draft-ietf-detnet-use-cases-19.txt | draft-ietf-detnet-use-cases-20.txt | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Internet Engineering Task Force E. Grossman, Ed. | Internet Engineering Task Force E. Grossman, Ed. | |||
Internet-Draft DOLBY | Internet-Draft DOLBY | |||
Intended status: Informational October 8, 2018 | Intended status: Informational December 19, 2018 | |||
Expires: April 11, 2019 | Expires: June 22, 2019 | |||
Deterministic Networking Use Cases | Deterministic Networking Use Cases | |||
draft-ietf-detnet-use-cases-19 | draft-ietf-detnet-use-cases-20 | |||
Abstract | Abstract | |||
This draft presents use cases from diverse industries which have in | This draft presents use cases from diverse industries which have in | |||
common a need for "deterministic flows". "Deterministic" in this | common a need for "deterministic flows". "Deterministic" in this | |||
context means that such flows provide guaranteed bandwidth, bounded | context means that such flows provide guaranteed bandwidth, bounded | |||
latency, and other properties germane to the transport of time- | latency, and other properties germane to the transport of time- | |||
sensitive data. These use cases differ notably in their network | sensitive data. These use cases differ notably in their network | |||
topologies and specific desired behavior, providing as a group broad | topologies and specific desired behavior, providing as a group broad | |||
industry context for DetNet. For each use case, this document will | industry context for DetNet. For each use case, this document will | |||
skipping to change at page 1, line 40 ¶ | skipping to change at page 1, line 40 ¶ | |||
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 April 11, 2019. | This Internet-Draft will expire on June 22, 2019. | |||
Copyright Notice | Copyright Notice | |||
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the | Copyright (c) 2018 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 | |||
skipping to change at page 2, line 27 ¶ | skipping to change at page 2, line 27 ¶ | |||
2.1.2. Synchronized Stream Playback . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 | 2.1.2. Synchronized Stream Playback . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 | |||
2.1.3. Sound Reinforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 | 2.1.3. Sound Reinforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 | |||
2.1.4. Secure Transmission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 | 2.1.4. Secure Transmission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 | |||
2.1.4.1. Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 | 2.1.4.1. Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 | |||
2.2. Pro Audio Today . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 | 2.2. Pro Audio Today . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 | |||
2.3. Pro Audio Future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 | 2.3. Pro Audio Future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 | |||
2.3.1. Layer 3 Interconnecting Layer 2 Islands . . . . . . . 9 | 2.3.1. Layer 3 Interconnecting Layer 2 Islands . . . . . . . 9 | |||
2.3.2. High Reliability Stream Paths . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 | 2.3.2. High Reliability Stream Paths . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 | |||
2.3.3. Integration of Reserved Streams into IT Networks . . 10 | 2.3.3. Integration of Reserved Streams into IT Networks . . 10 | |||
2.3.4. Use of Unused Reservations by Best-Effort Traffic . . 10 | 2.3.4. Use of Unused Reservations by Best-Effort Traffic . . 10 | |||
2.3.5. Traffic Segregation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 | 2.3.5. Traffic Segregation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 | |||
2.3.5.1. Packet Forwarding Rules, VLANs and Subnets . . . 11 | 2.3.5.1. Packet Forwarding Rules, VLANs and Subnets . . . 11 | |||
2.3.5.2. Multicast Addressing (IPv4 and IPv6) . . . . . . 11 | 2.3.5.2. Multicast Addressing (IPv4 and IPv6) . . . . . . 11 | |||
2.3.6. Latency Optimization by a Central Controller . . . . 11 | 2.3.6. Latency Optimization by a Central Controller . . . . 12 | |||
2.3.7. Reduced Device Cost Due To Reduced Buffer Memory . . 12 | 2.3.7. Reduced Device Cost Due To Reduced Buffer Memory . . 12 | |||
2.4. Pro Audio Asks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 | 2.4. Pro Audio Asks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 | |||
3. Electrical Utilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 | 3. Electrical Utilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 | |||
3.1. Use Case Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 | 3.1. Use Case Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 | |||
3.1.1. Transmission Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 | 3.1.1. Transmission Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 | |||
3.1.1.1. Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 | 3.1.1.1. Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 | |||
3.1.1.2. Intra-Substation Process Bus Communications . . . 18 | 3.1.1.2. Intra-Substation Process Bus Communications . . . 18 | |||
3.1.1.3. Wide Area Monitoring and Control Systems . . . . 19 | 3.1.1.3. Wide Area Monitoring and Control Systems . . . . 19 | |||
3.1.1.4. IEC 61850 WAN engineering guidelines requirement | 3.1.1.4. IEC 61850 WAN engineering guidelines requirement | |||
classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 | classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 | |||
3.1.2. Generation Use Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 | 3.1.2. Generation Use Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 | |||
3.1.2.1. Control of the Generated Power . . . . . . . . . 21 | 3.1.2.1. Control of the Generated Power . . . . . . . . . 21 | |||
3.1.2.2. Control of the Generation Infrastructure . . . . 22 | 3.1.2.2. Control of the Generation Infrastructure . . . . 22 | |||
skipping to change at page 3, line 22 ¶ | skipping to change at page 3, line 22 ¶ | |||
4.2. Building Automation Systems Today . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 | 4.2. Building Automation Systems Today . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 | |||
4.2.1. BAS Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 | 4.2.1. BAS Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 | |||
4.2.2. BAS Deployment Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 | 4.2.2. BAS Deployment Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 | |||
4.2.3. Use Cases for Field Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 | 4.2.3. Use Cases for Field Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 | |||
4.2.3.1. Environmental Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 | 4.2.3.1. Environmental Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 | |||
4.2.3.2. Fire Detection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 | 4.2.3.2. Fire Detection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 | |||
4.2.3.3. Feedback Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 | 4.2.3.3. Feedback Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 | |||
4.2.4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 | 4.2.4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 | |||
4.3. BAS Future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 | 4.3. BAS Future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 | |||
4.4. BAS Asks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 | 4.4. BAS Asks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 | |||
5. Wireless for Industrial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 | 5. Wireless for Industrial Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 | |||
5.1. Use Case Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 | 5.1. Use Case Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 | |||
5.1.1. Network Convergence using 6TiSCH . . . . . . . . . . 43 | 5.1.1. Network Convergence using 6TiSCH . . . . . . . . . . 43 | |||
5.1.2. Common Protocol Development for 6TiSCH . . . . . . . 43 | 5.1.2. Common Protocol Development for 6TiSCH . . . . . . . 43 | |||
5.2. Wireless Industrial Today . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 | 5.2. Wireless Industrial Today . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 | |||
5.3. Wireless Industrial Future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 | 5.3. Wireless Industrial Future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 | |||
5.3.1. Unified Wireless Network and Management . . . . . . . 44 | 5.3.1. Unified Wireless Network and Management . . . . . . . 44 | |||
5.3.1.1. PCE and 6TiSCH ARQ Retries . . . . . . . . . . . 46 | 5.3.1.1. PCE and 6TiSCH ARQ Retries . . . . . . . . . . . 46 | |||
5.3.2. Schedule Management by a PCE . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 | 5.3.2. Schedule Management by a PCE . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 | |||
5.3.2.1. PCE Commands and 6TiSCH CoAP Requests . . . . . . 47 | 5.3.2.1. PCE Commands and 6TiSCH CoAP Requests . . . . . . 47 | |||
5.3.2.2. 6TiSCH IP Interface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 | 5.3.2.2. 6TiSCH IP Interface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 | |||
skipping to change at page 3, line 47 ¶ | skipping to change at page 3, line 47 ¶ | |||
6.1.1. Network Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 | 6.1.1. Network Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 | |||
6.1.2. Delay Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 | 6.1.2. Delay Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 | |||
6.1.3. Time Synchronization Constraints . . . . . . . . . . 52 | 6.1.3. Time Synchronization Constraints . . . . . . . . . . 52 | |||
6.1.4. Transport Loss Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 | 6.1.4. Transport Loss Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 | |||
6.1.5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 | 6.1.5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 | |||
6.2. Cellular Radio Networks Today . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 | 6.2. Cellular Radio Networks Today . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 | |||
6.2.1. Fronthaul . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 | 6.2.1. Fronthaul . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 | |||
6.2.2. Midhaul and Backhaul . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 | 6.2.2. Midhaul and Backhaul . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 | |||
6.3. Cellular Radio Networks Future . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 | 6.3. Cellular Radio Networks Future . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 | |||
6.4. Cellular Radio Networks Asks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 | 6.4. Cellular Radio Networks Asks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 | |||
7. Industrial M2M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 | 7. Industrial Machine to Machine (M2M) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 | |||
7.1. Use Case Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 | 7.1. Use Case Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 | |||
7.2. Industrial M2M Communication Today . . . . . . . . . . . 60 | 7.2. Industrial M2M Communication Today . . . . . . . . . . . 60 | |||
7.2.1. Transport Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 | 7.2.1. Transport Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 | |||
7.2.2. Stream Creation and Destruction . . . . . . . . . . . 61 | 7.2.2. Stream Creation and Destruction . . . . . . . . . . . 61 | |||
7.3. Industrial M2M Future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 | 7.3. Industrial M2M Future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 | |||
7.4. Industrial M2M Asks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 | 7.4. Industrial M2M Asks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 | |||
8. Mining Industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 | 8. Mining Industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 | |||
8.1. Use Case Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 | 8.1. Use Case Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 | |||
8.2. Mining Industry Today . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 | 8.2. Mining Industry Today . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 | |||
8.3. Mining Industry Future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 | 8.3. Mining Industry Future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 | |||
8.4. Mining Industry Asks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 | 8.4. Mining Industry Asks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 | |||
9. Private Blockchain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 | 9. Private Blockchain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 | |||
9.1. Use Case Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 | 9.1. Use Case Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 | |||
9.1.1. Blockchain Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 | 9.1.1. Blockchain Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 | |||
9.1.2. Blockchain Network Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . 65 | 9.1.2. Blockchain Network Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . 65 | |||
9.1.3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 | 9.1.3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 | |||
9.2. Private Blockchain Today . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 | 9.2. Private Blockchain Today . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 | |||
9.3. Private Blockchain Future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 | 9.3. Private Blockchain Future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 | |||
9.4. Private Blockchain Asks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 | 9.4. Private Blockchain Asks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 | |||
10. Network Slicing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 | 10. Network Slicing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 | |||
10.1. Use Case Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 | 10.1. Use Case Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 | |||
10.2. DetNet Applied to Network Slicing . . . . . . . . . . . 67 | 10.2. DetNet Applied to Network Slicing . . . . . . . . . . . 67 | |||
10.2.1. Resource Isolation Across Slices . . . . . . . . . . 67 | 10.2.1. Resource Isolation Across Slices . . . . . . . . . . 67 | |||
10.2.2. Deterministic Services Within Slices . . . . . . . . 67 | 10.2.2. Deterministic Services Within Slices . . . . . . . . 68 | |||
10.3. A Network Slicing Use Case Example - 5G Bearer Network . 68 | 10.3. A Network Slicing Use Case Example - 5G Bearer Network . 68 | |||
10.4. Non-5G Applications of Network Slicing . . . . . . . . . 68 | 10.4. Non-5G Applications of Network Slicing . . . . . . . . . 69 | |||
10.5. Limitations of DetNet in Network Slicing . . . . . . . . 69 | 10.5. Limitations of DetNet in Network Slicing . . . . . . . . 69 | |||
10.6. Network Slicing Today and Future . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 | 10.6. Network Slicing Today and Future . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 | |||
10.7. Network Slicing Asks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 | 10.7. Network Slicing Asks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 | |||
11. Use Case Common Themes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 | 11. Use Case Common Themes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 | |||
11.1. Unified, standards-based network . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 | 11.1. Unified, standards-based network . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 | |||
11.1.1. Extensions to Ethernet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 | 11.1.1. Extensions to Ethernet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 | |||
11.1.2. Centrally Administered . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 | 11.1.2. Centrally Administered . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 | |||
11.1.3. Standardized Data Flow Information Models . . . . . 70 | 11.1.3. Standardized Data Flow Information Models . . . . . 70 | |||
11.1.4. L2 and L3 Integration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 | 11.1.4. L2 and L3 Integration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 | |||
11.1.5. Consideration for IPv4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 | 11.1.5. Consideration for IPv4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 | |||
11.1.6. Guaranteed End-to-End Delivery . . . . . . . . . . . 70 | 11.1.6. Guaranteed End-to-End Delivery . . . . . . . . . . . 71 | |||
11.1.7. Replacement for Multiple Proprietary Deterministic | 11.1.7. Replacement for Multiple Proprietary Deterministic | |||
Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 | Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 | |||
11.1.8. Mix of Deterministic and Best-Effort Traffic . . . . 71 | 11.1.8. Mix of Deterministic and Best-Effort Traffic . . . . 71 | |||
11.1.9. Unused Reserved BW to be Available to Best Effort | 11.1.9. Unused Reserved BW to be Available to Best-Effort | |||
Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 | Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 | |||
11.1.10. Lower Cost, Multi-Vendor Solutions . . . . . . . . . 71 | 11.1.10. Lower Cost, Multi-Vendor Solutions . . . . . . . . . 71 | |||
11.2. Scalable Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 | 11.2. Scalable Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 | |||
11.2.1. Scalable Number of Flows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 | 11.2.1. Scalable Number of Flows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 | |||
11.3. Scalable Timing Parameters and Accuracy . . . . . . . . 72 | 11.3. Scalable Timing Parameters and Accuracy . . . . . . . . 72 | |||
11.3.1. Bounded Latency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 | 11.3.1. Bounded Latency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 | |||
11.3.2. Low Latency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 | 11.3.2. Low Latency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 | |||
11.3.3. Bounded Jitter (Latency Variation) . . . . . . . . . 72 | 11.3.3. Bounded Jitter (Latency Variation) . . . . . . . . . 72 | |||
11.3.4. Symmetrical Path Delays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 | 11.3.4. Symmetrical Path Delays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 | |||
11.4. High Reliability and Availability . . . . . . . . . . . 72 | 11.4. High Reliability and Availability . . . . . . . . . . . 73 | |||
11.5. Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 | 11.5. Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 | |||
11.6. Deterministic Flows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 | 11.6. Deterministic Flows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 | |||
