		J., Austad, H., and N. Finn, "Deterministic Networking
	(DetNet) Security Considerations", draft-ietf-detnet-		(DetNet) Security Considerations", draft-ietf-detnet-
	security-06 (work in progress), November 2019.		security-07 (work in progress), January 2020.
	[RFC8655] Finn, N., Thubert, P., Varga, B., and J. Farkas,		[RFC8655] Finn, N., Thubert, P., Varga, B., and J. Farkas,
	"Deterministic Networking Architecture", RFC 8655,		"Deterministic Networking Architecture", RFC 8655,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC8655, October 2019,		DOI 10.17487/RFC8655, October 2019,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8655>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8655>.
	Authors' Addresses		Authors' Addresses
	Balazs Varga (editor)		Balazs Varga (editor)
	Ericsson		Ericsson
	skipping to change at page 8, line 37 ¶		skipping to change at page 9, line 4 ¶
	Lou Berger		Lou Berger
	LabN Consulting, L.L.C.		LabN Consulting, L.L.C.
	Email: lberger@labn.net		Email: lberger@labn.net
	Andrew G. Malis		Andrew G. Malis
	Independent		Independent
	Email: agmalis@gmail.com		Email: agmalis@gmail.com
	Stewart Bryant		Stewart Bryant
	Futurewei Technologies		Futurewei Technologies
	Email: stewart.bryant@gmail.com		Email: stewart.bryant@gmail.com
	Jouni Korhonen
	Email: jouni.nospam@gmail.com
End of changes. 22 change blocks.
	40 lines changed or deleted		48 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.47. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/