draft-ietf-detnet-architecture-00.txt   draft-ietf-detnet-architecture-01.txt 
DetNet N. Finn DetNet N. Finn
Internet-Draft Self-employed Internet-Draft Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd
Intended status: Standards Track P. Thubert Intended status: Standards Track P. Thubert
Expires: March 30, 2017 Cisco Expires: September 14, 2017 Cisco
September 26, 2016 B. Varga
J. Farkas
Ericsson
March 13, 2017
Deterministic Networking Architecture Deterministic Networking Architecture
draft-ietf-detnet-architecture-00 draft-ietf-detnet-architecture-01
Abstract Abstract
Deterministic Networking (DetNet) provides a capability to carry Deterministic Networking (DetNet) provides a capability to carry
specified unicast or multicast data flows for real-time applications specified unicast or multicast data flows for real-time applications
with extremely low data loss rates and bounded latency. Techniques with extremely low data loss rates and bounded latency. Techniques
used include: 1) reserving data plane resources for individual (or used include: 1) reserving data plane resources for individual (or
aggregated) DetNet flows in some or all of the intermediate nodes aggregated) DetNet flows in some or all of the intermediate nodes
(e.g. bridges or routers) along the path of the flow; 2) providing (e.g. bridges or routers) along the path of the flow; 2) providing
explicit routes for DetNet flows that do not rapidly change with the explicit routes for DetNet flows that do not rapidly change with the
skipping to change at page 1, line 41 skipping to change at page 1, line 44
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 http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://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 March 30, 2017. This Internet-Draft will expire on September 14, 2017.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2017 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
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. Terms used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.1. Terms used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. IEEE 802 TSN to DetNet dictionary . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.2. IEEE 802 TSN to DetNet dictionary . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. Providing the DetNet Quality of Service . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3. Providing the DetNet Quality of Service . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1. Congestion protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.1. Congestion protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.2. Explicit routes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.2. Explicit routes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.3. Jitter Reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.3. Jitter Reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.4. Packet Replication and Elimination . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.4. Packet Replication and Elimination . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.5. Packet encoding for service protection . . . . . . . . . 11 3.5. Packet encoding for service protection . . . . . . . . . 12
4. DetNet Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4. DetNet Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.1. Traffic Engineering for DetNet . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4.1. DetNet systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.1.1. The Application Plane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4.1.1. Network reference model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.1.2. The Controller Plane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 4.1.2. End system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.1.3. The Network Plane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 4.2. Traffic Engineering for DetNet . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.2. DetNet flows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 4.2.1. The Application Plane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.2.1. Source guarantees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 4.2.2. The Controller Plane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.2.2. Incomplete Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 4.2.3. The Network Plane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.3. Queuing, Shaping, Scheduling, and Preemption . . . . . . 16 4.3. DetNet flows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.4. Coexistence with normal traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 4.3.1. DetNet flow types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.5. Fault Mitigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 4.3.2. Source guarantees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4.6. Representative Protocol Stack Model . . . . . . . . . . . 18 4.3.3. Incomplete Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4.7. Exporting flow identification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 4.4. Queuing, Shaping, Scheduling, and Preemption . . . . . . 20
4.8. Advertising resources, capabilities and adjacencies . . . 22 4.5. Service instance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
4.9. Provisioning model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 4.6. Coexistence with normal traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
4.9.1. Centralized Path Computation and Installation . . . . 22 4.7. Fault Mitigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
4.9.2. Distributed Path Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 4.8. Representative Protocol Stack Model . . . . . . . . . . . 24
4.10. Scaling to larger networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 4.9. Flow identification at technology borders . . . . . . . . 26
4.11. Connected islands vs. networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 4.9.1. Exporting flow identification . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
5. Compatibility with Layer-2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 4.9.2. Flow attribute mapping between layers . . . . . . . . 27
6. Open Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 4.9.3. Flow-ID mapping examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
6.1. Flat vs. hierarchical control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
6.2. Peer-to-peer reservation protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 4.10. Advertising resources, capabilities and adjacencies . . . 30
6.3. Wireless media interactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 4.11. Provisioning model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 4.11.1. Centralized Path Computation and Installation . . . 31
8. Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 4.11.2. Distributed Path Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 4.12. Scaling to larger networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 4.13. Connected islands vs. networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
11. Access to IEEE 802.1 documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 5. Compatibility with Layer-2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
12. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 6. Open Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 6.1. Flat vs. hierarchical control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
6.2. Peer-to-peer reservation protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
6.3. Wireless media interactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
8. Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
11. Access to IEEE 802.1 documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
12. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
Deterministic Networking (DetNet) is a service that can be offered by Deterministic Networking (DetNet) is a service that can be offered by
a network to DetNet flows. DetNet provides these flows extremely low a network to DetNet flows. DetNet provides these flows extremely low
packet loss rates and assured maximum end-to-end delivery latency. packet loss rates and assured maximum end-to-end delivery latency.
This is accomplished by dedicating network resources such as link This is accomplished by dedicating network resources such as link
bandwidth and buffer space to DetNet flows and/or classes of DetNet bandwidth and buffer space to DetNet flows and/or classes of DetNet
flows, and by replicating packets along multiple paths. Unused flows, and by replicating packets along multiple paths. Unused
reserved resources are available to non-DetNet packets. reserved resources are available to non-DetNet packets.
skipping to change at page 3, line 44 skipping to change at page 4, line 11
topologies; connectivity is not restricted. Any application that topologies; connectivity is not restricted. Any application that
generates a data flow that can be usefully characterized as having a generates a data flow that can be usefully characterized as having a
maximum bandwidth should be able to take advantage of DetNet, as long maximum bandwidth should be able to take advantage of DetNet, as long
as the necessary resources can be reserved. Reservations can be made as the necessary resources can be reserved. Reservations can be made
by the application itself, via network management, by an applications by the application itself, via network management, by an applications
controller, or by other means. controller, or by other means.