12. Use Cases Explicitly Out of Scope for DetNet . . . . . . . . 73 | 12. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 | |||
12.1. DetNet Scope Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 | 13. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 | |||
12.2. Internet-based Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 | 14. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 | |||
12.2.1. Use Case Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 | 14.1. Pro Audio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 | |||
12.2.1.1. Media Content Delivery . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 | 14.2. Utility Telecom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 | |||
12.2.1.2. Online Gaming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 | 14.3. Building Automation Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 | |||
12.2.1.3. Virtual Reality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 | 14.4. Wireless for Industrial Applications . . . . . . . . . . 76 | |||
12.2.2. Internet-Based Applications Today . . . . . . . . . 75 | 14.5. Cellular Radio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 | |||
12.2.3. Internet-Based Applications Future . . . . . . . . . 75 | 14.6. Industrial Machine to Machine (M2M) . . . . . . . . . . 77 | |||
12.2.4. Internet-Based Applications Asks . . . . . . . . . . 75 | 14.7. Internet Applications and CoMP . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 | |||
12.3. Pro Audio and Video - Digital Rights Management (DRM) . 75 | 14.8. Network Slicing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 | |||
12.4. Pro Audio and Video - Link Aggregation . . . . . . . . . 76 | 14.9. Mining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 | |||
12.5. Pro Audio and Video - Deterministic Time to Establish | 14.10. Private Blockchain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 | |||
Streaming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 | 15. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 | |||
13. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 | 16. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 | |||
14. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 | Appendix A. Use Cases Explicitly Out of Scope for DetNet . . . . 84 | |||
15. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 | A.1. DetNet Scope Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 | |||
15.1. Pro Audio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 | A.2. Internet-based Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 | |||
15.2. Utility Telecom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 | A.2.1. Use Case Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 | |||
15.3. Building Automation Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 | A.2.1.1. Media Content Delivery . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 | |||
15.4. Wireless for Industrial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 | A.2.1.2. Online Gaming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 | |||
15.5. Cellular Radio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 | A.2.1.3. Virtual Reality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 | |||
15.6. Industrial M2M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 | A.2.2. Internet-Based Applications Today . . . . . . . . . . 86 | |||
15.7. Internet Applications and CoMP . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 | A.2.3. Internet-Based Applications Future . . . . . . . . . 86 | |||
15.8. Network Slicing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 | A.2.4. Internet-Based Applications Asks . . . . . . . . . . 86 | |||
15.9. Mining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 | A.3. Pro Audio and Video - Digital Rights Management (DRM) . . 87 | |||
15.10. Private Blockchain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 | A.4. Pro Audio and Video - Link Aggregation . . . . . . . . . 87 | |||
16. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 | A.5. Pro Audio and Video - Deterministic Time to Establish | |||
17. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 | Streaming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 | |||
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 | Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 | |||
1. Introduction | 1. Introduction | |||
This draft documents use cases in diverse industries which require | This draft documents use cases in diverse industries which require | |||
deterministic flows over multi-hop paths. DetNet flows can be | deterministic flows over multi-hop paths. DetNet flows can be | |||
established from either a Layer 2 or Layer 3 (IP) interface, and such | established from either a Layer 2 or Layer 3 (IP) interface, and such | |||
flows can co-exist on an IP network with best-effort traffic. DetNet | flows can co-exist on an IP network with best-effort traffic. DetNet | |||
also provides for highly reliable flows through provision for | also provides for highly reliable flows through provision for | |||
redundant paths. | redundant paths. | |||
skipping to change at page 6, line 25 ¶ | skipping to change at page 6, line 25 ¶ | |||
long term reference to the problems they expect to be served by the | long term reference to the problems they expect to be served by the | |||
technology, both in the short term deliverables and as the technology | technology, both in the short term deliverables and as the technology | |||
evolves in the future. | evolves in the future. | |||
The DetNet Use Cases document has served as a "yardstick" against | The DetNet Use Cases document has served as a "yardstick" against | |||
which proposed DetNet designs can be measured, answering the question | which proposed DetNet designs can be measured, answering the question | |||
"to what extent does a proposed design satisfy these various use | "to what extent does a proposed design satisfy these various use | |||
cases?" | cases?" | |||
The Use Case industries covered are professional audio, electrical | The Use Case industries covered are professional audio, electrical | |||
utilities, building automation systems, wireless for industrial, | utilities, building automation systems, wireless for industrial | |||
cellular radio, industrial machine-to-machine, mining, private | applications, cellular radio, industrial machine-to-machine, mining, | |||
blockchain, and network slicing. For each use case the following | private blockchain, and network slicing. For each use case the | |||
questions are answered: | following questions are answered: | |||
o What is the use case? | o What is the use case? | |||
o How is it addressed today? | o How is it addressed today? | |||
o How should it be addressed in the future? | o How should it be addressed in the future? | |||
o What should the IETF deliver to enable this use case? | o What should the IETF deliver to enable this use case? | |||
The level of detail in each use case is intended to be sufficient to | The level of detail in each use case is intended to be sufficient to | |||
skipping to change at page 8, line 13 ¶ | skipping to change at page 8, line 13 ¶ | |||
can be used to provide enough delay to allow time for one or more | can be used to provide enough delay to allow time for one or more | |||
retries, however this is not an effective solution in applications | retries, however this is not an effective solution in applications | |||
where large delays (latencies) are not acceptable (as discussed | where large delays (latencies) are not acceptable (as discussed | |||
below). | below). | |||
Streams with guaranteed bandwidth can eliminate congestion on the | Streams with guaranteed bandwidth can eliminate congestion on the | |||
network as a cause of transmission errors that would lead to playback | network as a cause of transmission errors that would lead to playback | |||
interruption. Use of redundant paths can further mitigate | interruption. Use of redundant paths can further mitigate | |||
transmission errors to provide greater stream reliability. | transmission errors to provide greater stream reliability. | |||
Additional techniques such as forward error correction can also be | ||||
used to improve stream reliability. | ||||
2.1.2. Synchronized Stream Playback | 2.1.2. Synchronized Stream Playback | |||
Latency in this context is the time between when a signal is | Latency in this context is the time between when a signal is | |||
initially sent over a stream and when it is received. A common | initially sent over a stream and when it is received. A common | |||
example in ProAV is time-synchronizing audio and video when they take | example in ProAV is time-synchronizing audio and video when they take | |||
separate paths through the playback system. In this case the latency | separate paths through the playback system. In this case the latency | |||
of both the audio and video streams must be bounded and consistent if | of both the audio and video streams must be bounded and consistent if | |||
the sound is to remain matched to the movement in the video. A | the sound is to remain matched to the movement in the video. A | |||
common tolerance for audio/video sync is one NTSC video frame (about | common tolerance for audio/video sync is one NTSC video frame (about | |||
33ms) and to maintain the audience perception of correct lip sync the | 33ms) and to maintain the audience perception of correct lip sync the | |||
skipping to change at page 9, line 43 ¶ | skipping to change at page 9, line 47 ¶ | |||
multi-vendor packet-based infrastructure requires effective open | multi-vendor packet-based infrastructure requires effective open | |||
standards, and establishing relevant IETF standards is a crucial | standards, and establishing relevant IETF standards is a crucial | |||
factor. | factor. | |||
2.3. Pro Audio Future | 2.3. Pro Audio Future | |||
2.3.1. Layer 3 Interconnecting Layer 2 Islands | 2.3.1. Layer 3 Interconnecting Layer 2 Islands | |||
It would be valuable to enable IP to connect multiple Layer 2 LANs. | It would be valuable to enable IP to connect multiple Layer 2 LANs. | |||
As an example, ESPN recently constructed a state-of-the-art 194,000 | As an example, ESPN constructed a state-of-the-art 194,000 sq ft, | |||
sq ft, $125 million broadcast studio called DC2. The DC2 network is | $125 million broadcast studio called DC2. The DC2 network is capable | |||
capable of handling 46 Tbps of throughput with 60,000 simultaneous | of handling 46 Tbps of throughput with 60,000 simultaneous signals. | |||
signals. Inside the facility are 1,100 miles of fiber feeding four | Inside the facility are 1,100 miles of fiber feeding four audio | |||
audio control rooms (see [ESPN_DC2] ). | control rooms (see [ESPN_DC2] ). | |||
In designing DC2 they replaced as much point-to-point technology as | In designing DC2 they replaced as much point-to-point technology as | |||
they could with packet-based technology. They constructed seven | they could with packet-based technology. They constructed seven | |||
individual studios using layer 2 LANS (using IEEE 802.1 AVB) that | individual studios using layer 2 LANS (using IEEE 802.1 AVB) that | |||
were entirely effective at routing audio within the LANs. However to | were entirely effective at routing audio within the LANs. However to | |||
interconnect these layer 2 LAN islands together they ended up using | interconnect these layer 2 LAN islands together they ended up using | |||
dedicated paths in a custom SDN (Software Defined Networking) router | dedicated paths in a custom SDN (Software Defined Networking) router | |||
because there is no standards-based routing solution available. | because there is no standards-based routing solution available. | |||
2.3.2. High Reliability Stream Paths | 2.3.2. High Reliability Stream Paths | |||
skipping to change at page 10, line 26 ¶ | skipping to change at page 10, line 31 ¶ | |||
system. | system. | |||
2.3.3. Integration of Reserved Streams into IT Networks | 2.3.3. Integration of Reserved Streams into IT Networks | |||
A commonly cited goal of moving to a packet based media | A commonly cited goal of moving to a packet based media | |||
infrastructure is that costs can be reduced by using off the shelf, | infrastructure is that costs can be reduced by using off the shelf, | |||
commodity network hardware. In addition, economy of scale can be | commodity network hardware. In addition, economy of scale can be | |||
realized by combining media infrastructure with IT infrastructure. | realized by combining media infrastructure with IT infrastructure. | |||
In keeping with these goals, stream reservation technology should be | In keeping with these goals, stream reservation technology should be | |||
compatible with existing protocols, and not compromise use of the | compatible with existing protocols, and not compromise use of the | |||
network for best effort (non-time-sensitive) traffic. | network for best-effort (non-time-sensitive) traffic. | |||
2.3.4. Use of Unused Reservations by Best-Effort Traffic | 2.3.4. Use of Unused Reservations by Best-Effort Traffic | |||
In cases where stream bandwidth is reserved but not currently used | In cases where stream bandwidth is reserved but not currently used | |||
(or is under-utilized) that bandwidth must be available to best- | (or is under-utilized) that bandwidth must be available to best- | |||
effort (i.e. non-time-sensitive) traffic. For example a single | effort (i.e. non-time-sensitive) traffic. For example a single | |||
stream may be nailed up (reserved) for specific media content that | stream may be nailed up (reserved) for specific media content that | |||
needs to be presented at different times of the day, ensuring timely | needs to be presented at different times of the day, ensuring timely | |||
delivery of that content, yet in between those times the full | delivery of that content, yet in between those times the full | |||
bandwidth of the network can be utilized for best-effort tasks such | bandwidth of the network can be utilized for best-effort tasks such | |||
as file transfers. | as file transfers. | |||
This also addresses a concern of IT network administrators that are | This also addresses a concern of IT network administrators that are | |||
considering adding reserved bandwidth traffic to their networks that | considering adding reserved bandwidth traffic to their networks that | |||
("users will reserve large quantities of bandwidth and then never un- | "users will reserve large quantities of bandwidth and then never un- | |||
reserve it even though they are not using it, and soon the network | reserve it even though they are not using it, and soon the network | |||
will have no bandwidth left"). | will have no bandwidth left". | |||
2.3.5. Traffic Segregation | 2.3.5. Traffic Segregation | |||
Sink devices may be low cost devices with limited processing power. | Sink devices may be low cost devices with limited processing power. | |||
In order to not overwhelm the CPUs in these devices it is important | In order to not overwhelm the CPUs in these devices it is important | |||
to limit the amount of traffic that these devices must process. | to limit the amount of traffic that these devices must process. | |||
As an example, consider the use of individual seat speakers in a | As an example, consider the use of individual seat speakers in a | |||
cinema. These speakers are typically required to be cost reduced | cinema. These speakers are typically required to be cost reduced | |||
since the quantities in a single theater can reach hundreds of seats. | since the quantities in a single theater can reach hundreds of seats. | |||
skipping to change at page 14, line 7 ¶ | skipping to change at page 14, line 15 ¶ | |||
o Dependability: The ability to issue and receive valid commands in | o Dependability: The ability to issue and receive valid commands in | |||
the presence of interference and/or noise, by minimizing the | the presence of interference and/or noise, by minimizing the | |||
probability of missing command (PMC). Dependability targets are | probability of missing command (PMC). Dependability targets are | |||
typically set for a specific bit error rate (BER) level. | typically set for a specific bit error rate (BER) level. | |||
o Security: The ability to prevent false tripping due to a noisy | o Security: The ability to prevent false tripping due to a noisy | |||
environment, by minimizing the probability of unwanted commands | environment, by minimizing the probability of unwanted commands | |||
(PUC). Security targets are also set for a specific bit error | (PUC). Security targets are also set for a specific bit error | |||
rate (BER) level. | rate (BER) level. | |||
Additional elements of the the teleprotection system that impact its | Additional elements of the teleprotection system that impact its | |||
performance include: | performance include: | |||
o Network bandwidth | o Network bandwidth | |||
o Failure recovery capacity (aka resiliency) | o Failure recovery capacity (aka resiliency) | |||
3.1.1.1.2. Fault Detection and Clearance Timing | 3.1.1.1.2. Fault Detection and Clearance Timing | |||
Most power line equipment can tolerate short circuits or faults for | Most power line equipment can tolerate short circuits or faults for | |||
up to approximately five power cycles before sustaining irreversible | up to approximately five power cycles before sustaining irreversible | |||
skipping to change at page 20, line 34 ¶ | skipping to change at page 20, line 34 ¶ | |||
| Packet loss | 1% | | | Packet loss | 1% | | |||
| Consecutive Packet | At least 1 packet per application cycle | | | Consecutive Packet | At least 1 packet per application cycle | | |||
| Loss | must be received. | | | Loss | must be received. | | |||
+----------------------+--------------------------------------------+ | +----------------------+--------------------------------------------+ | |||
Table 7: WAMS Special Communication Requirements | Table 7: WAMS Special Communication Requirements | |||
3.1.1.4. IEC 61850 WAN engineering guidelines requirement | 3.1.1.4. IEC 61850 WAN engineering guidelines requirement | |||
classification | classification | |||
The IEC (International Electrotechnical Commission) has recently | The IEC (International Electrotechnical Commission) has published a | |||
published a Technical Report which offers guidelines on how to define | Technical Report which offers guidelines on how to define and deploy | |||
and deploy Wide Area Networks for the interconnections of electric | Wide Area Networks for the interconnections of electric substations, | |||
substations, generation plants and SCADA operation centers. The IEC | generation plants and SCADA operation centers. The IEC 61850-90-12 | |||
61850-90-12 is providing a classification of WAN communication | is providing a classification of WAN communication requirements into | |||
requirements into 4 classes. Table 8 summarizes these requirements: | 4 classes. Table 8 summarizes these requirements: | |||
