--- 1/draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-04.txt 2020-02-03 09:17:35.635530396 -0800 +++ 2/draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-05.txt 2020-02-03 09:17:36.719557759 -0800 @@ -1,26 +1,26 @@ DetNet B. Varga, Ed. Internet-Draft J. Farkas Intended status: Standards Track Ericsson -Expires: May 24, 2020 L. Berger +Expires: August 6, 2020 L. Berger D. Fedyk LabN Consulting, L.L.C. A. Malis Independent S. Bryant Futurewei Technologies J. Korhonen - November 21, 2019 + February 3, 2020 DetNet Data Plane: MPLS - draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-04 + draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-05 Abstract This document specifies the Deterministic Networking data plane when operating over an MPLS Packet Switched Networks. Status of This Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. @@ -28,25 +28,25 @@ Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." - This Internet-Draft will expire on May 24, 2020. + This Internet-Draft will expire on August 6, 2020. 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. 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 @@ -64,30 +64,30 @@ 3.2. DetNet MPLS Data Plane Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4. MPLS-Based DetNet Data Plane Solution . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4.1. DetNet Over MPLS Encapsulation Components . . . . . . . . 8 4.2. MPLS Data Plane Encapsulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.2.1. DetNet Control Word and the DetNet Sequence Number . 10 4.2.2. S-Labels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.2.3. F-Labels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 4.3. OAM Indication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 4.4. Flow Aggregation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 4.4.1. Aggregation Via LSP Hierarchy . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 - 4.4.2. Aggregating DetNet Flows as a new DetNet flow . . . . 17 + 4.4.2. Aggregating DetNet Flows as a new DetNet flow . . . . 18 4.5. Service Sub-Layer Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 4.5.1. Edge Node Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 - 4.5.2. Relay Node Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 + 4.5.2. Relay Node Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 4.6. Forwarding Sub-Layer Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . 20 4.6.1. Class of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 4.6.2. Quality of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 5. Management and Control Information Summary . . . . . . . . . 21 - 5.1. Service Sub-Layer Information Summary . . . . . . . . . . 21 - 5.1.1. Service Aggregation Information Summary . . . . . . . 22 + 5.1. Service Sub-Layer Information Summary . . . . . . . . . . 22 + 5.1.1. Service Aggregation Information Summary . . . . . . . 23 5.2. Forwarding Sub-Layer Information Summary . . . . . . . . 23 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 1. Introduction @@ -126,21 +126,22 @@ found in the DetNet Data Plane Framework [I-D.ietf-detnet-data-plane-framework]. 2. Terminology 2.1. Terms Used in This Document This document uses the terminology established in the DetNet architecture [RFC8655] and the the DetNet Data Plane Framework [I-D.ietf-detnet-data-plane-framework]. The reader is assumed to be - familiar with these documents and any terminology defined therein. + familiar with these documents, any terminology defined therein and + basic MPLS related terminologies in [RFC3031]. The following terminology is introduced in this document: 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 switching routers (LSR). S-Label A DetNet "service" label that is used between DetNet nodes that implement also the DetNet service sub-layer @@ -366,27 +367,27 @@ the use of the Associated Channel method described in [RFC4385]. The DetNet sequence number is carried in the DetNet Control word which carries the Data/OAM discriminator. To simplify implementation and to maximize interoperability two sequence number sizes are supported: a 16 bit sequence number and a 28 bit sequence number. The 16 bit sequence number is needed to support some types of legacy clients. The 28 bit sequence number is used in situations where it is necessary ensure that in high speed networks the sequence number space does not wrap whilst packets are in flight. - The LSP used to forward the DetNet packet may be of any type (MPLS- - LDP, MPLS-TE, MPLS-TP [RFC5921], or MPLS-SR - [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls]). The LSP (F-Label) label - and/or the S-Label may be used to indicate the queue processing as - well as the forwarding parameters. Note that the possible use of - Penultimate Hop Popping (PHP) means that the S-Label may be the only - label received at the terminating DetNet service. + The LSP used to forward the DetNet packet is not restricted regarding + any method used for establishing that LSP (for example, MPLS-LDP, + MPLS-TE, MPLS-TP [RFC5921], MPLS-SR [RFC8660], etc.). The LSP + (F-Label) label and/or the S-Label may be used to indicate the queue + processing as well as the forwarding parameters. Note that the + possible use of Penultimate Hop Popping (PHP) means that the S-Label + may be the only label received at the terminating DetNet service. 4.2. MPLS Data Plane Encapsulation Figure 4 illustrates a DetNet data plane MPLS encapsulation. The MPLS-based encapsulation of the DetNet flows is well suited for the scenarios described in [I-D.ietf-detnet-data-plane-framework]. Furthermore, an end to end DetNet service i.e., native DetNet deployment (see Section 3.2) is also possible if DetNet end systems are capable of initiating and termination MPLS encapsulated packets. @@ -427,21 +428,23 @@ | Physical | +---------------------------------+ Figure 4: Encapsulation of a DetNet App-Flow in an MPLS PSN 4.2.1. DetNet Control Word and the DetNet Sequence Number A DetNet control word (d-CW) conforms to the Generic PW MPLS Control Word (PWMCW) defined in [RFC4385]. The d-CW formatted as shown in Figure 5 MUST be present in all DetNet packets containing app-flow - data. + data. This format of the d-CW was created in order (1) to allow + larger S/N space to avoid S/N rollover frequency in some applications + and (2) to allow non-skip zero S/N what simplifies implementation. 