Many applications of interest to Deterministic Networking require the Many applications of interest to Deterministic Networking require the
ability to synchronize the clocks in end systems to a sub-microsecond ability to synchronize the clocks in end systems to a sub-microsecond
accuracy. Some of the queue control techniques defined in accuracy. Some of the queue control techniques defined in
Section 4.3 also require time synchronization among relay and transit Section 4.4 also require time synchronization among relay and transit
nodes. The means used to achieve time synchronization are not nodes. The means used to achieve time synchronization are not
addressed in this document. DetNet should accommodate various addressed in this document. DetNet should accommodate various
synchronization techniques and profiles that are defined elsewhere to synchronization techniques and profiles that are defined elsewhere to
solve exchange time in different market segments. solve exchange time in different market segments.
The present document is an individual contribution, but it is The present document is an individual contribution, but it is
intended by the authors for adoption by the DetNet working group. intended by the authors for adoption by the DetNet working group.
2. Terminology 2. Terminology
2.1. Terms used in this document 2.1. Terms used in this document
The following special terms are used in this document in order to The following special terms are used in this document in order to
avoid the assumption that a given element in the architecture does or avoid the assumption that a given element in the architecture does or
does not have Internet Protocol stack, functions as a router, bridge, does not have Internet Protocol stack, functions as a router, bridge,
firewall, or otherwise plays a particular role at Layer-2 or higher. firewall, or otherwise plays a particular role at Layer-2 or higher.
App-flow
The native format of a DetNet flow.
destination destination
An end system capable of receiving a DetNet flow. An end system capable of receiving a DetNet flow.
DetNet domain DetNet domain
The portion of a network that is DetNet aware. It includes The portion of a network that is DetNet aware. It includes
end systems and other DetNet nodes. end systems and other DetNet nodes.
DetNet flow DetNet flow
A DetNet flow is a sequence of packets to which the DetNet A DetNet flow is a sequence of packets to which the DetNet
service is to be provided. service is to be provided.
skipping to change at page 4, line 45 skipping to change at page 5, line 16
A DetNet relay node or transit node. A DetNet relay node or transit node.
DetNet edge node DetNet edge node
An instance of a DetNet relay node that includes either a An instance of a DetNet relay node that includes either a
DetNet service layer proxy function for DetNet service DetNet service layer proxy function for DetNet service
protection (e.g. the addition or removal of packet sequencing protection (e.g. the addition or removal of packet sequencing
information) for one or more end systems, or starts or information) for one or more end systems, or starts or
terminates congestion protection at the DetNet transport terminates congestion protection at the DetNet transport
layer, analogous to a Label Edge Router (LER). layer, analogous to a Label Edge Router (LER).
DetNet-UNI
User-to-Network Interface with DetNet specific
functionalities. It is a packet-based reference point and
may provide multiple functions like encapsulation, status,
synchronization, etc.
end system end system
Commonly called a "host" or "node" in IETF documents, and an Commonly called a "host" or "node" in IETF documents, and an
"end station" is IEEE 802 documents. End systems of interest "end station" is IEEE 802 documents. End systems of interest
to this document are either sources or destinations of DetNet to this document are either sources or destinations of DetNet
flows. And end system may or may not be DetNet transport flows. And end system may or may not be DetNet transport
layer aware or DetNet service layer aware. layer aware or DetNet service layer aware.
link link
A connection between two DetNet nodes. It may be composed of A connection between two DetNet nodes. It may be composed of
a physical link or a sub-network technology that can provide a physical link or a sub-network technology that can provide
skipping to change at page 5, line 46 skipping to change at page 6, line 23
link layer and/or network layer switching across multiple link layer and/or network layer switching across multiple
links and/or sub-networks to provide paths for DetNet service links and/or sub-networks to provide paths for DetNet service
layer functions. Optionally provides congestion protection layer functions. Optionally provides congestion protection
over those paths. An MPLS LSR is an example of a DetNet over those paths. An MPLS LSR is an example of a DetNet
transit node. transit node.
DetNet transport layer DetNet transport layer
The layer that optionally provides congestion protection for The layer that optionally provides congestion protection for
DetNet flows over paths provided by the underlying network. DetNet flows over paths provided by the underlying network.
TSN
Time-Sensitive Networking, TSN is a Task Group of the IEEE
802.1 Working Group.
2.2. IEEE 802 TSN to DetNet dictionary 2.2. IEEE 802 TSN to DetNet dictionary
This section also serves as a dictionary for translating from the This section also serves as a dictionary for translating from the
terms used by the IEEE 802 Time-Sensitive Networking (TSN) Task Group terms used by the IEEE 802 Time-Sensitive Networking (TSN) Task Group
to those of the DetNet WG. to those of the DetNet WG.
Listener Listener
The IEEE 802 term for a destination of a DetNet flow. The IEEE 802 term for a destination of a DetNet flow.
relay system relay system
skipping to change at page 8, line 27 skipping to change at page 9, line 10
The primary means by which DetNet achieves its QoS assurances is to The primary means by which DetNet achieves its QoS assurances is to
reduce, or even completely eliminate, congestion at an output port as reduce, or even completely eliminate, congestion at an output port as
a cause of packet loss. Given that a DetNet flow cannot be a cause of packet loss. Given that a DetNet flow cannot be
throttled, this can be achieved only by the provision of sufficient throttled, this can be achieved only by the provision of sufficient
buffer storage at each hop through the network to ensure that no buffer storage at each hop through the network to ensure that no
packets are dropped due to a lack of buffer storage. packets are dropped due to a lack of buffer storage.