+----------------+------------+------------+------------+-----------+ | +----------------+------------+------------+------------+-----------+ | |||
| WAN | Class WA | Class WB | Class WC | Class WD | | | WAN | Class WA | Class WB | Class WC | Class WD | | |||
| Requirement | | | | | | | Requirement | | | | | | |||
+----------------+------------+------------+------------+-----------+ | +----------------+------------+------------+------------+-----------+ | |||
| Application | EHV (Extra | HV (High | MV (Medium | General | | | Application | EHV (Extra | HV (High | MV (Medium | General | | |||
| field | High | Voltage) | Voltage) | purpose | | | field | High | Voltage) | Voltage) | purpose | | |||
| | Voltage) | | | | | | | Voltage) | | | | | |||
| Latency | 5 ms | 10 ms | 100 ms | > 100 ms | | | Latency | 5 ms | 10 ms | 100 ms | > 100 ms | | |||
| Jitter | 10 us | 100 us | 1 ms | 10 ms | | | Jitter | 10 us | 100 us | 1 ms | 10 ms | | |||
skipping to change at page 25, line 41 ¶ | skipping to change at page 25, line 41 ¶ | |||
both ends. The AS path between the local control center and the Wind | both ends. The AS path between the local control center and the Wind | |||
Park typically involves several ISPs at different tiers. For | Park typically involves several ISPs at different tiers. For | |||
example, a remote control center in Denmark can regulate a wind park | example, a remote control center in Denmark can regulate a wind park | |||
in Greece over the normal public AS path between the two locations. | in Greece over the normal public AS path between the two locations. | |||
The remote control center is part of the SCADA system, setting the | The remote control center is part of the SCADA system, setting the | |||
desired power output to the wind park and reading back the result | desired power output to the wind park and reading back the result | |||
once the new power output level has been set. Traffic between the | once the new power output level has been set. Traffic between the | |||
remote control center and the wind park typically consists of | remote control center and the wind park typically consists of | |||
protocols like IEC 60870-5-104 [IEC-60870-5-104], OPC XML-DA | protocols like IEC 60870-5-104 [IEC-60870-5-104], OPC XML-DA | |||
[OPCXML], Modbus [MODBUS], and SNMP [RFC3411]. Currently, traffic | [OPCXML], Modbus [MODBUS], and SNMP [RFC3411]. At the time of this | |||
flows between the wind farm and the remote control center are best | writing, traffic flows between the wind farm and the remote control | |||
effort. QoS requirements are not strict, so no SLAs or service | center are best effort. QoS requirements are not strict, so no SLAs | |||
provisioning mechanisms (e.g., VPN) are employed. In case of events | or service provisioning mechanisms (e.g., VPN) are employed. In case | |||
like equipment failure, tolerance for alarm delay is on the order of | of events like equipment failure, tolerance for alarm delay is on the | |||
minutes, due to redundant systems already in place. | order of minutes, due to redundant systems already in place. | |||
+--------------+ | +--------------+ | |||
| | | | | | |||
| | | | | | |||
| Wind Park #1 +----+ | | Wind Park #1 +----+ | |||
| | | XXXXXX | | | | XXXXXX | |||
| | | X XXXXXXXX +----------------+ | | | | X XXXXXXXX +----------------+ | |||
+--------------+ | XXXX X XXXXX | | | +--------------+ | XXXX X XXXXX | | | |||
+---+ XXX | Remote Control | | +---+ XXX | Remote Control | | |||
XXX Internet +----+ Center | | XXX Internet +----+ Center | | |||
skipping to change at page 30, line 45 ¶ | skipping to change at page 30, line 45 ¶ | |||
be based on open-standards-based IP architecture. An end-to-end IP | be based on open-standards-based IP architecture. An end-to-end IP | |||
architecture takes advantage of nearly three decades of IP technology | architecture takes advantage of nearly three decades of IP technology | |||
development, facilitating interoperability and device management | development, facilitating interoperability and device management | |||
across disparate networks and devices, as it has been already | across disparate networks and devices, as it has been already | |||
demonstrated in many mission-critical and highly secure networks. | demonstrated in many mission-critical and highly secure networks. | |||
IPv6 is seen as a future telecommunications technology for the Smart | IPv6 is seen as a future telecommunications technology for the Smart | |||
Grid; the IEC (International Electrotechnical Commission) and | Grid; the IEC (International Electrotechnical Commission) and | |||
different National Committees have mandated a specific adhoc group | different National Committees have mandated a specific adhoc group | |||
(AHG8) to define the migration strategy to IPv6 for all the IEC TC57 | (AHG8) to define the migration strategy to IPv6 for all the IEC TC57 | |||
power automation standards. The AHG8 has recently finalised the work | power automation standards. The AHG8 has finalised the work on the | |||
on the migration strategy and the following Technical Report has been | migration strategy and the following Technical Report has been | |||
issued: IEC TR 62357-200:2015: Guidelines for migration from Internet | issued: IEC TR 62357-200:2015: Guidelines for migration from Internet | |||
Protocol version 4 (IPv4) to Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6). | Protocol version 4 (IPv4) to Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6). | |||
Cloud-based SCADA systems will control and monitor the critical and | Cloud-based SCADA systems will control and monitor the critical and | |||
non-critical subsystems of generation systems, for example wind | non-critical subsystems of generation systems, for example wind | |||
farms. | farms. | |||
3.3.1. Migration to Packet-Switched Network | 3.3.1. Migration to Packet-Switched Network | |||
Throughout the world, utilities are increasingly planning for a | Throughout the world, utilities are increasingly planning for a | |||
skipping to change at page 33, line 18 ¶ | skipping to change at page 33, line 18 ¶ | |||
Going forward, one network will support operation and maintenance of | Going forward, one network will support operation and maintenance of | |||
electrical networks (generation, transmission, and distribution), | electrical networks (generation, transmission, and distribution), | |||
voice and data services for ten of thousands of employees and for | voice and data services for ten of thousands of employees and for | |||
exchange with neighboring interconnections, and administrative | exchange with neighboring interconnections, and administrative | |||
services. To meet those requirements, utility may deploy several | services. To meet those requirements, utility may deploy several | |||
physical networks leveraging different technologies across the | physical networks leveraging different technologies across the | |||
country: an optical network and a microwave network for instance. | country: an optical network and a microwave network for instance. | |||
Each protection and automatism system between two points has two | Each protection and automatism system between two points has two | |||
telecommunications circuits, one on each network. Path diversity | telecommunications circuits, one on each network. Path diversity | |||
between two substations is key. Regardless of the event type | between two substations is key. Regardless of the event type | |||
(hurricane, ice storm, etc.), one path shall stay available so the | (hurricane, ice storm, etc.), one path needs to stay available so the | |||
system can still operate. | system can still operate. | |||
In the optical network, signals are transmitted over more than tens | In the optical network, signals are transmitted over more than tens | |||
of thousands of circuits using fiber optic links, microwave and | of thousands of circuits using fiber optic links, microwave and | |||
telephone cables. This network is the nervous system of the | telephone cables. This network is the nervous system of the | |||
utility's power transmission operations. The optical network | utility's power transmission operations. The optical network | |||
represents ten of thousands of km of cable deployed along the power | represents ten of thousands of km of cable deployed along the power | |||
lines, with individual runs as long as 280 km. | lines, with individual runs as long as 280 km. | |||
3.3.2.3. Precision Time Protocol | 3.3.2.3. Precision Time Protocol | |||
skipping to change at page 35, line 16 ¶ | skipping to change at page 35, line 16 ¶ | |||
telecommunications assets used to operate, monitor, and control power | telecommunications assets used to operate, monitor, and control power | |||
flow and measurement. | flow and measurement. | |||
"Cyber security" refers to all the security issues in automation and | "Cyber security" refers to all the security issues in automation and | |||
telecommunications that affect any functions related to the operation | telecommunications that affect any functions related to the operation | |||
of the electric power systems. Specifically, it involves the | of the electric power systems. Specifically, it involves the | |||
concepts of: | concepts of: | |||
o Integrity : data cannot be altered undetectably | o Integrity : data cannot be altered undetectably | |||
o Authenticity : the telecommunications parties involved must be | o Authenticity (data origin authentication): the telecommunications | |||
validated as genuine | parties involved must be validated as genuine | |||
o Authorization : only requests and commands from the authorized | o Authorization : only requests and commands from the authorized | |||
users can be accepted by the system | users can be accepted by the system | |||
o Confidentiality : data must not be accessible to any | o Confidentiality : data must not be accessible to any | |||
unauthenticated users | unauthenticated users | |||
When designing and deploying new smart grid devices and | When designing and deploying new smart grid devices and | |||
telecommunications systems, it is imperative to understand the | telecommunications systems, it is imperative to understand the | |||
various impacts of these new components under a variety of attack | various impacts of these new components under a variety of attack | |||
skipping to change at page 38, line 20 ¶ | skipping to change at page 38, line 20 ¶ | |||
A LC is typically a Programmable Logic Controller (PLC) which is | A LC is typically a Programmable Logic Controller (PLC) which is | |||
connected to several tens or hundreds of devices using "field | connected to several tens or hundreds of devices using "field | |||
protocols". An LC performs the following kinds of operations: | protocols". An LC performs the following kinds of operations: | |||
o Measure device states and provide the information to BMS or HMI. | o Measure device states and provide the information to BMS or HMI. | |||
o Send control values to devices, unilaterally or as part of a | o Send control values to devices, unilaterally or as part of a | |||
feedback control loop. | feedback control loop. | |||
There are many field protocols used today; some are standards-based | There are many field protocols used at the time of this writing; some | |||
and others are proprietary (see standards [lontalk], [modbus], | are standards-based and others are proprietary (see standards | |||
[profibus] and [flnet]). The result is that BASs have multiple MAC/ | [lontalk], [modbus], [profibus] and [flnet]). The result is that | |||
PHY modules and interfaces. This makes BASs more expensive, slower | BASs have multiple MAC/PHY modules and interfaces. This makes BASs | |||
to develop, and can result in "vendor lock-in" with multiple types of | more expensive, slower to develop, and can result in "vendor lock-in" | |||
management applications. | with multiple types of management applications. | |||
4.2.2. BAS Deployment Model | 4.2.2. BAS Deployment Model | |||
An example BAS for medium or large buildings is shown in Figure 5. | An example BAS for medium or large buildings is shown in Figure 5. | |||
The physical layout spans multiple floors, and there is a monitoring | The physical layout spans multiple floors, and there is a monitoring | |||
room where the BAS management entities are located. Each floor will | room where the BAS management entities are located. Each floor will | |||
have one or more LCs depending upon the number of devices connected | have one or more LCs depending upon the number of devices connected | |||
to the field network. | to the field network. | |||
+--------------------------------------------------+ | +--------------------------------------------------+ | |||
skipping to change at page 42, line 34 ¶ | skipping to change at page 42, line 34 ¶ | |||
o Availability of network data in disaster scenario | o Availability of network data in disaster scenario | |||
o Authentication between management and field devices (both local | o Authentication between management and field devices (both local | |||
and remote) | and remote) | |||
o Integrity and data origin authentication of communication data | o Integrity and data origin authentication of communication data | |||
between field and management devices | between field and management devices | |||
o Confidentiality of data when communicated to a remote device | o Confidentiality of data when communicated to a remote device | |||
5. Wireless for Industrial | 5. Wireless for Industrial Applications | |||
5.1. Use Case Description | 5.1. Use Case Description | |||
Wireless networks are useful for industrial applications, for example | Wireless networks are useful for industrial applications, for example | |||
when portable, fast-moving or rotating objects are involved, and for | when portable, fast-moving or rotating objects are involved, and for | |||
the resource-constrained devices found in the Internet of Things | the resource-constrained devices found in the Internet of Things | |||
(IoT). | (IoT). | |||
Such network-connected sensors, actuators, control loops (etc.) | Such network-connected sensors, actuators, control loops (etc.) | |||
typically require that the underlying network support real-time | typically require that the underlying network support real-time | |||
quality of service (QoS), as well as specific classes of other | quality of service (QoS), as well as specific classes of other | |||
network properties such as reliability, redundancy, and security. | network properties such as reliability, redundancy, and security. | |||
These networks may also contain very large numbers of devices, for | These networks may also contain very large numbers of devices, for | |||
example for factories, "big data" acquisition, and the IoT. Given | example for factories, "big data" acquisition, and the IoT. Given | |||
the large numbers of devices installed, and the potential | the large numbers of devices installed, and the potential | |||
pervasiveness of the IoT, this is a huge and very cost-sensitive | pervasiveness of the IoT, this is a huge and very cost-sensitive | |||
market. For example, a 1% cost reduction in some areas could save | market such that small cost reductions can save large amounts of | |||
$100B | money. | |||
5.1.1. Network Convergence using 6TiSCH | 5.1.1. Network Convergence using 6TiSCH | |||
Some wireless network technologies support real-time QoS, and are | Some wireless network technologies support real-time QoS, and are | |||
thus useful for these kinds of networks, but others do not. For | thus useful for these kinds of networks, but others do not. | |||
example WiFi is pervasive but does not provide guaranteed timing or | ||||
delivery of packets, and thus is not useful in this context. | ||||
This use case focuses on one specific wireless network technology | This use case focuses on one specific wireless network technology | |||
which provides the required deterministic QoS, which is "IPv6 over | which provides the required deterministic QoS, which is "IPv6 over | |||
the TSCH mode of IEEE 802.15.4e" (6TiSCH, where TSCH stands for | the TSCH mode of IEEE 802.15.4e" (6TiSCH, where TSCH stands for | |||
"Time-Slotted Channel Hopping", see [I-D.ietf-6tisch-architecture], | "Time-Slotted Channel Hopping", see [I-D.ietf-6tisch-architecture], | |||
[IEEE802154], [IEEE802154e], and [RFC7554]). | [IEEE802154], [IEEE802154e], and [RFC7554]). | |||
There are other deterministic wireless busses and networks available | There are other deterministic wireless busses and networks available | |||
today, however they are imcompatible with each other, and | today, however they are imcompatible with each other, and | |||
incompatible with IP traffic (for example [ISA100], [WirelessHART]). | incompatible with IP traffic (for example [ISA100], [WirelessHART]). | |||
skipping to change at page 44, line 15 ¶ | skipping to change at page 44, line 13 ¶ | |||
resources in a manner that minimizes the interaction with and the | resources in a manner that minimizes the interaction with and the | |||
load placed on resource-constrained devices. For example, a tiny IoT | load placed on resource-constrained devices. For example, a tiny IoT | |||
device may have just enough buffers to store one or a few IPv6 | device may have just enough buffers to store one or a few IPv6 | |||
packets, and will have limited bandwidth between peers such that it | packets, and will have limited bandwidth between peers such that it | |||
can maintain only a small amount of peer information, and will not be | can maintain only a small amount of peer information, and will not be | |||
able to store many packets waiting to be forwarded. It is | able to store many packets waiting to be forwarded. It is | |||
advantageous then for it to only be required to carry out the | advantageous then for it to only be required to carry out the | |||
specific behavior assigned to it by the PCE/NME (as opposed to | specific behavior assigned to it by the PCE/NME (as opposed to | |||
maintaining its own IP stack, for example). | maintaining its own IP stack, for example). | |||
Note: Current WG discussion indicates that some peer-to-peer | It is possible that there will be some peer-to-peer communication, | |||
communication must be assumed, i.e. the PCE may communicate only | for example the PCE may communicate only indirectly with some devices | |||
indirectly with any given device, enabling hierarchical configuration | in order to enable hierarchical configuration of the system. | |||
of the system. | ||||
6TiSCH depends on [PCE] and [I-D.ietf-detnet-architecture]. | 6TiSCH depends on [PCE] and [I-D.ietf-detnet-architecture]. | |||
6TiSCH also depends on the fact that DetNet will maintain consistency | 6TiSCH also depends on the fact that DetNet will maintain consistency | |||
with [IEEE802.1TSNTG]. | with [IEEE802.1TSNTG]. | |||
5.2. Wireless Industrial Today | 5.2. Wireless Industrial Today | |||
Today industrial wireless is accomplished using multiple | Today industrial wireless is accomplished using multiple | |||