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |0 0 0 0| Sequence Number | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 5: DetNet Control Word (bits 0 to 3) @@ -737,20 +740,23 @@ As shown in Figure 3 of [RFC5085] when the first nibble of the d-CW is 0x0 the payload following the d-CW is normal user data. However, when the first nibble of the d-CW is 0X1, the payload that follows the d-DW is an OAM payload with the OAM type indicated by the value in the d-CW Channel Type field. The reader is referred to [RFC5085] for a more detailed description of the Associated Channel mechanism, and to the DetNet work on OAM for more information DetNet OAM. + Additional considerations on DetNet-specific OAM are subjects for + further study. + 4.4. Flow Aggregation The ability to aggregate individual flows, and their associated resource control, into a larger aggregate is an important technique for improving scaling of control in the data, management and control planes. The DetNet data plane allows for the aggregation of DetNet flows, to improved scaling. There are two methods of supporting flow aggregation covered in this section. The resource control and management aspects of aggregation (including @@ -1068,24 +1074,25 @@ forwarded as a transit node, or provided to the service sub-layer. 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 - Security considerations for DetNet are described in detail in - [I-D.ietf-detnet-security]. General security considerations are - described in [RFC8655]. This section considers exclusively security - considerations which are specific to the DetNet MPLS data plane. + General security considerations are described in [RFC8655]. + Additionally, security considerations and a threat analysis are + described in [I-D.ietf-detnet-security]. This section considers + exclusively security considerations which are specific to the DetNet + MPLS data plane. Security aspects which are unique to DetNet are those whose aim is to provide the specific quality of service aspects of DetNet, which are primarily to deliver data flows with extremely low packet loss rates and bounded end-to-end delivery latency. The primary considerations for the data plane is to maintain integrity of data and delivery of the associated DetNet service traversing the DetNet network. Application flows can be protected through whatever means is provided by the underlying technology. For @@ -1198,56 +1205,55 @@ [RFC5462] Andersson, L. and R. Asati, "Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Stack Entry: "EXP" Field Renamed to "Traffic Class" Field", RFC 5462, DOI 10.17487/RFC5462, February 2009, . [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017, . + [RFC8655] Finn, N., Thubert, P., Varga, B., and J. Farkas, + "Deterministic Networking Architecture", RFC 8655, + DOI 10.17487/RFC8655, October 2019, + . + 9.2. Informative References [I-D.ietf-detnet-data-plane-framework] Varga, B., Farkas, J., Berger, L., Fedyk, D., Malis, A., Bryant, S., and J. Korhonen, "DetNet Data Plane Framework", draft-ietf-detnet-data-plane-framework-03 (work in progress), October 2019. [I-D.ietf-detnet-ip] Varga, B., Farkas, J., Berger, L., Fedyk, D., Malis, A., 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-ip-over-mpls] Varga, B., Farkas, J., Berger, L., Fedyk, D., Malis, A., Bryant, S., and J. Korhonen, "DetNet Data Plane: IP over - MPLS", draft-ietf-detnet-ip-over-mpls-03 (work in - progress), October 2019. + MPLS", draft-ietf-detnet-ip-over-mpls-04 (work in + progress), November 2019. [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls-over-tsn] Varga, B., Farkas, J., Malis, A., and S. Bryant, "DetNet Data Plane: MPLS over IEEE 802.1 Time Sensitive Networking (TSN)", draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-tsn-01 (work in progress), October 2019. [I-D.ietf-detnet-security] Mizrahi, T., Grossman, E., Hacker, A., Das, S., Dowdell, J., Austad, H., and N. Finn, "Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Security Considerations", draft-ietf-detnet- - security-06 (work in progress), November 2019. - - [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls] - Bashandy, A., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Decraene, B., - Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment Routing with MPLS - data plane", draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls-22 - (work in progress), May 2019. + security-07 (work in progress), January 2020. [IEEE802.1AE-2018] IEEE Standards Association, "IEEE Std 802.1AE-2018 MAC Security (MACsec)", 2018, . [RFC2205] Braden, R., Ed., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and S. Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1 Functional Specification", RFC 2205, DOI 10.17487/RFC2205, September 1997, . @@ -1313,24 +1319,25 @@ RFC 6790, DOI 10.17487/RFC6790, November 2012, . [RFC8306] Zhao, Q., Dhody, D., Ed., Palleti, R., and D. King, "Extensions to the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) for Point-to-Multipoint Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths", RFC 8306, DOI 10.17487/RFC8306, November 2017, . - [RFC8655] Finn, N., Thubert, P., Varga, B., and J. Farkas, - "Deterministic Networking Architecture", RFC 8655, - DOI 10.17487/RFC8655, October 2019, - . + [RFC8660] Bashandy, A., Ed., Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., + Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment + Routing with the MPLS Data Plane", RFC 8660, + DOI 10.17487/RFC8660, December 2019, + . Authors' Addresses Balazs Varga (editor) Ericsson Magyar Tudosok krt. 11. Budapest 1117 Hungary Email: balazs.a.varga@ericsson.com