Ensuring adequate buffering requires, in turn, that the source, and Ensuring adequate buffering requires, in turn, that the source, and
every intermediate node along the path to the destination (or nearly every intermediate node along the path to the destination (or nearly
every node -- see Section 4.2.2) be careful to regulate its output to every node -- see Section 4.3.3) be careful to regulate its output to
not exceed the data rate for any DetNet flow, except for brief not exceed the data rate for any DetNet flow, except for brief
periods when making up for interfering traffic. Any packet sent periods when making up for interfering traffic. Any packet sent
ahead of its time potentially adds to the number of buffers required ahead of its time potentially adds to the number of buffers required
by the next hop, and may thus exceed the resources allocated for a by the next hop, and may thus exceed the resources allocated for a
particular DetNet flow. particular DetNet flow.
The low-level mechanisms described in Section 4.3 provide the The low-level mechanisms described in Section 4.4 provide the
necessary regulation of transmissions by an end system or necessary regulation of transmissions by an end system or
intermediate node to provide congestion protection. The reservation intermediate node to provide congestion protection. The reservation
of the bandwidth and buffers for a DetNet flow requires the of the bandwidth and buffers for a DetNet flow requires the
provisioning described in Section 4.9. A DetNet node may have other provisioning described in Section 4.11. A DetNet node may have other
resources requiring allocation and/or scheduling, that might resources requiring allocation and/or scheduling, that might
otherwise be over-subscribed and trigger the rejection of a otherwise be over-subscribed and trigger the rejection of a
reservation. reservation.
3.2. Explicit routes 3.2. Explicit routes
In networks controlled by typical peer-to-peer protocols such as IEEE In networks controlled by typical peer-to-peer protocols such as IEEE
802.1 ISIS bridged networks or IETF OSPF routed networks, a network 802.1 ISIS bridged networks or IETF OSPF routed networks, a network
topology event in one part of the network can impact, at least topology event in one part of the network can impact, at least
briefly, the delivery of data in parts of the network remote from the briefly, the delivery of data in parts of the network remote from the
skipping to change at page 10, line 8 skipping to change at page 10, line 40
practical limitations on packet-based networks in this regard. In practical limitations on packet-based networks in this regard. In
general, users are encouraged to use, instead of, "do this when you general, users are encouraged to use, instead of, "do this when you
get the packet," a combination of: get the packet," a combination of:
o Sub-microsecond time synchronization among all source and o Sub-microsecond time synchronization among all source and
destination end systems, and destination end systems, and
o Time-of-execution fields in the application packets. o Time-of-execution fields in the application packets.
Jitter reduction is provided by the mechanisms described in Jitter reduction is provided by the mechanisms described in
Section 4.3 that also provide congestion protection. Section 4.4 that also provide congestion protection.
3.4. Packet Replication and Elimination 3.4. Packet Replication and Elimination
After congestion loss has been eliminated, the most important causes After congestion loss has been eliminated, the most important causes
of packet loss are random media and/or memory faults, and equipment of packet loss are random media and/or memory faults, and equipment
failures. Both causes of packet loss can be greatly reduced by failures. Both causes of packet loss can be greatly reduced by
spreading the data in a packet over multiple transmissions. One such spreading the data in a packet over multiple transmissions. One such
method for service protection is described in this section, which method for service protection is described in this section, which
sends the same packets over multiple paths. See also Section 3.5. sends the same packets over multiple paths. See also Section 3.5.
skipping to change at page 12, line 12 skipping to change at page 12, line 48
transmission unit. Such techniques may be applicable for use as a transmission unit. Such techniques may be applicable for use as a
DetNet service protection technique, assuming that the DetNet users' DetNet service protection technique, assuming that the DetNet users'
needs for timeliness of delivery and freedom from interference with needs for timeliness of delivery and freedom from interference with
misbehaving DetNet flows can be met. misbehaving DetNet flows can be met.
No specific mechanisms are defined here, at this time. This section No specific mechanisms are defined here, at this time. This section
will either be enhanced or removed. Contributions are invited. will either be enhanced or removed. Contributions are invited.
4. DetNet Architecture 4. DetNet Architecture
4.1. Traffic Engineering for DetNet 4.1. DetNet systems
4.1.1. Network reference model
The figure below shows the DetNet service related reference points
and main components (Figure 2).
DetNet DetNet
end system end system
_ _
/ \ +----DetNet-UNI (U) / \
/App\ | /App\
/-----\ | /-----\
| NIC | v ________ | NIC |
+--+--+ _____ / \ DetNet-UNI (U) --+ +--+--+
| / \__/ \ | |
| / +----+ +----+ \_____ | |
| / | | | | \_______ | |
+--------U PE +----+ P +----+ \ _ v |
| | | | | | | ___/ \ |
| +--+-+ +----+ | +----+ | / \_ |
\ | | | | | / \ |
\ | +----+ +--+-+ +--+PE |---------- U------+
\ | | | | | | | | | \_ _/
\ +---+ P +----+ P +--+ +----+ | \____/
\___ | | | | /
\ +----+__ +----+ DetNet-1 DetNet-2
| \_____/ \___________/ |
| |
| | End-to-End-Service | | | |
<-------------------------------------------------------------------->
| | DetNet-Service | | | |
| <----------------------------------------------------> |
| | | | | |
Figure 2: DetNet Service Reference Model (multi-domain)
DetNet-UNIs ("U" in Figure 2) are assumed in this document to be
packet-based reference points and provide connectivity over the
packet network. A DetNet-UNI may provide multiple functions, e.g.,
it may add networking technology specific encapsulation to the DetNet
flows if necessary; it may provide status of the availability of the
connection associated to a reservation; it may provide a
synchronization service for the end system; it may carry enough
signaling to place the reservation in a network without a controller,
or if the controller only deals with the network but not the end
points. Internal reference points of end systems (between the
application and the NIC) are more challenging from control
perspective and they may have extra requirements (e.g., in-order
delivery is expected in end system internal reference points, whereas
it is considered optional over the DetNet-UNI), therefore not covered
in this document.