deterministic wireless networks which are incompatible with each | deterministic wireless networks which are incompatible with each | |||
skipping to change at page 46, line 32 ¶ | skipping to change at page 46, line 32 ¶ | |||
o / o o---o----/ o | o / o o---o----/ o | |||
o o---o--/ o o o o o | o o---o--/ o o o o o | |||
o \ / o o LLN o | o \ / o o LLN o | |||
o v <---- Replication | o v <---- Replication | |||
o | o | |||
Figure 9: 6TiSCH Network with PRE | Figure 9: 6TiSCH Network with PRE | |||
5.3.1.1. PCE and 6TiSCH ARQ Retries | 5.3.1.1. PCE and 6TiSCH ARQ Retries | |||
Note: The possible use of ARQ techniques in DetNet is currently | ||||
considered a possible design alternative. | ||||
6TiSCH uses the IEEE802.15.4 Automatic Repeat-reQuest (ARQ) mechanism | 6TiSCH uses the IEEE802.15.4 Automatic Repeat-reQuest (ARQ) mechanism | |||
to provide higher reliability of packet delivery. ARQ is related to | to provide higher reliability of packet delivery. ARQ is related to | |||
packet replication and elimination because there are two independent | packet replication and elimination because there are two independent | |||
paths for packets to arrive at the destination, and if an expected | paths for packets to arrive at the destination, and if an expected | |||
packed does not arrive on one path then it checks for the packet on | packed does not arrive on one path then it checks for the packet on | |||
the second path. | the second path. | |||
Although to date this mechanism is only used by wireless networks, | Although to date this mechanism is only used by wireless networks, | |||
this may be a technique that would be appropriate for DetNet and so | this may be a technique that would be appropriate for DetNet and so | |||
aspects of the enabling protocol could be co-developed. | aspects of the enabling protocol could be co-developed. | |||
skipping to change at page 47, line 16 ¶ | skipping to change at page 47, line 11 ¶ | |||
each packet over two different branches, and the PCE schedules each | each packet over two different branches, and the PCE schedules each | |||
hop of both branches so that the two copies arrive in due time at the | hop of both branches so that the two copies arrive in due time at the | |||
gateway. In case of a loss on one branch, hopefully the other copy | gateway. In case of a loss on one branch, hopefully the other copy | |||
of the packet still arrives within the allocated time. If two copies | of the packet still arrives within the allocated time. If two copies | |||
make it to the IoT gateway, the Elimination function in the gateway | make it to the IoT gateway, the Elimination function in the gateway | |||
ignores the extra packet and presents only one copy to upper layers. | ignores the extra packet and presents only one copy to upper layers. | |||
At each 6TiSCH hop along the Track, the PCE may schedule more than | At each 6TiSCH hop along the Track, the PCE may schedule more than | |||
one timeSlot for a packet, so as to support Layer-2 retries (ARQ). | one timeSlot for a packet, so as to support Layer-2 retries (ARQ). | |||
In current deployments, a TSCH Track does not necessarily support PRE | In deployments at the time of this writing, a TSCH Track does not | |||
but is systematically multi-path. This means that a Track is | necessarily support PRE but is systematically multi-path. This means | |||
scheduled so as to ensure that each hop has at least two forwarding | that a Track is scheduled so as to ensure that each hop has at least | |||
solutions, and the forwarding decision is to try the preferred one | two forwarding solutions, and the forwarding decision is to try the | |||
and use the other in case of Layer-2 transmission failure as detected | preferred one and use the other in case of Layer-2 transmission | |||
by ARQ. | failure as detected by ARQ. | |||
5.3.2. Schedule Management by a PCE | 5.3.2. Schedule Management by a PCE | |||
A common feature of 6TiSCH and DetNet is the action of a PCE to | A common feature of 6TiSCH and DetNet is the action of a PCE to | |||
configure paths through the network. Specifically, what is needed is | configure paths through the network. Specifically, what is needed is | |||
a protocol and data model that the PCE will use to get/set the | a protocol and data model that the PCE will use to get/set the | |||
relevant configuration from/to the devices, as well as perform | relevant configuration from/to the devices, as well as perform | |||
operations on the devices. This protocol should be developed by | operations on the devices. This protocol should be developed by | |||
DetNet with consideration for its reuse by 6TiSCH. The remainder of | DetNet with consideration for its reuse by 6TiSCH. The remainder of | |||
this section provides a bit more context from the 6TiSCH side. | this section provides a bit more context from the 6TiSCH side. | |||
skipping to change at page 49, line 40 ¶ | skipping to change at page 49, line 36 ¶ | |||
6.1. Use Case Description | 6.1. Use Case Description | |||
This use case describes the application of deterministic networking | This use case describes the application of deterministic networking | |||
in the context of cellular telecom transport networks. Important | in the context of cellular telecom transport networks. Important | |||
elements include time synchronization, clock distribution, and ways | elements include time synchronization, clock distribution, and ways | |||
of establishing time-sensitive streams for both Layer-2 and Layer-3 | of establishing time-sensitive streams for both Layer-2 and Layer-3 | |||
user plane traffic. | user plane traffic. | |||
6.1.1. Network Architecture | 6.1.1. Network Architecture | |||
Figure 10 illustrates a typical 3GPP-defined cellular network | Figure 10 illustrates a 3GPP-defined cellular network architecture | |||
architecture, which includes "Fronthaul", "Midhaul" and "Backhaul" | typical at the time of this writing, which includes "Fronthaul", | |||
network segments. The "Fronthaul" is the network connecting base | "Midhaul" and "Backhaul" network segments. The "Fronthaul" is the | |||
stations (baseband processing units) to the remote radio heads | network connecting base stations (baseband processing units) to the | |||
(antennas). The "Midhaul" is the network inter-connecting base | remote radio heads (antennas). The "Midhaul" is the network inter- | |||
stations (or small cell sites). The "Backhaul" is the network or | connecting base stations (or small cell sites). The "Backhaul" is | |||
links connecting the radio base station sites to the network | the network or links connecting the radio base station sites to the | |||
controller/gateway sites (i.e. the core of the 3GPP cellular | network controller/gateway sites (i.e. the core of the 3GPP cellular | |||
network). | network). | |||
In Figure 10 "eNB" ("E-UTRAN Node B") is the hardware that is | In Figure 10 "eNB" ("E-UTRAN Node B") is the hardware that is | |||
connected to the mobile phone network which communicates directly | connected to the mobile phone network which communicates directly | |||
with mobile handsets ([TS36300]). | with mobile handsets ([TS36300]). | |||
Y (remote radio heads (antennas)) | Y (remote radio heads (antennas)) | |||
\ | \ | |||
Y__ \.--. .--. +------+ | Y__ \.--. .--. +------+ | |||
\_( `. +---+ _(Back`. | 3GPP | | \_( `. +---+ _(Back`. | 3GPP | | |||
skipping to change at page 52, line 5 ¶ | skipping to change at page 52, line 5 ¶ | |||
starting point. These future systems should support much higher data | starting point. These future systems should support much higher data | |||
volumes and rates and significantly lower end-to-end latency for 100x | volumes and rates and significantly lower end-to-end latency for 100x | |||
more connected devices (at similar cost and energy consumption levels | more connected devices (at similar cost and energy consumption levels | |||
as today's system). | as today's system). | |||
For Midhaul connections, delay constraints are driven by Inter-Site | For Midhaul connections, delay constraints are driven by Inter-Site | |||
radio functions like Coordinated Multipoint Processing (CoMP, see | radio functions like Coordinated Multipoint Processing (CoMP, see | |||
[CoMP]). CoMP reception and transmission is a framework in which | [CoMP]). CoMP reception and transmission is a framework in which | |||
multiple geographically distributed antenna nodes cooperate to | multiple geographically distributed antenna nodes cooperate to | |||
improve the performance of the users served in the common cooperation | improve the performance of the users served in the common cooperation | |||
area. The design principal of CoMP is to extend the current single- | area. The design principal of CoMP is to extend single-cell to | |||
cell to multi-UE (User Equipment) transmission to a multi-cell-to- | multi-UE (User Equipment) transmission to a multi-cell-to-multi-UEs | |||
multi-UEs transmission by base station cooperation. | transmission by base station cooperation. | |||
CoMP has delay-sensitive performance parameters, which are "midhaul | CoMP has delay-sensitive performance parameters, which are "midhaul | |||
latency" and "CSI (Channel State Information) reporting and | latency" and "CSI (Channel State Information) reporting and | |||
accuracy". The essential feature of CoMP is signaling between eNBs, | accuracy". The essential feature of CoMP is signaling between eNBs, | |||
so Midhaul latency is the dominating limitation of CoMP performance. | so Midhaul latency is the dominating limitation of CoMP performance. | |||
Generally, CoMP can benefit from coordinated scheduling (either | Generally, CoMP can benefit from coordinated scheduling (either | |||
distributed or centralized) of different cells if the signaling delay | distributed or centralized) of different cells if the signaling delay | |||
between eNBs is within 1-10ms. This delay requirement is both rigid | between eNBs is within 1-10ms. This delay requirement is both rigid | |||
and absolute because any uncertainty in delay will degrade the | and absolute because any uncertainty in delay will degrade the | |||
performance significantly. | performance significantly. | |||
Inter-site CoMP is one of the key requirements for 5G and is also a | Inter-site CoMP is one of the key requirements for 5G and is also a | |||
near-term goal for the current 4.5G network architecture. | goal for 4.5G network architecture. | |||
6.1.3. Time Synchronization Constraints | 6.1.3. Time Synchronization Constraints | |||
Fronthaul time synchronization requirements are given by [TS25104], | Fronthaul time synchronization requirements are given by [TS25104], | |||
[TS36104], [TS36211], and [TS36133]. These can be summarized for the | [TS36104], [TS36211], and [TS36133]. These can be summarized for the | |||
current 3GPP LTE-based networks as: | 3GPP LTE-based networks as: | |||
Delay Accuracy: | Delay Accuracy: | |||
+-8ns (i.e. +-1/32 Tc, where Tc is the UMTS Chip time of 1/3.84 | +-8ns (i.e. +-1/32 Tc, where Tc is the UMTS Chip time of 1/3.84 | |||
MHz) resulting in a round trip accuracy of +-16ns. The value is | MHz) resulting in a round trip accuracy of +-16ns. The value is | |||
this low to meet the 3GPP Timing Alignment Error (TAE) measurement | this low to meet the 3GPP Timing Alignment Error (TAE) measurement | |||
requirements. Note: performance guarantees of low nanosecond | requirements. Note: performance guarantees of low nanosecond | |||
values such as these are considered to be below the DetNet layer - | values such as these are considered to be below the DetNet layer - | |||
it is assumed that the underlying implementation, e.g. the | it is assumed that the underlying implementation, e.g. the | |||
hardware, will provide sufficient support (e.g. buffering) to | hardware, will provide sufficient support (e.g. buffering) to | |||
enable this level of accuracy. These values are maintained in the | enable this level of accuracy. These values are maintained in the | |||
skipping to change at page 53, line 24 ¶ | skipping to change at page 53, line 24 ¶ | |||
without MIMO or TX diversity, TAE shall not exceed 260 ns (i.e. | without MIMO or TX diversity, TAE shall not exceed 260 ns (i.e. | |||
one Tc). | one Tc). | |||
* For inter-band carrier aggregation, with or without MIMO or TX | * For inter-band carrier aggregation, with or without MIMO or TX | |||
diversity, TAE shall not exceed 260 ns. | diversity, TAE shall not exceed 260 ns. | |||
Transport link contribution to radio frequency error: | Transport link contribution to radio frequency error: | |||
+-2 PPB. This value is considered to be "available" for the | +-2 PPB. This value is considered to be "available" for the | |||
Fronthaul link out of the total 50 PPB budget reserved for the | Fronthaul link out of the total 50 PPB budget reserved for the | |||
radio interface. Note: the reason that the transport link | radio interface. Note: the reason that the transport link | |||
contributes to radio frequency error is as follows. The current | contributes to radio frequency error is as follows. At the time | |||
way of doing Fronthaul is from the radio unit to remote radio head | of this writing, Fronthaul communication is from the radio unit to | |||
directly. The remote radio head is essentially a passive device | remote radio head directly. The remote radio head is essentially | |||
(without buffering etc.) The transport drives the antenna | a passive device (without buffering etc.) The transport drives | |||
directly by feeding it with samples and everything the transport | the antenna directly by feeding it with samples and everything the | |||
adds will be introduced to radio as-is. So if the transport | transport adds will be introduced to radio as-is. So if the | |||
causes additional frequency error that shows immediately on the | transport causes additional frequency error that shows immediately | |||
radio as well. Note: performance guarantees of low nanosecond | on the radio as well. Note: performance guarantees of low | |||
values such as these are considered to be below the DetNet layer - | nanosecond values such as these are considered to be below the | |||
it is assumed that the underlying implementation, e.g. the | DetNet layer - it is assumed that the underlying implementation, | |||
hardware, will provide sufficient support to enable this level of | e.g. the hardware, will provide sufficient support to enable this | |||
performance. These values are maintained in the use case to give | level of performance. These values are maintained in the use case | |||
an indication of the overall application. | to give an indication of the overall application. | |||
The above listed time synchronization requirements are difficult to | The above listed time synchronization requirements are difficult to | |||
meet with point-to-point connected networks, and more difficult when | meet with point-to-point connected networks, and more difficult when | |||
the network includes multiple hops. It is expected that networks | the network includes multiple hops. It is expected that networks | |||
must include buffering at the ends of the connections as imposed by | must include buffering at the ends of the connections as imposed by | |||
the jitter requirements, since trying to meet the jitter requirements | the jitter requirements, since trying to meet the jitter requirements | |||
in every intermediate node is likely to be too costly. However, | in every intermediate node is likely to be too costly. However, | |||
every measure to reduce jitter and delay on the path makes it easier | every measure to reduce jitter and delay on the path makes it easier | |||
to meet the end-to-end requirements. | to meet the end-to-end requirements. | |||
skipping to change at page 54, line 23 ¶ | skipping to change at page 54, line 23 ¶ | |||
Fronthaul and Midhaul networks assume almost error-free transport. | Fronthaul and Midhaul networks assume almost error-free transport. | |||
Errors can result in a reset of the radio interfaces, which can cause | Errors can result in a reset of the radio interfaces, which can cause | |||
reduced throughput or broken radio connectivity for mobile customers. | reduced throughput or broken radio connectivity for mobile customers. | |||
For packetized Fronthaul and Midhaul connections packet loss may be | For packetized Fronthaul and Midhaul connections packet loss may be | |||
caused by BER, congestion, or network failure scenarios. Different | caused by BER, congestion, or network failure scenarios. Different | |||
fronthaul functional splits are being considered by 3GPP, requiring | fronthaul functional splits are being considered by 3GPP, requiring | |||
strict frame loss ratio (FLR) guarantees. As one example (referring | strict frame loss ratio (FLR) guarantees. As one example (referring | |||
to the legacy CPRI split which is option 8 in 3GPP) lower layers | to the legacy CPRI split which is option 8 in 3GPP) lower layers | |||
splits may imply an FLR of less than 10E-7 for data traffic and less | splits may imply an FLR of less than 10E-7 for data traffic and less | |||
than 10E-6 for control and management traffic. Current tools for | than 10E-6 for control and management traffic. | |||
eliminating packet loss for Fronthaul and Midhaul networks have | ||||
serious challenges, for example retransmitting lost packets and/or | Many of the tools available for eliminating packet loss for Fronthaul | |||
using forward error correction (FEC) to circumvent bit errors is | and Midhaul networks have serious challenges, for example | |||
practically impossible due to the additional delay incurred. Using | retransmitting lost packets and/or using forward error correction | |||
redundant streams for better guarantees for delivery is also | (FEC) to circumvent bit errors is practically impossible due to the | |||
practically impossible in many cases due to high bandwidth | additional delay incurred. Using redundant streams for better | |||
requirements of Fronthaul and Midhaul networks. Protection switching | guarantees for delivery is also practically impossible in many cases | |||
is also a candidate but current technologies for the path switch are | due to high bandwidth requirements of Fronthaul and Midhaul networks. | |||
too slow to avoid reset of mobile interfaces. | Protection switching is also a candidate but at the time of this | |||
writing, available technologies for the path switch are too slow to | ||||
avoid reset of mobile interfaces. | ||||
Fronthaul links are assumed to be symmetric, and all Fronthaul | Fronthaul links are assumed to be symmetric, and all Fronthaul | |||
streams (i.e. those carrying radio data) have equal priority and | streams (i.e. those carrying radio data) have equal priority and | |||
cannot delay or pre-empt each other. This implies that the network | cannot delay or pre-empt each other. This implies that the network | |||
must guarantee that each time-sensitive flow meets their schedule. | must guarantee that each time-sensitive flow meets their schedule. | |||
6.1.5. Security Considerations | 6.1.5. Security Considerations | |||