4.1.2. End system
The native data flow between the source/destination end systems is
referred to as application-flow (App-flow). The traffic
characteristics of an App-flow can be CBR (constant bit rate) or VBR
(variable bit rate) and can have L1 or L2 or L3 encapsulation (e.g.,
TDM (time-division multiplexing), Ethernet, IP). These
characteristics are considered as input for resource reservation and
might be simplified to ensure determinism during transport (e.g.,
making reservations for the peak rate of VBR traffic, etc.).
An end system may or may not be DetNet transport layer aware or
DetNet service layer aware. That is, an end system may or may not
contain DetNet specific functionality. End systems with DetNet
functionalities may have the same or different transport layer as the
connected DetNet domain. Grouping of end systems are shown in
Figure 3.
End system
|
|
| DetNet aware ?
/ \
+------< >------+
NO | \ / | YES
| v |
DetNet unaware |
End system |
| Service/
| Transport
/ \ aware ?
+--------< >-------------+
t-aware | \ / | s-aware
| v |
| | both |
| | |
DetNet t-aware | DetNet s-aware
End system | End system
v
DetNet st-aware
End system
Figure 3: Grouping of end systems
Note some known use cases for end systems:
o DetNet unaware: The classic case requiring network proxies.
o DetNet t-aware: An extant TSN system. It knows about some TSN
functions (e.g., reservation), but not about replication/
elimination.
o DetNet s-aware: An extant IEC 62439-3 system. It supplies
sequence numbers, but doesn't know about zero congestion loss.
o DetNet st-aware: A full functioning DetNet end station, it has
DetNet functionalities and usually the same forwarding paradigm as
the connected DetNet domain. It can be treated as an integral
part of the DetNet domain .
4.2. Traffic Engineering for DetNet
Traffic Engineering Architecture and Signaling (TEAS) [TEAS] defines Traffic Engineering Architecture and Signaling (TEAS) [TEAS] defines
traffic-engineering architectures for generic applicability across traffic-engineering architectures for generic applicability across
packet and non-packet networks. From TEAS perspective, Traffic packet and non-packet networks. From TEAS perspective, Traffic
Engineering (TE) refers to techniques that enable operators to Engineering (TE) refers to techniques that enable operators to
control how specific traffic flows are treated within their networks. control how specific traffic flows are treated within their networks.
Because if its very nature of establishing explicit optimized paths, Because if its very nature of establishing explicit optimized paths,
Deterministic Networking can be seen as a new, specialized branch of Deterministic Networking can be seen as a new, specialized branch of
Traffic Engineering, and inherits its architecture with a separation Traffic Engineering, and inherits its architecture with a separation
into planes. into planes.
The Deterministic Networking architecture is thus composed of three The Deterministic Networking architecture is thus composed of three
planes, a (User) Application Plane, a Controller Plane, and a Network planes, a (User) Application Plane, a Controller Plane, and a Network
Plane, which echoes that of Figure 1 of Software-Defined Networking Plane, which echoes that of Figure 1 of Software-Defined Networking
(SDN): Layers and Architecture Terminology [RFC7426].: (SDN): Layers and Architecture Terminology [RFC7426].:
4.1.1. The Application Plane 4.2.1. The Application Plane
Per [RFC7426], the Application Plane includes both applications and Per [RFC7426], the Application Plane includes both applications and
services. In particular, the Application Plane incorporates the User services. In particular, the Application Plane incorporates the User
Agent, a specialized application that interacts with the end user / Agent, a specialized application that interacts with the end user /
operator and performs requests for Deterministic Networking services operator and performs requests for Deterministic Networking services
via an abstract Flow Management Entity, (FME) which may or may not be via an abstract Flow Management Entity, (FME) which may or may not be
collocated with (one of) the end systems. collocated with (one of) the end systems.
At the Application Plane, a management interface enables the At the Application Plane, a management interface enables the
negotiation of flows between end systems. An abstraction of the flow negotiation of flows between end systems. An abstraction of the flow
called a Traffic Specification (TSpec) provides the representation. called a Traffic Specification (TSpec) provides the representation.
This abstraction is used to place a reservation over the (Northbound) This abstraction is used to place a reservation over the (Northbound)
Service Interface and within the Application plane. It is associated Service Interface and within the Application plane. It is associated
with an abstraction of location, such as IP addresses and DNS names, with an abstraction of location, such as IP addresses and DNS names,
to identify the end systems and eventually specify intermediate to identify the end systems and eventually specify intermediate
nodes. nodes.
4.1.2. The Controller Plane 4.2.2. The Controller Plane
The Controller Plane corresponds to the aggregation of the Control The Controller Plane corresponds to the aggregation of the Control
and Management Planes in [RFC7426], though Common Control and and Management Planes in [RFC7426], though Common Control and
Measurement Plane (CCAMP) [CCAMP] makes an additional distinction Measurement Plane (CCAMP) [CCAMP] makes an additional distinction
between management and measurement. When the logical separation of between management and measurement. When the logical separation of
the Control, Measurement and other Management entities is not the Control, Measurement and other Management entities is not
relevant, the term Controller Plane is used for simplicity to relevant, the term Controller Plane is used for simplicity to
represent them all, and the term controller refers to any device represent them all, and the term controller refers to any device
operating in that plane, whether is it a Path Computation entity or a operating in that plane, whether is it a Path Computation entity or a
Network Management entity (NME). The Path Computation Element (PCE) Network Management entity (NME). The Path Computation Element (PCE)
skipping to change at page 13, line 33 skipping to change at page 17, line 15
One or more PCE(s) collaborate to implement the requests from the FME One or more PCE(s) collaborate to implement the requests from the FME
as Per-Flow Per-Hop Behaviors installed in the intermediate nodes for as Per-Flow Per-Hop Behaviors installed in the intermediate nodes for
each individual flow. The PCEs place each flow along a deterministic each individual flow. The PCEs place each flow along a deterministic
sequence of intermediate nodes so as to respect per-flow constraints sequence of intermediate nodes so as to respect per-flow constraints
such as security and latency, and optimize the overall result for such as security and latency, and optimize the overall result for
metrics such as an abstract aggregated cost. The deterministic metrics such as an abstract aggregated cost. The deterministic
sequence can typically be more complex than a direct sequence and sequence can typically be more complex than a direct sequence and
include redundancy path, with one or more packet replication and include redundancy path, with one or more packet replication and
elimination points. elimination points.
4.1.3. The Network Plane 4.2.3. The Network Plane
The Network Plane represents the network devices and protocols as a The Network Plane represents the network devices and protocols as a
whole, regardless of the Layer at which the network devices operate. whole, regardless of the Layer at which the network devices operate.
It includes Forwarding Plane (data plane), Application, and It includes Forwarding Plane (data plane), Application, and
Operational Plane (control plane) aspects. Operational Plane (control plane) aspects.
The network Plane comprises the Network Interface Cards (NIC) in the The network Plane comprises the Network Interface Cards (NIC) in the
end systems, which are typically IP hosts, and intermediate nodes, end systems, which are typically IP hosts, and intermediate nodes,
which are typically IP routers and switches. Network-to-Network which are typically IP routers and switches. Network-to-Network
Interfaces such as used for Traffic Engineering path reservation in Interfaces such as used for Traffic Engineering path reservation in
skipping to change at page 14, line 22 skipping to change at page 18, line 22
PCE PCE PCE PCE PCE PCE PCE PCE
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Southbound -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- -+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Southbound -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
intermediate intermed. intermed. intermed. intermediate intermed. intermed. intermed.
Node Node Node Node Node Node Node Node
NIC NIC NIC NIC
intermediate intermed. intermed. intermed. intermediate intermed. intermed. intermed.
Node Node Node Node Node Node Node Node
Figure 2 Figure 4
The intermediate nodes (and eventually the end systems NIC) expose The intermediate nodes (and eventually the end systems NIC) expose
their capabilities and physical resources to the controller (the their capabilities and physical resources to the controller (the
PCE), and update the PCE with their dynamic perception of the PCE), and update the PCE with their dynamic perception of the
topology, across the Southbound Interface. In return, the PCE(s) set topology, across the Southbound Interface. In return, the PCE(s) set
the per-flow paths up, providing a Flow Characterization that is more the per-flow paths up, providing a Flow Characterization that is more
tightly coupled to the intermediate node Operation than a TSpec. tightly coupled to the intermediate node Operation than a TSpec.
At the Network plane, intermediate nodes may exchange information At the Network plane, intermediate nodes may exchange information
regarding the state of the paths, between adjacent systems and regarding the state of the paths, between adjacent systems and
eventually with the end systems, and forward packets within eventually with the end systems, and forward packets within
constraints associated to each flow, or, when unable to do so, constraints associated to each flow, or, when unable to do so,
perform a last resort operation such as drop or declassify. perform a last resort operation such as drop or declassify.
This specification focuses on the Southbound interface and the This specification focuses on the Southbound interface and the
operation of the Network Plane. operation of the Network Plane.
4.2. DetNet flows 4.3. DetNet flows
4.2.1. Source guarantees 4.3.1. DetNet flow types
A DetNet flow can have different formats during while it is
transported between the peer end systems. Therefore, the following
possible types / formats of a DetNet flow are distinguished in this
document:
o App-flow: native format of a DetNet flow. It does not contain any
DetNet related attributes.
o DetNet-t-flow: specific format of a DetNet flow. Only requires
the congestion / latency features provided by the Detnet transport
layer.
o DetNet-s-flow: specific format of a DetNet flow. Only requires
the replication/elimination feature ensured by the DetNet service
layer.
o DetNet-st-flow: specific format of a DetNet flow. It requires
both DetNet Service and Transport layer functions during
forwarding.
4.3.2. Source guarantees
For the purposes of congestion protection, DetNet flows can be For the purposes of congestion protection, DetNet flows can be
synchronous or asynchronous. In synchronous DetNet flows, at least synchronous or asynchronous. In synchronous DetNet flows, at least
the intermediate nodes (and possibly the end systems) are closely the intermediate nodes (and possibly the end systems) are closely
time synchronized, typically to better than 1 microsecond. By time synchronized, typically to better than 1 microsecond. By
transmitting packets from different DetNet flows or classes of DetNet transmitting packets from different DetNet flows or classes of DetNet
flows at different times, using repeating schedules synchronized flows at different times, using repeating schedules synchronized
among the intermediate nodes, resources such as buffers and link among the intermediate nodes, resources such as buffers and link
bandwidth can be shared over the time domain among different DetNet bandwidth can be shared over the time domain among different DetNet
flows. There is a tradeoff among techniques for synchronous DetNet flows. There is a tradeoff among techniques for synchronous DetNet
skipping to change at page 16, line 8 skipping to change at page 20, line 31
place, a network cannot deliver finite latency and practically zero place, a network cannot deliver finite latency and practically zero
packet loss to an arbitrarily high offered load. Secondly, achieving packet loss to an arbitrarily high offered load. Secondly, achieving
practically zero packet loss for unthrottled (though bandwidth practically zero packet loss for unthrottled (though bandwidth
limited) DetNet flows means that bridges and routers have to dedicate limited) DetNet flows means that bridges and routers have to dedicate
buffer resources to specific DetNet flows or to classes of DetNet buffer resources to specific DetNet flows or to classes of DetNet
flows. The requirements of each reservation have to be translated flows. The requirements of each reservation have to be translated
into the parameters that control each system's queuing, shaping, and into the parameters that control each system's queuing, shaping, and
scheduling functions and delivered to the hosts, bridges, and scheduling functions and delivered to the hosts, bridges, and
routers. routers.