Establishing time-sensitive streams in the network entails reserving | Establishing time-sensitive streams in the network entails reserving | |||
networking resources for long periods of time. It is important that | networking resources for long periods of time. It is important that | |||
skipping to change at page 55, line 17 ¶ | skipping to change at page 55, line 20 ¶ | |||
6.2.1. Fronthaul | 6.2.1. Fronthaul | |||
Today's Fronthaul networks typically consist of: | Today's Fronthaul networks typically consist of: | |||
o Dedicated point-to-point fiber connection is common | o Dedicated point-to-point fiber connection is common | |||
o Proprietary protocols and framings | o Proprietary protocols and framings | |||
o Custom equipment and no real networking | o Custom equipment and no real networking | |||
Current solutions for Fronthaul are direct optical cables or | At the time of this writing, solutions for Fronthaul are direct | |||
Wavelength-Division Multiplexing (WDM) connections. | optical cables or Wavelength-Division Multiplexing (WDM) connections. | |||
6.2.2. Midhaul and Backhaul | 6.2.2. Midhaul and Backhaul | |||
Today's Midhaul and Backhaul networks typically consist of: | Today's Midhaul and Backhaul networks typically consist of: | |||
o Mostly normal IP networks, MPLS-TP, etc. | o Mostly normal IP networks, MPLS-TP, etc. | |||
o Clock distribution and sync using 1588 and SyncE | o Clock distribution and sync using 1588 and SyncE | |||
Telecommunication networks in the Mid- and Backhaul are already | Telecommunication networks in the Mid- and Backhaul are already | |||
skipping to change at page 57, line 7 ¶ | skipping to change at page 57, line 11 ¶ | |||
extreme for packet based technologies, for example, on the order of | extreme for packet based technologies, for example, on the order of | |||
sub +-20 ns packet delay variation (PDV) and frequency accuracy of | sub +-20 ns packet delay variation (PDV) and frequency accuracy of | |||
+0.002 PPM [Fronthaul]. | +0.002 PPM [Fronthaul]. | |||
The actual transport protocols and/or solutions to establish required | The actual transport protocols and/or solutions to establish required | |||
transport "circuits" (pinned-down paths) for Fronthaul traffic are | transport "circuits" (pinned-down paths) for Fronthaul traffic are | |||
still undefined. Those are likely to include (but are not limited | still undefined. Those are likely to include (but are not limited | |||
to) solutions directly over Ethernet, over IP, and using MPLS/ | to) solutions directly over Ethernet, over IP, and using MPLS/ | |||
PseudoWire transport. | PseudoWire transport. | |||
Even the current time-sensitive networking features may not be | ||||
sufficient for Fronthaul traffic. Therefore, having specific | ||||
profiles that take the requirements of Fronthaul into account is | ||||
desirable [IEEE8021CM]. | ||||
Interesting and important work for time-sensitive networking has been | Interesting and important work for time-sensitive networking has been | |||
done for Ethernet [TSNTG], which specifies the use of IEEE 1588 time | done for Ethernet [TSNTG], which specifies the use of IEEE 1588 time | |||
precision protocol (PTP) [IEEE1588] in the context of IEEE 802.1D and | precision protocol (PTP) [IEEE1588] in the context of IEEE 802.1D and | |||
IEEE 802.1Q. [IEEE8021AS] specifies a Layer 2 time synchronizing | IEEE 802.1Q. [IEEE8021AS] specifies a Layer 2 time synchronizing | |||
service, and other specifications such as IEEE 1722 [IEEE1722] | service, and other specifications such as IEEE 1722 [IEEE1722] | |||
specify Ethernet-based Layer-2 transport for time-sensitive streams. | specify Ethernet-based Layer-2 transport for time-sensitive streams. | |||
However even these Ethernet TSN features may not be sufficient for | ||||
Fronthaul traffic. Therefore, having specific profiles that take the | ||||
requirements of Fronthaul into account is desirable [IEEE8021CM]. | ||||
New promising work seeks to enable the transport of time-sensitive | New promising work seeks to enable the transport of time-sensitive | |||
fronthaul streams in Ethernet bridged networks [IEEE8021CM]. | fronthaul streams in Ethernet bridged networks [IEEE8021CM]. | |||
Analogous to IEEE 1722 there is an ongoing standardization effort to | Analogous to IEEE 1722 there is an ongoing standardization effort to | |||
define the Layer-2 transport encapsulation format for transporting | define the Layer-2 transport encapsulation format for transporting | |||
radio over Ethernet (RoE) in the IEEE 1904.3 Task Force [IEEE19143]. | radio over Ethernet (RoE) in the IEEE 1904.3 Task Force [IEEE19143]. | |||
As mentioned in Section 6.1.2, 5G communications will provide one of | As mentioned in Section 6.1.2, 5G communications will provide one of | |||
the most challenging cases for delay sensitive networking. In order | the most challenging cases for delay sensitive networking. In order | |||
to meet the challenges of ultra-low latency and ultra-high | to meet the challenges of ultra-low latency and ultra-high | |||
throughput, 3GPP has studied various "functional splits" for 5G, | throughput, 3GPP has studied various "functional splits" for 5G, | |||
i.e., physical decomposition of the gNodeB base station and | i.e., physical decomposition of the gNodeB base station and | |||
deployment of its functional blocks in different locations [TR38801]. | deployment of its functional blocks in different locations [TR38801]. | |||
These splits are numbered from split option 1 (Dual Connectivity, a | These splits are numbered from split option 1 (Dual Connectivity, a | |||
split in which the radio resource control is centralized and other | split in which the radio resource control is centralized and other | |||
radio stack layers are in distributed units) to split option 8 (a | radio stack layers are in distributed units) to split option 8 (a | |||
PHY-RF split in which RF functionality is in a distributed unit and | PHY-RF split in which RF functionality is in a distributed unit and | |||
the rest of the radio stack is in the centralized unit), with each | the rest of the radio stack is in the centralized unit), with each | |||
intermediate split having its own data rate and delay requirements. | intermediate split having its own data rate and delay requirements. | |||
Packetized versions of different splits have recently been proposed | Packetized versions of different splits have been proposed including | |||
including eCPRI [eCPRI] and RoE (as previously noted). Both provide | eCPRI [eCPRI] and RoE (as previously noted). Both provide Ethernet | |||
Ethernet encapsulations, and eCPRI is also capable of IP | encapsulations, and eCPRI is also capable of IP encapsulation. | |||
encapsulation. | ||||
All-IP RANs and xHaul networks would benefit from time | All-IP RANs and xHaul networks would benefit from time | |||
synchronization and time-sensitive transport services. Although | synchronization and time-sensitive transport services. Although | |||
Ethernet appears to be the unifying technology for the transport, | Ethernet appears to be the unifying technology for the transport, | |||
there is still a disconnect providing Layer 3 services. The protocol | there is still a disconnect providing Layer 3 services. The protocol | |||
stack typically has a number of layers below the Ethernet Layer 2 | stack typically has a number of layers below the Ethernet Layer 2 | |||
that shows up to the Layer 3 IP transport. It is not uncommon that | that shows up to the Layer 3 IP transport. It is not uncommon that | |||
on top of the lowest layer (optical) transport there is the first | on top of the lowest layer (optical) transport there is the first | |||
layer of Ethernet followed one or more layers of MPLS, PseudoWires | layer of Ethernet followed one or more layers of MPLS, PseudoWires | |||
and/or other tunneling protocols finally carrying the Ethernet layer | and/or other tunneling protocols finally carrying the Ethernet layer | |||
skipping to change at page 59, line 11 ¶ | skipping to change at page 59, line 11 ¶ | |||
mmWave, etc.). | mmWave, etc.). | |||
A standard for data flow information models that are: | A standard for data flow information models that are: | |||
o Aware of the time sensitivity and constraints of the target | o Aware of the time sensitivity and constraints of the target | |||
networking environment | networking environment | |||
o Aware of underlying deterministic networking services (e.g., on | o Aware of underlying deterministic networking services (e.g., on | |||
the Ethernet layer) | the Ethernet layer) | |||
7. Industrial M2M | 7. Industrial Machine to Machine (M2M) | |||
7.1. Use Case Description | 7.1. Use Case Description | |||
Industrial Automation in general refers to automation of | Industrial Automation in general refers to automation of | |||
manufacturing, quality control and material processing. This | manufacturing, quality control and material processing. This | |||
"machine to machine" (M2M) use case considers machine units in a | "machine to machine" (M2M) use case considers machine units in a | |||
plant floor which periodically exchange data with upstream or | plant floor which periodically exchange data with upstream or | |||
downstream machine modules and/or a supervisory controller within a | downstream machine modules and/or a supervisory controller within a | |||
local area network. | local area network. | |||
skipping to change at page 59, line 50 ¶ | skipping to change at page 59, line 50 ¶ | |||
S A | S A | |||
Figure 11: Current Generic Industrial M2M Network Architecture | Figure 11: Current Generic Industrial M2M Network Architecture | |||
This use case focuses on PLC-related communications; communication to | This use case focuses on PLC-related communications; communication to | |||
Manufacturing-Execution-Systems (MESs) are not addressed. | Manufacturing-Execution-Systems (MESs) are not addressed. | |||
This use case covers only critical control/data streams; non-critical | This use case covers only critical control/data streams; non-critical | |||
traffic between industrial automation applications (such as | traffic between industrial automation applications (such as | |||
communication of state, configuration, set-up, and database | communication of state, configuration, set-up, and database | |||
communication) are adequately served by currently available | communication) are adequately served by prioritizing techniques | |||
prioritizing techniques. Such traffic can use up to 80% of the total | available at the time of this writing. Such traffic can use up to | |||
bandwidth required. There is also a subset of non-time-critical | 80% of the total bandwidth required. There is also a subset of non- | |||
traffic that must be reliable even though it is not time sensitive. | time-critical traffic that must be reliable even though it is not | |||
time-sensitive. | ||||
In this use case the primary need for deterministic networking is to | In this use case the primary need for deterministic networking is to | |||
provide end-to-end delivery of M2M messages within specific timing | provide end-to-end delivery of M2M messages within specific timing | |||
constraints, for example in closed loop automation control. Today | constraints, for example in closed loop automation control. Today | |||
this level of determinism is provided by proprietary networking | this level of determinism is provided by proprietary networking | |||
technologies. In addition, standard networking technologies are used | technologies. In addition, standard networking technologies are used | |||
to connect the local network to remote industrial automation sites, | to connect the local network to remote industrial automation sites, | |||
e.g. over an enterprise or metro network which also carries other | e.g. over an enterprise or metro network which also carries other | |||
types of traffic. Therefore, flows that should be forwarded with | types of traffic. Therefore, flows that should be forwarded with | |||
deterministic guarantees need to be sustained regardless of the | deterministic guarantees need to be sustained regardless of the | |||
skipping to change at page 60, line 36 ¶ | skipping to change at page 60, line 37 ¶ | |||
PLC-related control/data streams are transmitted periodically and | PLC-related control/data streams are transmitted periodically and | |||
carry either a pre-configured payload or a payload configured during | carry either a pre-configured payload or a payload configured during | |||
runtime. | runtime. | |||
Some industrial applications require time synchronization at the end | Some industrial applications require time synchronization at the end | |||
nodes. For such time-coordinated PLCs, accuracy of 1 microsecond is | nodes. For such time-coordinated PLCs, accuracy of 1 microsecond is | |||
required. Even in the case of "non-time-coordinated" PLCs time sync | required. Even in the case of "non-time-coordinated" PLCs time sync | |||
may be needed e.g. for timestamping of sensor data. | may be needed e.g. for timestamping of sensor data. | |||
Industrial network scenarios require advanced security solutions. | Industrial network scenarios require advanced security solutions. At | |||
Many of the current industrial production networks are physically | the time of this writing, many industrial production networks are | |||
separated. Preventing critical flows from be leaked outside a domain | physically separated. Preventing critical flows from being leaked | |||
is handled today by filtering policies that are typically enforced in | outside a domain is handled by filtering policies that are typically | |||
firewalls. | enforced in firewalls. | |||
7.2.1. Transport Parameters | 7.2.1. Transport Parameters | |||
The Cycle Time defines the frequency of message(s) between industrial | The Cycle Time defines the frequency of message(s) between industrial | |||
actors. The Cycle Time is application dependent, in the range of 1ms | actors. The Cycle Time is application dependent, in the range of 1ms | |||
- 100ms for critical control/data streams. | - 100ms for critical control/data streams. | |||
Because industrial applications assume deterministic transport for | Because industrial applications assume deterministic transport for | |||
critical Control-Data-Stream parameters (instead of defining latency | critical Control-Data-Stream parameters (instead of defining latency | |||
and delay variation parameters) it is sufficient to fulfill the upper | and delay variation parameters) it is sufficient to fulfill the upper | |||
skipping to change at page 61, line 24 ¶ | skipping to change at page 61, line 25 ¶ | |||
streams. In today's networks 1Gbps links are commonly used. | streams. In today's networks 1Gbps links are commonly used. | |||
Most PLC control loops are rather tolerant of packet loss, however | Most PLC control loops are rather tolerant of packet loss, however | |||
critical control/data streams accept no more than 1 packet loss per | critical control/data streams accept no more than 1 packet loss per | |||
consecutive communication cycle (i.e. if a packet gets lost in cycle | consecutive communication cycle (i.e. if a packet gets lost in cycle | |||
"n", then the next cycle ("n+1") must be lossless). After two or | "n", then the next cycle ("n+1") must be lossless). After two or | |||
more consecutive packet losses the network may be considered to be | more consecutive packet losses the network may be considered to be | |||
"down" by the Application. | "down" by the Application. | |||
As network downtime may impact the whole production system the | As network downtime may impact the whole production system the | |||
required network availability is rather high (99,999%). | required network availability is rather high (99.999%). | |||
Based on the above parameters some form of redundancy will be | Based on the above parameters some form of redundancy will be | |||
required for M2M communications, however any individual solution | required for M2M communications, however any individual solution | |||
depends on several parameters including cycle time, delivery time, | depends on several parameters including cycle time, delivery time, | |||
etc. | etc. | |||
7.2.2. Stream Creation and Destruction | 7.2.2. Stream Creation and Destruction | |||
In an industrial environment, critical control/data streams are | In an industrial environment, critical control/data streams are | |||
created rather infrequently, on the order of ~10 times per day / week | created rather infrequently, on the order of ~10 times per day / week | |||
/ month. Most of these critical control/data streams get created at | / month. Most of these critical control/data streams get created at | |||
machine startup, however flexibility is also needed during runtime, | machine startup, however flexibility is also needed during runtime, | |||
for example when adding or removing a machine. Going forward as | for example when adding or removing a machine. Going forward as | |||
production systems become more flexible, there will be a significant | production systems become more flexible, there will be a significant | |||
increase in the rate at which streams are created, changed and | increase in the rate at which streams are created, changed and | |||
destroyed. | destroyed. | |||
7.3. Industrial M2M Future | 7.3. Industrial M2M Future | |||
A converged IP-standards-based network with deterministic properties | We foresee a converged IP-standards-based network with deterministic | |||
that can satisfy the timing, security and reliability constraints | properties that can satisfy the timing, security and reliability | |||
described above. Today's proprietary networks could then be | constraints described above. Today's proprietary networks could then | |||
interfaced to such a network via gateways or, in the case of new | be interfaced to such a network via gateways or, in the case of new | |||
installations, devices could be connected directly to the converged | installations, devices could be connected directly to the converged | |||
network. | network. | |||
For this use case time synchronization accuracy on the order of 1us | For this use case time synchronization accuracy on the order of 1us | |||
is expected. | is expected. | |||
7.4. Industrial M2M Asks | 7.4. Industrial M2M Asks | |||
o Converged IP-based network | o Converged IP-based network | |||
o Deterministic behavior (bounded latency and jitter ) | o Deterministic behavior (bounded latency and jitter ) | |||
o High availability (presumably through redundancy) (99.999 %) | o High availability (presumably through redundancy) (99.999 %) | |||
o Low message delivery time (100us - 50ms) | o Low message delivery time (100us - 50ms) | |||
o Low packet loss (burstless, 0.1-1 %) | o Low packet loss (with bounded number of consecutive lost packets) | |||
o Security (e.g. prevent critical flows from being leaked between | o Security (e.g. prevent critical flows from being leaked between | |||