4.2.2. Incomplete Networks 4.3.3. Incomplete Networks
The presence in the network of transit nodes or subnets that are not The presence in the network of transit nodes or subnets that are not
fully capable of offering DetNet services complicates the ability of fully capable of offering DetNet services complicates the ability of
the intermediate nodes and/or controller to allocate resources, as the intermediate nodes and/or controller to allocate resources, as
extra buffering, and thus extra latency, must be allocated at points extra buffering, and thus extra latency, must be allocated at points
downstream from the non-DetNet intermediate node for a DetNet flow. downstream from the non-DetNet intermediate node for a DetNet flow.
4.3. Queuing, Shaping, Scheduling, and Preemption 4.4. Queuing, Shaping, Scheduling, and Preemption
DetNet achieves congestion protection and bounded delivery latency by DetNet achieves congestion protection and bounded delivery latency by
reserving bandwidth and buffer resources at every hop along the path reserving bandwidth and buffer resources at every hop along the path
of the DetNet flow. The reservation itself is not sufficient, of the DetNet flow. The reservation itself is not sufficient,
however. Implementors and users of a number of proprietary and however. Implementors and users of a number of proprietary and
standard real-time networks have found that standards for specific standard real-time networks have found that standards for specific
data plane techniques are required to enable these assurances to be data plane techniques are required to enable these assurances to be
made in a multi-vendor network. The fundamental reason is that made in a multi-vendor network. The fundamental reason is that
latency variation in one system results in the need for extra buffer latency variation in one system results in the need for extra buffer
space in the next-hop system(s), which in turn, increases the worst- space in the next-hop system(s), which in turn, increases the worst-
skipping to change at page 17, line 10 skipping to change at page 21, line 33
o Pre-emption of an Ethernet packet in transmission by a packet with o Pre-emption of an Ethernet packet in transmission by a packet with
a more stringent latency requirement, followed by the resumption a more stringent latency requirement, followed by the resumption
of the preempted packet [IEEE802.1Qbu], [IEEE802.3br]. of the preempted packet [IEEE802.1Qbu], [IEEE802.3br].
While these techniques are currently embedded in Ethernet and While these techniques are currently embedded in Ethernet and
bridging standards, we can note that they are all, except perhaps for bridging standards, we can note that they are all, except perhaps for
packet preemption, equally applicable to other media than Ethernet, packet preemption, equally applicable to other media than Ethernet,
and to routers as well as bridges. and to routers as well as bridges.
4.4. Coexistence with normal traffic 4.5. Service instance
[Note: Service instance represents all the functions required on a
node to allow the end-to-end service between the UNIs.]
The DetNet network reference model is shown in Figure 5 for a DetNet-
Service scenario (i.e. between two DetNet-UNIs). In this figure, the
end systems ("A" and "B") are connected directly to the edge nodes of
the IP/MPLS network ("PE1" and "PE2"). End-systems participating
DetNet communication may require connectivity before setting up an
App-flow that requires the DetNet service. Such a connectivity
related service instance and the one dedicated for DetNet service
share the same access. Packets belonging to a DetNet flow are
selected by a filter configured on the access ("F1" and "F2"). As a
result, data flow specific access ("access-A + F1" and "access-B +
F2") are terminated in the flow specific service instance ("SI-1" and
"SI-2"). A tunnel is used to provide connectivity between the
service instances.
The tunnel is used to transport exclusively the packets of the DetNet
flow between "SI-1" and "SI-2". The service instances are configured
to implement DetNet functions and a flow specific routing or bridging
function depending on what connectivity the participating end systems
require (L3 or L2). The service instance and the tunnel may or may
not be shared by multiple DetNet flows. Sharing the service instance
by multiple DetNet flows requires properly populated forwarding
tables of the service instance.
access-A access-B
<-----> <---------- tunnel ----------> <----->
+---------+ ___ _ +---------+
End system | +----+ | / \/ \_ | +----+ | End system
"A" -------F1+ | | / \ | | +F2----- "B"
| | +==========+ IP/MPLS +========+ | |
| |SI-1| | \__ Net._/ | |SI-2| |
| +----+ | \____/ | +----+ |
|PE1 | | PE2|
+---------+ +---------+
Figure 5: DetNet network reference model
[Note: The tunnel between the service instances may have some special
characteristics. For example, in case of a "packet PW" based tunnel,
there are differences in the usage of the packet PW for DetNet
traffic compared to the network model described in [RFC6658]. In the
DetNet scenario, the packet PW is used exclusively by the DetNet
flow, whereas [RFC6658] states: "The packet PW appears as a single
point-to-point link to the client layer. Network-layer adjacency
formation and maintenance between the client equipments will follow
the normal practice needed to support the required relationship in
the client layer ... This packet pseudowire is used to transport all
of the required layer 2 and layer 3 protocols between LSR1 and
LSR2".]
[Note: Examples are provided in Annex 1 of
[I-D.varga-detnet-service-model].]
4.6. Coexistence with normal traffic
A DetNet network supports the dedication of a high proportion (e.g. A DetNet network supports the dedication of a high proportion (e.g.
75%) of the network bandwidth to DetNet flows. But, no matter how 75%) of the network bandwidth to DetNet flows. But, no matter how
much is dedicated for DetNet flows, it is a goal of DetNet to coexist much is dedicated for DetNet flows, it is a goal of DetNet to coexist
with existing Class of Service schemes (e.g., DiffServ). It is also with existing Class of Service schemes (e.g., DiffServ). It is also
important that non-DetNet traffic not disrupt the DetNet flow, of important that non-DetNet traffic not disrupt the DetNet flow, of
course (see Section 4.5 and Section 7). For these reasons: course (see Section 4.7 and Section 7). For these reasons:
o Bandwidth (transmission opportunities) not utilized by a DetNet o Bandwidth (transmission opportunities) not utilized by a DetNet
flow are available to non-DetNet packets (though not to other flow are available to non-DetNet packets (though not to other
DetNet flows). DetNet flows).
o DetNet flows can be shaped or scheduled, in order to ensure that o DetNet flows can be shaped or scheduled, in order to ensure that
the highest-priority non-DetNet packet also is ensured a worst- the highest-priority non-DetNet packet also is ensured a worst-
case latency (at any given hop). case latency (at any given hop).
o When transmission opportunities for DetNet flows are scheduled in o When transmission opportunities for DetNet flows are scheduled in
detail, then the algorithm constructing the schedule should leave detail, then the algorithm constructing the schedule should leave
sufficient opportunities for non-DetNet packets to satisfy the sufficient opportunities for non-DetNet packets to satisfy the
needs of the users of the network. Detailed scheduling can also needs of the users of the network. Detailed scheduling can also
permit the time-shared use of buffer resources by different DetNet permit the time-shared use of buffer resources by different DetNet
flows. flows.
Ideally, the net effect of the presence of DetNet flows in a network Ideally, the net effect of the presence of DetNet flows in a network
on the non-DetNet packets is primarily a reduction in the available on the non-DetNet packets is primarily a reduction in the available
bandwidth. bandwidth.
4.5. Fault Mitigation 4.7. Fault Mitigation
One key to building robust real-time systems is to reduce the One key to building robust real-time systems is to reduce the
infinite variety of possible failures to a number that can be infinite variety of possible failures to a number that can be
analyzed with reasonable confidence. DetNet aids in the process by analyzed with reasonable confidence. DetNet aids in the process by
providing filters and policers to detect DetNet packets received on providing filters and policers to detect DetNet packets received on
the wrong interface, or at the wrong time, or in too great a volume, the wrong interface, or at the wrong time, or in too great a volume,
and to then take actions such as discarding the offending packet, and to then take actions such as discarding the offending packet,
shutting down the offending DetNet flow, or shutting down the shutting down the offending DetNet flow, or shutting down the
offending interface. offending interface.
skipping to change at page 18, line 14 skipping to change at page 24, line 5
There exist techniques, at present and/or in various stages of There exist techniques, at present and/or in various stages of
standardization, that can perform these fault mitigation tasks that standardization, that can perform these fault mitigation tasks that
deliver a high probability that misbehaving systems will have zero deliver a high probability that misbehaving systems will have zero
impact on well-behaved DetNet flows, except of course, for the impact on well-behaved DetNet flows, except of course, for the
receiving interface(s) immediately downstream of the misbehaving receiving interface(s) immediately downstream of the misbehaving
device. Examples of such techniques include traffic policing device. Examples of such techniques include traffic policing
functions (e.g. [RFC2475]) and separating flows into per-flow rate- functions (e.g. [RFC2475]) and separating flows into per-flow rate-
limited queues. limited queues.
4.6. Representative Protocol Stack Model 4.8. Representative Protocol Stack Model
Figure 3 illustrates a conceptual DetNet data plane layering model. Figure 6 illustrates a conceptual DetNet data plane layering model.
One may compare it to that in [IEEE802.1CB], Annex C, a work in One may compare it to that in [IEEE802.1CB], Annex C, a work in
progress. progress.
DetNet data plane protocol stack DetNet data plane protocol stack
| packets going | ^ packets coming ^ | packets going | ^ packets coming ^
v down the stack v | up the stack | v down the stack v | up the stack |
+----------------------+ +-----------------------+ +----------------------+ +-----------------------+
| Source | | Destination | | Source | | Destination |
+----------------------+ +-----------------------+ +----------------------+ +-----------------------+
skipping to change at page 18, line 40 skipping to change at page 24, line 31
| Packet encoding | | Packet decoding | | Packet encoding | | Packet decoding |
+----------------------+ +-----------------------+ +----------------------+ +-----------------------+
| Transport layer | | Transport layer | | Transport layer | | Transport layer |
| Congestion prot. | | Congestion prot. | | Congestion prot. | | Congestion prot. |
+----------------------+ +-----------------------+ +----------------------+ +-----------------------+
| Lower layers | | Lower layers | | Lower layers | | Lower layers |
+----------------------+ +-----------------------+ +----------------------+ +-----------------------+
v ^ v ^
\_________________________/ \_________________________/
Figure 3 Figure 6
Not all layers are required for any given application, or even for Not all layers are required for any given application, or even for
any given network. The layers are, from top to bottom: any given network. The layers are, from top to bottom:
Application Application
Shown as "source" and "destination" in the diagram. Shown as "source" and "destination" in the diagram.
OAM OAM
Operations, Administration, and Maintenance leverages in-band Operations, Administration, and Maintenance leverages in-band
and out-of-and signaling that validates whether the service and out-of-and signaling that validates whether the service
is effectively obtained within QoS constraints. OAM is not is effectively obtained within QoS constraints. OAM is not
shown in Figure 3; it may reside in any number of the layers. shown in Figure 6; it may reside in any number of the layers.
OAM can involve specific tagging added in the packets for OAM can involve specific tagging added in the packets for
tracing implementation or network configuration errors; tracing implementation or network configuration errors;
traceability enables to find whether a packet is a replica, traceability enables to find whether a packet is a replica,
which relay node performed the replication, and which segment which relay node performed the replication, and which segment
was intended for the replica. was intended for the replica.
Packet sequencing Packet sequencing
As part of DetNet service protection, supplies the sequence As part of DetNet service protection, supplies the sequence
number for packet replication and elimination (Section 3.4). number for packet replication and elimination (Section 3.4).
Peers with Duplicate elimination. This layer is not needed Peers with Duplicate elimination. This layer is not needed
if a higher-layer transport protocol is expected to perform if a higher-layer transport protocol is expected to perform
any packet sequencing and duplicate elimination required by any packet sequencing and duplicate elimination required by
the DetNet flow duplication. the DetNet flow duplication.