physically separated networks) | physically separated networks) | |||
8. Mining Industry | 8. Mining Industry | |||
8.1. Use Case Description | 8.1. Use Case Description | |||
The mining industry is highly dependent on networks to monitor and | The mining industry is highly dependent on networks to monitor and | |||
control their systems both in open-pit and underground extraction, | control their systems both in open-pit and underground extraction, | |||
skipping to change at page 62, line 41 ¶ | skipping to change at page 62, line 41 ¶ | |||
processes have migrated the operators from the extraction site to | processes have migrated the operators from the extraction site to | |||
remote control and monitoring. | remote control and monitoring. | |||
In the case of open pit mining, autonomous trucks are used to | In the case of open pit mining, autonomous trucks are used to | |||
transport the raw materials from the open pit to the refining factory | transport the raw materials from the open pit to the refining factory | |||
where the final product (e.g. Copper) is obtained. Although the | where the final product (e.g. Copper) is obtained. Although the | |||
operation is autonomous, the tracks are remotely monitored from a | operation is autonomous, the tracks are remotely monitored from a | |||
central facility. | central facility. | |||
In pit mines, the monitoring of the tailings or mine dumps is | In pit mines, the monitoring of the tailings or mine dumps is | |||
critical in order to avoid any environmental pollution. In the past, | critical in order to minimize environmental pollution. In the past, | |||
monitoring has been conducted through manual inspection of pre- | monitoring has been conducted through manual inspection of pre- | |||
installed dataloggers. Cabling is not usually exploited in such | installed dataloggers. Cabling is not usually exploited in such | |||
scenarios due to the cost and complex deployment requirements. | scenarios due to the cost and complex deployment requirements. At | |||
Currently, wireless technologies are being employed to monitor these | the time of this writing, wireless technologies are being employed to | |||
cases permanently. Slopes are also monitored in order to anticipate | monitor these cases permanently. Slopes are also monitored in order | |||
possible mine collapse. Due to the unstable terrain, cable | to anticipate possible mine collapse. Due to the unstable terrain, | |||
maintenance is costly and complex and hence wireless technologies are | cable maintenance is costly and complex and hence wireless | |||
employed. | technologies are employed. | |||
In the underground monitoring case, autonomous vehicles with | In the underground monitoring case, autonomous vehicles with | |||
extraction tools travel autonomously through the tunnels, but their | extraction tools travel autonomously through the tunnels, but their | |||
operational tasks (such as excavation, stone breaking and transport) | operational tasks (such as excavation, stone breaking and transport) | |||
are controlled remotely from a central facility. This generates | are controlled remotely from a central facility. This generates | |||
video and feedback upstream traffic plus downstream actuator control | video and feedback upstream traffic plus downstream actuator control | |||
traffic. | traffic. | |||
8.2. Mining Industry Today | 8.2. Mining Industry Today | |||
Currently the mining industry uses a packet switched architecture | At the time of this writing, the mining industry uses a packet | |||
supported by high speed ethernet. However in order to achieve the | switched architecture supported by high speed ethernet. However in | |||
delay and packet loss requirements the network bandwidth is | order to achieve the delay and packet loss requirements the network | |||
overestimated, thus providing very low efficiency in terms of | bandwidth is overestimated, thus providing very low efficiency in | |||
resource usage. | terms of resource usage. | |||
QoS is implemented at the Routers to separate video, management, | QoS is implemented at the Routers to separate video, management, | |||
monitoring and process control traffic for each stream. | monitoring and process control traffic for each stream. | |||
Since mobility is involved in this process, the connection between | Since mobility is involved in this process, the connection between | |||
the backbone and the mobile devices (e.g. trucks, trains and | the backbone and the mobile devices (e.g. trucks, trains and | |||
excavators) is solved using a wireless link. These links are based | excavators) is solved using a wireless link. These links are based | |||
on 802.11 for open-pit mining and leaky feeder for underground | on 802.11 for open-pit mining and "leaky feeder" communications for | |||
mining. | underground mining. (A "leaky feeder" communication system consists | |||
of a coaxial cable run along tunnels which emits and receives radio | ||||
waves, functioning as an extended antenna. The cable is "leaky" in | ||||
that it has gaps or slots in its outer conductor to allow the radio | ||||
signal to leak into or out of the cable along its entire length.) | ||||
Lately in pit mines the use of LPWAN technologies has been extended: | Lately in pit mines the use of LPWAN technologies has been extended: | |||
Tailings, slopes and mine dumps are monitored by battery-powered | Tailings, slopes and mine dumps are monitored by battery-powered | |||
dataloggers that make use of robust long range radio technologies. | dataloggers that make use of robust long range radio technologies. | |||
Reliability is usually ensured through retransmissions at L2. | Reliability is usually ensured through retransmissions at L2. | |||
Gateways or concentrators act as bridges forwarding the data to the | Gateways or concentrators act as bridges forwarding the data to the | |||
backbone ethernet network. Deterministic requirements are biased | backbone ethernet network. Deterministic requirements are biased | |||
towards reliability rather than latency as events are slowly | towards reliability rather than latency as events are slowly | |||
triggered or can be anticipated in advance. | triggered or can be anticipated in advance. | |||
At the mineral processing stage, conveyor belts and refining | At the mineral processing stage, conveyor belts and refining | |||
processes are controlled by a SCADA system, which provides the in- | processes are controlled by a SCADA system, which provides the in- | |||
factory delay-constrained networking requirements. | factory delay-constrained networking requirements. | |||
Voice communications are currently served by a redundant trunking | At the time of this writing, voice communications are served by a | |||
infrastructure, independent from current data networks. | redundant trunking infrastructure, independent from data networks. | |||
8.3. Mining Industry Future | 8.3. Mining Industry Future | |||
Mining operations and management are currently converging towards a | Mining operations and management are converging towards a combination | |||
combination of autonomous operation and teleoperation of transport | of autonomous operation and teleoperation of transport and extraction | |||
and extraction machines. This means that video, audio, monitoring | machines. This means that video, audio, monitoring and process | |||
and process control traffic will increase dramatically. Ideally, all | control traffic will increase dramatically. Ideally, all activities | |||
activities on the mine will rely on network infrastructure. | on the mine will rely on network infrastructure. | |||
Wireless for open-pit mining is already a reality with LPWAN | Wireless for open-pit mining is already a reality with LPWAN | |||
technologies and it is expected to evolve to more advanced LPWAN | technologies and it is expected to evolve to more advanced LPWAN | |||
technologies such as those based on LTE to increase last hop | technologies such as those based on LTE to increase last hop | |||
reliability or novel LPWAN flavours with deterministic access. | reliability or novel LPWAN flavours with deterministic access. | |||
One area in which DetNet can improve this use case is in the wired | One area in which DetNet can improve this use case is in the wired | |||
networks that make up the "backbone network" of the system, which | networks that make up the "backbone network" of the system, which | |||
connect together many wireless access points (APs). The mobile | connect together many wireless access points (APs). The mobile | |||
machines (which are connected to the network via wireless) transition | machines (which are connected to the network via wireless) transition | |||
skipping to change at page 64, line 41 ¶ | skipping to change at page 64, line 46 ¶ | |||
o Predictable delay to enable realtime monitoring | o Predictable delay to enable realtime monitoring | |||
o Potential to construct a unified DetNet network over a combination | o Potential to construct a unified DetNet network over a combination | |||
of wired and deterministic wireless links | of wired and deterministic wireless links | |||
9. Private Blockchain | 9. Private Blockchain | |||
9.1. Use Case Description | 9.1. Use Case Description | |||
Blockchain was created with bitcoin, as a 'public' blockchain on the | Blockchain was created with bitcoin as a 'public' blockchain on the | |||
open Internet, however blockchain has also spread far beyond its | open Internet, however blockchain has also spread far beyond its | |||
original host into various industries such as smart manufacturing, | original host into various industries such as smart manufacturing, | |||
logistics, security, legal rights and others. In these industries | logistics, security, legal rights and others. In these industries | |||
blockchain runs in designated and carefully managed network in which | blockchain runs in designated and carefully managed networks in which | |||
deterministic networking requirements could be addressed by Detnet. | deterministic networking requirements could be addressed by DetNet. | |||
Such implementations are referred to as 'private' blockchain. | Such implementations are referred to as 'private' blockchain. | |||
The sole distinction between public and private blockchain is related | The sole distinction between public and private blockchain is defined | |||
to who is allowed to participate in the network, execute the | by who is allowed to participate in the network, execute the | |||
consensus protocol and maintain the shared ledger. | consensus protocol, and maintain the shared ledger. | |||
Today's networks treat the traffic from blockchain on a best-effort | Today's networks treat the traffic from blockchain on a best-effort | |||
basis, but blockchain operation could be made much more efficient if | basis, but blockchain operation could be made much more efficient if | |||
deterministic networking service were available to minimize latency | deterministic networking services were available to minimize latency | |||
and packet loss in the network. | and packet loss in the network. | |||
9.1.1. Blockchain Operation | 9.1.1. Blockchain Operation | |||
A 'block' runs as a container of a batch of primary items such as | A 'block' runs as a container of a batch of primary items such as | |||
transactions, property records etc. The blocks are chained in such a | transactions, property records etc. The blocks are chained in such a | |||
way that the hash of the previous block works as the pointer header | way that the hash of the previous block works as the pointer to the | |||
of the new block, where confirmation of each block requires a | header of the new block. Confirmation of each block requires a | |||
consensus mechanism. When an item arrives at a blockchain node, the | consensus mechanism. When an item arrives at a blockchain node, the | |||
latter broadcasts this item to the rest of nodes which receive and | latter broadcasts this item to the rest of the nodes which receive | |||
verify it and put it in the ongoing block. Block confirmation | and verify it and put it in the ongoing block. The block | |||
process begins as the amount of items reaches the predefined block | confirmation process begins as the number of items reaches the | |||
capacity, and the node broadcasts its proved block to the rest of | predefined block capacity, at which time the node broadcasts its | |||
nodes to be verified and chained. | proved block to the rest of the nodes, to be verified and chained. | |||
The result is that block N+1 of each chain transitively vouches for | ||||
blocks N and before of that chain. | ||||
9.1.2. Blockchain Network Architecture | 9.1.2. Blockchain Network Architecture | |||
Blockchain node communication and coordination is achieved mainly | Blockchain node communication and coordination is achieved mainly | |||
through frequent point to multi-point communication, however | through frequent point-to-multi-point communication, however | |||
persistent point-to-point connections are used to transport both the | persistent point-to-point connections are used to transport both the | |||
items and the blocks to the other nodes. | items and the blocks to the other nodes. For example, consider the | |||
following implementation. | ||||
When a node initiates, it first requests the other nodes' address | When a node is initiated, it first requests the other nodes' address | |||
from a specific entity such as DNS, then it creates persistent | from a specific entity such as DNS, then it creates persistent | |||
connections each of with other nodes. If node A confirms an item, it | connections each of with other nodes. If a node confirms an item, it | |||
sends the item to the other nodes via the persistent connections. | sends the item to the other nodes via these persistent connections. | |||
As a new block in a node completes and gets proved among the nodes, | As a new block in a node is completed and is proven by the | |||
it starts propagating this block towards its neighbor nodes. Assume | surrounding nodes, it propagates towards its neighbor nodes. When | |||
node A receives a block, it sends invite message after verification | node A receives a block, it verifies it, then sends an invite message | |||
to its neighbor B, B checks if the designated block is available, it | to its neighbor B. Neighbor B checks to see if the designated block | |||
responds get message to A if it is unavailable, and A send the | is available, and responds to A if it is unavailable, then A sends | |||
complete block to B. B repeats the process as A to start the next | the complete block to B. B repeats the process (as done by A above) | |||
round of block propagation. | to start the next round of block propagation. | |||
The challenge of blockchain network operation is not overall data | The challenge of blockchain network operation is not overall data | |||
rates, since the volume from both block and item stays between | rates, since the volume from both block and item stays between | |||
hundreds of bytes to a couple of mega bytes per second, but is in | hundreds of bytes to a couple of megabytes per second, but is in | |||
transporting the blocks with minimum latency to maximize efficiency | transporting the blocks with minimum latency to maximize efficiency | |||
of the blockchain consensus process. | of the blockchain consensus process. The efficiency of differing | |||
implementations of the consensus process may be affected to a | ||||
differing degree by the latency (and variation of latency) of the | ||||
network. | ||||
9.1.3. Security Considerations | 9.1.3. Security Considerations | |||
Security is crucial to blockchain applications, and todayt blockchain | Security is crucial to blockchain applications, and at the time of | |||
addresses its security issues mainly at the application level, where | this writing, blockchain systems address security issues mainly at | |||
cryptography as well as hash-based consensus play a leading role | the application level, where cryptography as well as hash-based | |||
preventing both double-spending and malicious service attack. | consensus play a leading role in preventing both double-spending and | |||
However, there is concern that in the proposed use case of a private | malicious service attacks. However, there is concern that in the | |||
blockchain network which is dependent on deterministic properties, | proposed use case of a private blockchain network which is dependent | |||
the network could be vulnerable to delays and other specific attacks | on deterministic properties, the network could be vulnerable to | |||
against determinism which could interrupt service. | delays and other specific attacks against determinism which could | |||
interrupt service. | ||||
9.2. Private Blockchain Today | 9.2. Private Blockchain Today | |||
Today private blockchain runs in L2 or L3 VPN, in general without | Today private blockchain runs in L2 or L3 VPN, in general without | |||
guaranteed determinism. The industry players are starting to realize | guaranteed determinism. The industry players are starting to realize | |||
that improving determinism in their blockchain networks could improve | that improving determinism in their blockchain networks could improve | |||
the performance of their service, but as of today these goals are not | the performance of their service, but as of today these goals are not | |||
being met. | being met. | |||
9.3. Private Blockchain Future | 9.3. Private Blockchain Future | |||
Blockchain system performance can be greatly improved through | Blockchain system performance can be greatly improved through | |||
deterministic networking service primarily because it would | deterministic networking service primarily because it would | |||
accelerate the consensus process. It would be valuable to be able to | accelerate the consensus process. It would be valuable to be able to | |||
design a private blockchain network with the following properties: | design a private blockchain network with the following properties: | |||
o Transport of point to multi-point traffic in a coordinated network | o Transport of point-to-multi-point traffic in a coordinated network | |||
architecture rather than at the application layer (which typically | architecture rather than at the application layer (which typically | |||
uses point-to-point connections) | uses point-to-point connections) | |||
o Guaranteed transport latency | o Guaranteed transport latency | |||
o Reduced packet loss (to the point where packet retransmission- | o Reduced packet loss (to the point where packet retransmission- | |||
incurred delay would be negligible.) | incurred delay would be negligible.) | |||
9.4. Private Blockchain Asks | 9.4. Private Blockchain Asks | |||
skipping to change at page 68, line 13 ¶ | skipping to change at page 68, line 25 ¶ | |||
might be implemented using DetNet, and thus the slice can provide | might be implemented using DetNet, and thus the slice can provide | |||
service guarantees and isolation to its users without any particular | service guarantees and isolation to its users without any particular | |||
DetNet awareness on the part of the users' applications. | DetNet awareness on the part of the users' applications. | |||
Alternatively, a "non-DetNet-aware" slice may host an application | Alternatively, a "non-DetNet-aware" slice may host an application | |||
that itself implements DetNet services and thus can enjoy similar | that itself implements DetNet services and thus can enjoy similar | |||
service guarantees. | service guarantees. | |||
10.3. A Network Slicing Use Case Example - 5G Bearer Network | 10.3. A Network Slicing Use Case Example - 5G Bearer Network | |||
Network Slicing is a core feature of 5G defined in 3GPP, which is | Network Slicing is a core feature of 5G defined in 3GPP, which is | |||
currently under development. A network slice in a mobile network is | under development at the time of this writing [TR38501]. A network | |||
a complete logical network including Radio Access Network (RAN) and | slice in a mobile network is a complete logical network including | |||
Core Network (CN). It provides telecommunication services and | Radio Access Network (RAN) and Core Network (CN). It provides | |||
network capabilities, which may vary from slice to slice. A 5G | telecommunication services and network capabilities, which may vary | |||
bearer network is a typical use case of Network Slicing; for example | from slice to slice. A 5G bearer network is a typical use case of | |||
consider three 5G service scenarios: eMMB, URLLC, and mMTC. | Network Slicing; for example consider three 5G service scenarios: | |||
eMMB, URLLC, and mMTC. | ||||
o eMBB (Enhanced Mobile Broadband) focuses on services characterized | o eMBB (Enhanced Mobile Broadband) focuses on services characterized | |||
by high data rates, such as high definition videos, virtual | by high data rates, such as high definition videos, virtual | |||
reality, augmented reality, and fixed mobile convergence. | reality, augmented reality, and fixed mobile convergence. | |||
o URLLC (Ultra-Reliable and Low Latency Communications) focuses on | o URLLC (Ultra-Reliable and Low Latency Communications) focuses on | |||
latency-sensitive services, such as self-driving vehicles, remote | latency-sensitive services, such as self-driving vehicles, remote | |||
surgery, or drone control. | surgery, or drone control. | |||
o mMTC (massive Machine Type Communications) focuses on services | o mMTC (massive Machine Type Communications) focuses on services | |||
skipping to change at page 70, line 39 ¶ | skipping to change at page 71, line 7 ¶ | |||
of the use cases described (and their associated industries) are | of the use cases described (and their associated industries) are | |||
explicitly based on IPv4 (as opposed to IPv6) and it is not | explicitly based on IPv4 (as opposed to IPv6) and it is not | |||
considered practical to expect them to migrate to IPv6 in order to | considered practical to expect them to migrate to IPv6 in order to | |||
use DetNet. Thus the expectation is that even if not every feature | use DetNet. Thus the expectation is that even if not every feature | |||
of DetNet is available in an IPv4 context, at least some of the | of DetNet is available in an IPv4 context, at least some of the | |||
significant benefits (such as guaranteed end-to-end delivery and low | significant benefits (such as guaranteed end-to-end delivery and low | |||
latency) are expected to be available. | latency) are expected to be available. | |||
11.1.6. Guaranteed End-to-End Delivery | 11.1.6. Guaranteed End-to-End Delivery | |||
Packets sent over DetNet are guaranteed not to be dropped by the | Packets in a DetNet flow are guaranteed not to be dropped by the | |||
network due to congestion. However, the network may drop packets for | network due to congestion. However, the network may drop packets for | |||
intended reasons, e.g. per security measures. Also note that this | intended reasons, e.g. per security measures. Similarly best-effort | |||
guarantee applies to the actions of DetNet protocol software, and | traffic on a DetNet is subject to being dropped (as on a non-DetNet | |||
does not provide any guarantee against lower level errors such as | IP network). Also note that this guarantee applies to the actions of | |||
media errors or checksum errors. | DetNet protocol software, and does not provide any guarantee against | |||
lower level errors such as media errors or checksum errors. | ||||
11.1.7. Replacement for Multiple Proprietary Deterministic Networks | 11.1.7. Replacement for Multiple Proprietary Deterministic Networks | |||
There are many proprietary non-interoperable deterministic Ethernet- | There are many proprietary non-interoperable deterministic Ethernet- | |||
based networks currently available; DetNet is intended to provide an | based networks available; DetNet is intended to provide an open- | |||
open-standards-based alternative to such networks. | standards-based alternative to such networks. | |||
11.1.8. Mix of Deterministic and Best-Effort Traffic | 11.1.8. Mix of Deterministic and Best-Effort Traffic | |||
DetNet is intended to support coexistance of time-sensitive | DetNet is intended to support coexistance of time-sensitive | |||
operational (OT) traffic and information (IT) traffic on the same | operational (OT) traffic and information (IT) traffic on the same | |||
("unified") network. | ("unified") network. | |||
11.1.9. Unused Reserved BW to be Available to Best Effort Traffic | 11.1.9. Unused Reserved BW to be Available to Best-Effort Traffic | |||
If bandwidth reservations are made for a stream but the associated | If bandwidth reservations are made for a stream but the associated | |||
bandwidth is not used at any point in time, that bandwidth is made | bandwidth is not used at any point in time, that bandwidth is made | |||
available on the network for best-effort traffic. If the owner of | available on the network for best-effort traffic. If the owner of | |||
the reserved stream then starts transmitting again, the bandwidth is | the reserved stream then starts transmitting again, the bandwidth is | |||
no longer available for best-effort traffic, on a moment-to-moment | no longer available for best-effort traffic, on a moment-to-moment | |||
basis. Note that such "temporarily available" bandwidth is not | basis. Note that such "temporarily available" bandwidth is not | |||
available for time-sensitive traffic, which must have its own | available for time-sensitive traffic, which must have its own | |||
reservation. | reservation. | |||
skipping to change at page 73, line 30 ¶ | skipping to change at page 73, line 42 ¶ | |||
change in attack surface presented by packet replication and | change in attack surface presented by packet replication and | |||
elimination. | elimination. | |||
11.6. Deterministic Flows | 11.6. Deterministic Flows | |||
Reserved bandwidth data flows must be isolated from each other and | Reserved bandwidth data flows must be isolated from each other and | |||
from best-effort traffic, so that even if the network is saturated | from best-effort traffic, so that even if the network is saturated | |||
with best-effort (and/or reserved bandwidth) traffic, the configured | with best-effort (and/or reserved bandwidth) traffic, the configured | |||
flows are not adversely affected. | flows are not adversely affected. | |||
12. Use Cases Explicitly Out of Scope for DetNet | 12. Security Considerations | |||
This section contains use case text that has been determined to be | ||||
outside of the scope of the present DetNet work. | ||||
12.1. DetNet Scope Limitations | ||||
The scope of DetNet is deliberately limited to specific use cases | ||||
that are consistent with the WG charter, subject to the | ||||
interpretation of the WG. At the time the DetNet Use Cases were | ||||
solicited and provided by the authors the scope of DetNet was not | ||||
clearly defined, and as that clarity has emerged, certain of the use | ||||
cases have been determined to be outside the scope of the present | ||||
DetNet work. Such text has been moved into this section to clarify | ||||
that these use cases will not be supported by the DetNet work. | ||||
The text in this section was moved here based on the following | ||||
"exclusion" principles. Or, as an alternative to moving all such | ||||
text to this section, some draft text has been modified in situ to | ||||
reflect these same principles. | ||||
The following principles have been established to clarify the scope | ||||
of the present DetNet work. | ||||
o The scope of network addressed by DetNet is limited to networks | ||||
that can be centrally controlled, i.e. an "enterprise" aka | ||||
"corporate" network. This explicitly excludes "the open | ||||
Internet". | ||||
o Maintaining synchronized time across a DetNet network is crucial | ||||
to its operation, however DetNet assumes that time is to be | ||||
maintained using other means, for example (but not limited to) | ||||
Precision Time Protocol ([IEEE1588]). A use case may state the | ||||
accuracy and reliability that it expects from the DetNet network | ||||
as part of a whole system, however it is understood that such | ||||
timing properties are not guaranteed by DetNet itself. It is | ||||
currently an open question as to whether DetNet protocols will | ||||
include a way for an application to communicate such timing | ||||
expectations to the network, and if so whether they would be | ||||
expected to materially affect the performance they would receive | ||||
from the network as a result. | ||||
12.2. Internet-based Applications | ||||
There are many applications that communicate over the open Internet | ||||
that could benefit from guaranteed delivery and bounded latency. | ||||
However as noted above, all such applications when run over the open | ||||
Internet are out of scope for DetNet. These same applications may be | ||||
in-scope when run in constrained environments, i.e. within a | ||||
centrally controlled DetNet network. The following are some examples | ||||
of such applications. | ||||
12.2.1. Use Case Description | ||||
12.2.1.1. Media Content Delivery | ||||
Media content delivery continues to be an important use of the | ||||
Internet, yet users often experience poor quality audio and video due | ||||
to the delay and jitter inherent in today's Internet. | ||||
12.2.1.2. Online Gaming | ||||
Online gaming is a significant part of the gaming market, however | ||||
latency can degrade the end user experience. For example "First | ||||
Person Shooter" games are highly delay-sensitive. | ||||
12.2.1.3. Virtual Reality | ||||
Virtual reality has many commercial applications including real | ||||
estate presentations, remote medical procedures, and so on. Low | ||||
latency is critical to interacting with the virtual world because | ||||
perceptual delays can cause motion sickness. | ||||
12.2.2. Internet-Based Applications Today | ||||
Internet service today is by definition "best effort", with no | ||||
guarantees on delivery or bandwidth. | ||||
12.2.3. Internet-Based Applications Future | ||||
An Internet from which one can play a video without glitches and play | ||||
games without lag. | ||||
For online gaming, the maximum round-trip delay can be 100ms and | ||||
stricter for FPS gaming which can be 10-50ms. Transport delay is the | ||||
dominate part with a 5-20ms budget. | ||||
For VR, 1-10ms maximum delay is needed and total network budget is | ||||
1-5ms if doing remote VR. | ||||
Flow identification can be used for gaming and VR, i.e. it can | ||||
recognize a critical flow and provide appropriate latency bounds. | ||||
12.2.4. Internet-Based Applications Asks | ||||
o Unified control and management protocols to handle time-critical | ||||
data flow | ||||
o Application-aware flow filtering mechanism to recognize the timing | ||||
critical flow without doing 5-tuple matching | ||||
o Unified control plane to provide low latency service on Layer-3 | ||||
without changing the data plane | ||||
o OAM system and protocols which can help to provide E2E-delay | ||||
sensitive service provisioning | ||||
12.3. Pro Audio and Video - Digital Rights Management (DRM) | ||||
This section was moved here because this is considered a Link layer | ||||
topic, not direct responsibility of DetNet. | ||||
Digital Rights Management (DRM) is very important to the audio and | ||||
video industries. Any time protected content is introduced into a | ||||
network there are DRM concerns that must be maintained (see | ||||
[CONTENT_PROTECTION]). Many aspects of DRM are outside the scope of | ||||
network technology, however there are cases when a secure link | ||||
supporting authentication and encryption is required by content | ||||
owners to carry their audio or video content when it is outside their | ||||
own secure environment (for example see [DCI]). | ||||
As an example, two techniques are Digital Transmission Content | ||||
Protection (DTCP) and High-Bandwidth Digital Content Protection | ||||
(HDCP). HDCP content is not approved for retransmission within any | ||||
other type of DRM, while DTCP may be retransmitted under HDCP. | ||||
Therefore if the source of a stream is outside of the network and it | ||||
uses HDCP protection it is only allowed to be placed on the network | ||||
with that same HDCP protection. | ||||
12.4. Pro Audio and Video - Link Aggregation | ||||
Note: The term "Link Aggregation" is used here as defined by the text | ||||
in the following paragraph, i.e. not following a more common Network | ||||
Industry definition. Current WG consensus is that this item won't be | ||||
directly supported by the DetNet architecture, for example because it | ||||
implies guarantee of in-order delivery of packets which conflicts | ||||
with the core goal of achieving the lowest possible latency. | ||||
For transmitting streams that require more bandwidth than a single | ||||
link in the target network can support, link aggregation is a | ||||
technique for combining (aggregating) the bandwidth available on | ||||
multiple physical links to create a single logical link of the | ||||
required bandwidth. However, if aggregation is to be used, the | ||||
network controller (or equivalent) must be able to determine the | ||||
maximum latency of any path through the aggregate link. | ||||
12.5. Pro Audio and Video - Deterministic Time to Establish Streaming | ||||
The DetNet Working Group has decided that guidelines for establishing | ||||
a deterministic time to establish stream startup are not within scope | ||||
of DetNet. If bounded timing of establishing or re-establish streams | ||||
is required in a given use case, it is up to the application/system | ||||
to achieve this. | ||||
13. Security Considerations | ||||
This document covers a number of representative applications and | This document covers a number of representative applications and | |||
network scenarios that are expected to make use of DetNet | network scenarios that are expected to make use of DetNet | |||
technologies. Each of the potential DetNet uses cases will have | technologies. Each of the potential DetNet uses cases will have | |||
security considerations from both the use-specific and DetNet | security considerations from both the use-specific and DetNet | |||
technology perspectives. While some use-specific security | technology perspectives. While some use-specific security | |||
considerations are discussed above, a more comprehensive discussion | considerations are discussed above, a more comprehensive discussion | |||
of such considerations is captured in DetNet Security Considerations | of such considerations is captured in DetNet Security Considerations | |||
[I-D.ietf-detnet-security]. Readers are encouraged to review this | [I-D.ietf-detnet-security]. Readers are encouraged to review this | |||
document to gain a more complete understanding of DetNet related | document to gain a more complete understanding of DetNet related | |||
security considerations. | security considerations. | |||
14. Contributors | 13. Contributors | |||
RFC7322 limits the number of authors listed on the front page of a | RFC7322 limits the number of authors listed on the front page of a | |||
draft to a maximum of 5, far fewer than the 20 individuals below who | draft to a maximum of 5, far fewer than the 20 individuals below who | |||
made important contributions to this draft. The editor wishes to | made important contributions to this draft. The editor wishes to | |||
thank and acknowledge each of the following authors for contributing | thank and acknowledge each of the following authors for contributing | |||
text to this draft. See also Section 15. | text to this draft. See also Section 14. | |||
Craig Gunther (Harman International) | Craig Gunther (Harman International) | |||
10653 South River Front Parkway, South Jordan,UT 84095 | 10653 South River Front Parkway, South Jordan,UT 84095 | |||
phone +1 801 568-7675, email craig.gunther@harman.com | phone +1 801 568-7675, email craig.gunther@harman.com | |||
Pascal Thubert (Cisco Systems, Inc) | Pascal Thubert (Cisco Systems, Inc) | |||
Building D, 45 Allee des Ormes - BP1200, MOUGINS | Building D, 45 Allee des Ormes - BP1200, MOUGINS | |||
Sophia Antipolis 06254 FRANCE | Sophia Antipolis 06254 FRANCE | |||
phone +33 497 23 26 34, email pthubert@cisco.com | phone +33 497 23 26 34, email pthubert@cisco.com | |||
skipping to change at page 78, line 37 ¶ | skipping to change at page 75, line 41 ¶ | |||
Xuesong Geng (Huawei Technologies) | Xuesong Geng (Huawei Technologies) | |||
email gengxuesong@huawei.com | email gengxuesong@huawei.com | |||
Diego Dujovne (Universidad Diego Portales) | Diego Dujovne (Universidad Diego Portales) | |||
email diego.dujovne@mail.udp.cl | email diego.dujovne@mail.udp.cl | |||
Maik Seewald (Cisco Systems) | Maik Seewald (Cisco Systems) | |||
email maseewal@cisco.com | email maseewal@cisco.com | |||
15. Acknowledgments | 14. Acknowledgments | |||
15.1. Pro Audio | 14.1. Pro Audio | |||
This section was derived from draft-gunther-detnet-proaudio-req-01. | This section was derived from draft-gunther-detnet-proaudio-req-01. | |||
The editors would like to acknowledge the help of the following | The editors would like to acknowledge the help of the following | |||
individuals and the companies they represent: | individuals and the companies they represent: | |||
Jeff Koftinoff, Meyer Sound | Jeff Koftinoff, Meyer Sound | |||
Jouni Korhonen, Associate Technical Director, Broadcom | Jouni Korhonen, Associate Technical Director, Broadcom | |||
Pascal Thubert, CTAO, Cisco | Pascal Thubert, CTAO, Cisco | |||
Kieran Tyrrell, Sienda New Media Technologies GmbH | Kieran Tyrrell, Sienda New Media Technologies GmbH | |||
15.2. Utility Telecom | 14.2. Utility Telecom | |||
This section was derived from draft-wetterwald-detnet-utilities-reqs- | This section was derived from draft-wetterwald-detnet-utilities-reqs- | |||
02. | 02. | |||
Faramarz Maghsoodlou, Ph. D. IoT Connected Industries and Energy | Faramarz Maghsoodlou, Ph. D. IoT Connected Industries and Energy | |||
Practice Cisco | Practice Cisco | |||
Pascal Thubert, CTAO Cisco | Pascal Thubert, CTAO Cisco | |||
The wind power generation use case has been extracted from the study | The wind power generation use case has been extracted from the study | |||
of Wind Farms conducted within the 5GPPP Virtuwind Project. The | of Wind Farms conducted within the 5GPPP Virtuwind Project. The | |||
project is funded by the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and | project is funded by the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and | |||
innovation programme under grant agreement No 671648 (VirtuWind). | innovation programme under grant agreement No 671648 (VirtuWind). | |||
15.3. Building Automation Systems | 14.3. Building Automation Systems | |||
This section was derived from draft-bas-usecase-detnet-00. | This section was derived from draft-bas-usecase-detnet-00. | |||
15.4. Wireless for Industrial | 14.4. Wireless for Industrial Applications | |||
This section was derived from draft-thubert-6tisch-4detnet-01. | This section was derived from draft-thubert-6tisch-4detnet-01. | |||
This specification derives from the 6TiSCH architecture, which is the | This specification derives from the 6TiSCH architecture, which is the | |||
result of multiple interactions, in particular during the 6TiSCH | result of multiple interactions, in particular during the 6TiSCH | |||
(bi)Weekly Interim call, relayed through the 6TiSCH mailing list at | (bi)Weekly Interim call, relayed through the 6TiSCH mailing list at | |||
the IETF. | the IETF. | |||
The authors wish to thank: Kris Pister, Thomas Watteyne, Xavier | The authors wish to thank: Kris Pister, Thomas Watteyne, Xavier | |||
Vilajosana, Qin Wang, Tom Phinney, Robert Assimiti, Michael | Vilajosana, Qin Wang, Tom Phinney, Robert Assimiti, Michael | |||
Richardson, Zhuo Chen, Malisa Vucinic, Alfredo Grieco, Martin Turon, | Richardson, Zhuo Chen, Malisa Vucinic, Alfredo Grieco, Martin Turon, | |||
Dominique Barthel, Elvis Vogli, Guillaume Gaillard, Herman Storey, | Dominique Barthel, Elvis Vogli, Guillaume Gaillard, Herman Storey, | |||
Maria Rita Palattella, Nicola Accettura, Patrick Wetterwald, Pouria | Maria Rita Palattella, Nicola Accettura, Patrick Wetterwald, Pouria | |||
Zand, Raghuram Sudhaakar, and Shitanshu Shah for their participation | Zand, Raghuram Sudhaakar, and Shitanshu Shah for their participation | |||
and various contributions. | and various contributions. | |||
15.5. Cellular Radio | 14.5. Cellular Radio | |||
This section was derived from draft-korhonen-detnet-telreq-00. | This section was derived from draft-korhonen-detnet-telreq-00. | |||
15.6. Industrial M2M | 14.6. Industrial Machine to Machine (M2M) | |||
The authors would like to thank Feng Chen and Marcel Kiessling for | The authors would like to thank Feng Chen and Marcel Kiessling for | |||
their comments and suggestions. | their comments and suggestions. | |||
15.7. Internet Applications and CoMP | 14.7. Internet Applications and CoMP | |||
This section was derived from draft-zha-detnet-use-case-00 by Yiyong | This section was derived from draft-zha-detnet-use-case-00 by Yiyong | |||
Zha. | Zha. | |||
This document has benefited from reviews, suggestions, comments and | This document has benefited from reviews, suggestions, comments and | |||
proposed text provided by the following members, listed in | proposed text provided by the following members, listed in | |||
alphabetical order: Jing Huang, Junru Lin, Lehong Niu and Oilver | alphabetical order: Jing Huang, Junru Lin, Lehong Niu and Oilver | |||
Huang. | Huang. | |||
15.8. Network Slicing | 14.8. Network Slicing | |||
This section was written by Xuesong Geng, who would like to | This section was written by Xuesong Geng, who would like to | |||
acknowledge Norm Finn and Mach Chen for their useful comments. | acknowledge Norm Finn and Mach Chen for their useful comments. | |||
15.9. Mining | 14.9. Mining | |||
This section was written by Diego Dujovne in conjunction with Xavier | This section was written by Diego Dujovne in conjunction with Xavier | |||
Vilasojana. | Vilasojana. | |||
15.10. Private Blockchain | 14.10. Private Blockchain | |||
This section was written by Daniel Huang. | This section was written by Daniel Huang. | |||
16. IANA Considerations | 15. IANA Considerations | |||
This memo includes no requests from IANA. | This memo includes no requests from IANA. | |||
17. Informative References | 16. Informative References | |||
[Ahm14] Ahmed, M. and R. Kim, "Communication network architectures | [Ahm14] Ahmed, M. and R. Kim, "Communication network architectures | |||
for smart-wind power farms.", Energies, p. 3900-3921. , | for smart-wind power farms.", Energies, p. 3900-3921. , | |||
June 2014. | June 2014. | |||
[bacnetip] | [bacnetip] | |||
ASHRAE, "Annex J to ANSI/ASHRAE 135-1995 - BACnet/IP", | ASHRAE, "Annex J to ANSI/ASHRAE 135-1995 - BACnet/IP", | |||
January 1999. | January 1999. | |||
[CoMP] NGMN Alliance, "RAN EVOLUTION PROJECT COMP EVALUATION AND | [CoMP] NGMN Alliance, "RAN EVOLUTION PROJECT COMP EVALUATION AND | |||
skipping to change at page 81, line 38 ¶ | skipping to change at page 78, line 43 ¶ | |||
<http://www.ieee1904.org/3/meeting_archive/2015/02/ | <http://www.ieee1904.org/3/meeting_archive/2015/02/ | |||
tf3_1502_che n_1a.pdf>. | tf3_1502_che n_1a.pdf>. | |||
[I-D.ietf-6tisch-6top-interface] | [I-D.ietf-6tisch-6top-interface] | |||
Wang, Q. and X. Vilajosana, "6TiSCH Operation Sublayer | Wang, Q. and X. Vilajosana, "6TiSCH Operation Sublayer | |||
(6top) Interface", draft-ietf-6tisch-6top-interface-04 | (6top) Interface", draft-ietf-6tisch-6top-interface-04 | |||
(work in progress), July 2015. | (work in progress), July 2015. | |||
[I-D.ietf-6tisch-architecture] | [I-D.ietf-6tisch-architecture] | |||
Thubert, P., "An Architecture for IPv6 over the TSCH mode | Thubert, P., "An Architecture for IPv6 over the TSCH mode | |||
of IEEE 802.15.4", draft-ietf-6tisch-architecture-14 (work | of IEEE 802.15.4", draft-ietf-6tisch-architecture-19 (work | |||
in progress), April 2018. | in progress), December 2018. | |||
[I-D.ietf-6tisch-coap] | [I-D.ietf-6tisch-coap] | |||
Sudhaakar, R. and P. Zand, "6TiSCH Resource Management and | Sudhaakar, R. and P. Zand, "6TiSCH Resource Management and | |||
Interaction using CoAP", draft-ietf-6tisch-coap-03 (work | Interaction using CoAP", draft-ietf-6tisch-coap-03 (work | |||
in progress), March 2015. | in progress), March 2015. | |||
[I-D.ietf-detnet-architecture] | [I-D.ietf-detnet-architecture] | |||
Finn, N., Thubert, P., Varga, B., and J. Farkas, | Finn, N., Thubert, P., Varga, B., and J. Farkas, | |||
"Deterministic Networking Architecture", draft-ietf- | "Deterministic Networking Architecture", draft-ietf- | |||
detnet-architecture-08 (work in progress), September 2018. | detnet-architecture-09 (work in progress), October 2018. | |||
[I-D.ietf-detnet-problem-statement] | [I-D.ietf-detnet-problem-statement] | |||
Finn, N. and P. Thubert, "Deterministic Networking Problem | Finn, N. and P. Thubert, "Deterministic Networking Problem | |||
Statement", draft-ietf-detnet-problem-statement-07 (work | Statement", draft-ietf-detnet-problem-statement-08 (work | |||
in progress), October 2018. | in progress), December 2018. | |||
[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., Stanton, K., and N. Finn, "Deterministic | J., Austad, H., Stanton, K., and N. Finn, "Deterministic | |||
Networking (DetNet) Security Considerations", draft-ietf- | Networking (DetNet) Security Considerations", draft-ietf- | |||
detnet-security-02 (work in progress), April 2018. | detnet-security-03 (work in progress), October 2018. | |||
[I-D.ietf-tictoc-1588overmpls] | [I-D.ietf-tictoc-1588overmpls] | |||
Davari, S., Oren, A., Bhatia, M., Roberts, P., and L. | Davari, S., Oren, A., Bhatia, M., Roberts, P., and L. | |||
Montini, "Transporting Timing messages over MPLS | Montini, "Transporting Timing messages over MPLS | |||
Networks", draft-ietf-tictoc-1588overmpls-07 (work in | Networks", draft-ietf-tictoc-1588overmpls-07 (work in | |||
progress), October 2015. | progress), October 2015. | |||
[I-D.kh-spring-ip-ran-use-case] | [I-D.kh-spring-ip-ran-use-case] | |||
Khasnabish, B., hu, f., and L. Contreras, "Segment Routing | Khasnabish, B., hu, f., and L. Contreras, "Segment Routing | |||
in IP RAN use case", draft-kh-spring-ip-ran-use-case-02 | in IP RAN use case", draft-kh-spring-ip-ran-use-case-02 | |||
skipping to change at page 86, line 42 ¶ | skipping to change at page 83, line 47 ¶ | |||
[SRP_LATENCY] | [SRP_LATENCY] | |||
Gunther, C., "Specifying SRP Latency", 2014, | Gunther, C., "Specifying SRP Latency", 2014, | |||
<http://www.ieee802.org/1/files/public/docs2014/ | <http://www.ieee802.org/1/files/public/docs2014/ | |||
cc-cgunther-acceptable-latency-0314-v01.pdf>. | cc-cgunther-acceptable-latency-0314-v01.pdf>. | |||
[SyncE] ITU-T, "G.8261 : Timing and synchronization aspects in | [SyncE] ITU-T, "G.8261 : Timing and synchronization aspects in | |||
packet networks", Recommendation G.8261, August 2013, | packet networks", Recommendation G.8261, August 2013, | |||
<http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-G.8261>. | <http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-G.8261>. | |||
[TR38801] IEEE Standards Association, "3GPP TR 38.801, Technical | [TR38501] 3GPP, "3GPP TS 38.501, Technical Specification System | |||
Specification Group Radio Access Network; Study on new | Architecture for the 5G System (Release 15)", 2017, | |||
radio access technology: Radio access architecture and | <https://portal.3gpp.org/desktopmodules/Specifications/ | |||
interfaces (Release 14)", 2017, | SpecificationDetails.aspx?specificationId=3144>. | |||
[TR38801] 3GPP, "3GPP TR 38.801, Technical Specification Group Radio | ||||
Access Network; Study on new radio access technology: | ||||
Radio access architecture and interfaces (Release 14)", | ||||
2017, | ||||
<https://portal.3gpp.org/desktopmodules/Specifications/ | <https://portal.3gpp.org/desktopmodules/Specifications/ | |||
SpecificationDetails.aspx?specificationId=3056>. | SpecificationDetails.aspx?specificationId=3056>. | |||
[TS23401] 3GPP, "General Packet Radio Service (GPRS) enhancements | [TS23401] 3GPP, "General Packet Radio Service (GPRS) enhancements | |||
for Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access Network | for Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access Network | |||
(E-UTRAN) access", 3GPP TS 23.401 10.10.0, March 2013. | (E-UTRAN) access", 3GPP TS 23.401 10.10.0, March 2013. | |||
[TS25104] 3GPP, "Base Station (BS) radio transmission and reception | [TS25104] 3GPP, "Base Station (BS) radio transmission and reception | |||
(FDD)", 3GPP TS 25.104 3.14.0, March 2007. | (FDD)", 3GPP TS 25.104 3.14.0, March 2007. | |||
skipping to change at page 87, line 34 ¶ | skipping to change at page 84, line 45 ¶ | |||
[TSNTG] IEEE Standards Association, "IEEE 802.1 Time-Sensitive | [TSNTG] IEEE Standards Association, "IEEE 802.1 Time-Sensitive | |||
Networks Task Group", 2013, | Networks Task Group", 2013, | |||
<http://www.IEEE802.org/1/pages/avbridges.html>. | <http://www.IEEE802.org/1/pages/avbridges.html>. | |||
[WirelessHART] | [WirelessHART] | |||
www.hartcomm.org, "Industrial Communication Networks - | www.hartcomm.org, "Industrial Communication Networks - | |||
Wireless Communication Network and Communication Profiles | Wireless Communication Network and Communication Profiles | |||
- WirelessHART - IEC 62591", 2010. | - WirelessHART - IEC 62591", 2010. | |||
Appendix A. Use Cases Explicitly Out of Scope for DetNet | ||||
This section contains use case text that has been determined to be | ||||
outside of the scope of the present DetNet work. | ||||
A.1. DetNet Scope Limitations | ||||
The scope of DetNet is deliberately limited to specific use cases | ||||
that are consistent with the WG charter, subject to the | ||||
interpretation of the WG. At the time the DetNet Use Cases were | ||||
solicited and provided by the authors the scope of DetNet was not | ||||
clearly defined, and as that clarity has emerged, certain of the use | ||||
cases have been determined to be outside the scope of the present | ||||
DetNet work. Such text has been moved into this section to clarify | ||||
that these use cases will not be supported by the DetNet work. | ||||
The text in this section was moved here based on the following | ||||
"exclusion" principles. Or, as an alternative to moving all such | ||||
text to this section, some draft text has been modified in situ to | ||||
reflect these same principles. | ||||
The following principles have been established to clarify the scope | ||||
of the present DetNet work. | ||||
o The scope of network addressed by DetNet is limited to networks | ||||
that can be centrally controlled, i.e. an "enterprise" aka | ||||
"corporate" network. This explicitly excludes "the open | ||||
Internet". | ||||
o Maintaining synchronized time across a DetNet network is crucial | ||||
to its operation, however DetNet assumes that time is to be | ||||
maintained using other means, for example (but not limited to) | ||||
Precision Time Protocol ([IEEE1588]). A use case may state the | ||||
accuracy and reliability that it expects from the DetNet network | ||||
as part of a whole system, however it is understood that such | ||||
timing properties are not guaranteed by DetNet itself. At the | ||||
time of this writing it is an open question as to whether DetNet | ||||
protocols will include a way for an application to communicate | ||||
such timing expectations to the network, and if so whether they | ||||
would be expected to materially affect the performance they would | ||||
receive from the network as a result. | ||||
A.2. Internet-based Applications | ||||
There are many applications that communicate over the open Internet | ||||
that could benefit from guaranteed delivery and bounded latency. | ||||
However as noted above, all such applications when run over the open | ||||
Internet are out of scope for DetNet. These same applications may be | ||||
in-scope when run in constrained environments, i.e. within a | ||||
centrally controlled DetNet network. The following are some examples | ||||
of such applications. | ||||
A.2.1. Use Case Description | ||||
A.2.1.1. Media Content Delivery | ||||
Media content delivery continues to be an important use of the | ||||
Internet, yet users often experience poor quality audio and video due | ||||
to the delay and jitter inherent in today's Internet. | ||||
A.2.1.2. Online Gaming | ||||
Online gaming is a significant part of the gaming market, however | ||||
latency can degrade the end user experience. For example "First | ||||
Person Shooter" games are highly delay-sensitive. | ||||
A.2.1.3. Virtual Reality | ||||
Virtual reality has many commercial applications including real | ||||
estate presentations, remote medical procedures, and so on. Low | ||||
latency is critical to interacting with the virtual world because | ||||
perceptual delays can cause motion sickness. | ||||
A.2.2. Internet-Based Applications Today | ||||
Internet service today is by definition "best-effort", with no | ||||
guarantees on delivery or bandwidth. | ||||
A.2.3. Internet-Based Applications Future | ||||
An Internet from which one can play a video without glitches and play | ||||
games without lag. | ||||
For online gaming, the maximum round-trip delay can be 100ms and | ||||
stricter for FPS gaming which can be 10-50ms. Transport delay is the | ||||
dominate part with a 5-20ms budget. | ||||
For VR, 1-10ms maximum delay is needed and total network budget is | ||||
1-5ms if doing remote VR. | ||||
Flow identification can be used for gaming and VR, i.e. it can | ||||
recognize a critical flow and provide appropriate latency bounds. | ||||
A.2.4. Internet-Based Applications Asks | ||||
o Unified control and management protocols to handle time-critical | ||||
data flow | ||||
o Application-aware flow filtering mechanism to recognize the timing | ||||
critical flow without doing 5-tuple matching | ||||
o Unified control plane to provide low latency service on Layer-3 | ||||
without changing the data plane | ||||
o OAM system and protocols which can help to provide E2E-delay | ||||
sensitive service provisioning | ||||
A.3. Pro Audio and Video - Digital Rights Management (DRM) | ||||
This section was moved here because this is considered a Link layer | ||||
topic, not direct responsibility of DetNet. | ||||
Digital Rights Management (DRM) is very important to the audio and | ||||
video industries. Any time protected content is introduced into a | ||||
network there are DRM concerns that must be maintained (see | ||||
[CONTENT_PROTECTION]). Many aspects of DRM are outside the scope of | ||||
network technology, however there are cases when a secure link | ||||
supporting authentication and encryption is required by content | ||||
owners to carry their audio or video content when it is outside their | ||||
own secure environment (for example see [DCI]). | ||||
As an example, two techniques are Digital Transmission Content | ||||
Protection (DTCP) and High-Bandwidth Digital Content Protection | ||||
(HDCP). HDCP content is not approved for retransmission within any | ||||
other type of DRM, while DTCP may be retransmitted under HDCP. | ||||
Therefore if the source of a stream is outside of the network and it | ||||
uses HDCP protection it is only allowed to be placed on the network | ||||
with that same HDCP protection. | ||||
A.4. Pro Audio and Video - Link Aggregation | ||||
Note: The term "Link Aggregation" is used here as defined by the text | ||||
in the following paragraph, i.e. not following a more common Network | ||||
Industry definition. | ||||
For transmitting streams that require more bandwidth than a single | ||||
link in the target network can support, link aggregation is a | ||||
technique for combining (aggregating) the bandwidth available on | ||||
multiple physical links to create a single logical link of the | ||||
required bandwidth. However, if aggregation is to be used, the | ||||
network controller (or equivalent) must be able to determine the | ||||
maximum latency of any path through the aggregate link. | ||||
A.5. Pro Audio and Video - Deterministic Time to Establish Streaming | ||||
The DetNet Working Group has decided that guidelines for establishing | ||||
a deterministic time to establish stream startup are not within scope | ||||
of DetNet. If bounded timing of establishing or re-establish streams | ||||
is required in a given use case, it is up to the application/system | ||||
to achieve this. | ||||
Author's Address | Author's Address | |||
Ethan Grossman (editor) | Ethan Grossman (editor) | |||
Dolby Laboratories, Inc. | Dolby Laboratories, Inc. | |||
1275 Market Street | 1275 Market Street | |||
San Francisco, CA 94103 | San Francisco, CA 94103 | |||
USA | USA | |||
Phone: +1 415 645 4726 | Phone: +1 415 645 4726 | |||
Email: ethan.grossman@dolby.com | Email: ethan.grossman@dolby.com | |||
End of changes. 103 change blocks. | ||||
421 lines changed or deleted | 434 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/ |