Duplicate elimination Duplicate elimination
As part of the DetNet service layer, based on the sequenced As part of the DetNet service layer, based on the sequenced
number supplied by its peer, packet sequencing, Duplicate number supplied by its peer, packet sequencing, Duplicate
elimination discards any duplicate packets generated by elimination discards any duplicate packets generated by
DetNet flow duplication. It can operate on member flows, DetNet flow duplication. It can operate on member flows,
skipping to change at page 20, line 17 skipping to change at page 26, line 9
Packet decoding Packet decoding
As part of DetNet service protection, as an alternative to As part of DetNet service protection, as an alternative to
flow merging and duplicate elimination, packet decoding takes flow merging and duplicate elimination, packet decoding takes
packets from different DetNet member flows, and computes from packets from different DetNet member flows, and computes from
those packets the original DetNet packets from the compound those packets the original DetNet packets from the compound
flows input to packet encoding. Peers with Packet encoding. flows input to packet encoding. Peers with Packet encoding.
Congestio protection Congestio protection
The DetNet transport layer provides congestion protection. The DetNet transport layer provides congestion protection.
See Section 4.3. The actual queuing and shaping mechaniss See Section 4.4. The actual queuing and shaping mechanisms
are typically provided by underlying subnet layers, but since are typically provided by underlying subnet layers, but since
these are can be closely associated with the means of these are can be closely associated with the means of
providing paths for DetNet flows (e.g. MPLS LSPs or {VLAN, providing paths for DetNet flows (e.g. MPLS LSPs or {VLAN,
multicast destination MAC address} pairs), the path and the multicast destination MAC address} pairs), the path and the
congestion protection are conflated in this figure. congestion protection are conflated in this figure.
Note that the packet sequencing and duplication elimination functions Note that the packet sequencing and duplication elimination functions
at the source and destination ends of a DetNet compound flow may be at the source and destination ends of a DetNet compound flow may be
performed either in the end system or in a DetNet edge node. The performed either in the end system or in a DetNet edge node. The
reader must not confuse a DetNet edge function with other kinds of reader must not confuse a DetNet edge function with other kinds of
edge functions, e.g. an Label Edge Router, although the two functions edge functions, e.g. an Label Edge Router, although the two functions
may be performed together. The DetNet edge function is concerned may be performed together. The DetNet edge function is concerned
with sequencing packets belonging to DetNet flows. The LER with with sequencing packets belonging to DetNet flows. The LER with
encapsulating/decapsulating packets for transport, and is considered encapsulating/decapsulating packets for transport, and is considered
part of the network underlying the DetNet transport layer. part of the network underlying the DetNet transport layer.
4.7. Exporting flow identification 4.9. Flow identification at technology borders
4.9.1. Exporting flow identification
An interesting feature of DetNet, and one that invites An interesting feature of DetNet, and one that invites
implementations that can be accused of "layering violations", is the implementations that can be accused of "layering violations", is the
need for lower layers to be aware of specific flows at higher layers, need for lower layers to be aware of specific flows at higher layers,
in order to provide specific queuing and shaping services for in order to provide specific queuing and shaping services for
specific flows. For example: specific flows. For example:
o A non-IP, strictly L2 source end system X may be sending multiple o A non-IP, strictly L2 source end system X may be sending multiple
flows to the same L2 destination end system Y. Those flows may flows to the same L2 destination end system Y. Those flows may
include DetNet flows with different QoS requirements, and may include DetNet flows with different QoS requirements, and may
skipping to change at page 22, line 5 skipping to change at page 27, line 43
be confused with DetNet compound vs. member flows.) Of course, this be confused with DetNet compound vs. member flows.) Of course, this
requires that the aggregate DetNet flow be provisioned properly to requires that the aggregate DetNet flow be provisioned properly to
carry the sub-flows. carry the sub-flows.
Thus, rather than packet inspection, there is the option to export Thus, rather than packet inspection, there is the option to export
higher-layer information to the lower layer. The requirement to higher-layer information to the lower layer. The requirement to
support one or the other method for flow identification (or both) is support one or the other method for flow identification (or both) is
the essential complexity that DetNet brings to existing control plane the essential complexity that DetNet brings to existing control plane
models. models.
4.8. Advertising resources, capabilities and adjacencies 4.9.2. Flow attribute mapping between layers
Transport of DetNet flows over multiple technology domains may
require that lower layers are aware of specific flows of higher
layers. Such an "exporting of flow identification" is needed each
time when the forwarding paradigm is changed on the transport path
(e.g., two LSRs are interconnected by a L2 bridged domain, etc.).
The three main forwarding methods considered for deterministic
networking are:
o IP routing
o MPLS label switching
o Ethernet bridging
Note: at the time of this publication, the exact format of flow
identification is still WIP.
[Note: Seq-num attribute may require a similar functionality at
technology border nodes.]
add/remove add/remove
Eth Flow-ID IP Flow-ID
| |
v v
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| | | | |
| Eth | MPLS | IP | Application data |
| | | | |
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
^
|
add/remove
MPLS Flow-ID
Figure 7: Packet with multiple Flow-IDs
The additional (domain specific) Flow-ID can be
o created by a domain specific function or
o derived from the Flow-ID added to the App-flow,
so that it must be unique inside the given domain. Note, that the
Flow-ID added to the App-flow is still present in the packet, but
transport nodes may lack the function to recognize it; that's why the
additional Flow-ID is added (pushed).
4.9.3. Flow-ID mapping examples
IP nodes and MPLS nodes are assumed to be configured to push such an
additional (domain specific) Flow-ID when sending traffic to an
Ethernet switch (as shown in the examples below).
Figure 8 shows a scenario where an IP end system ("IP-A") is
connected via two Ethernet switches ("ETH-n") to an IP router ("IP-
1").
IP domain
<-----------------------------------------------
+======+ +======+
|L3-ID | |L3-ID |
+======+ /\ +-----+ +======+
/ \ Forward as | |
/IP-A\ per ETH-ID |IP-1 | Recognize
Push ------> +-+----+ | +---+-+ <----- ETH-ID
ETH-ID | +----+-----+ |
| v v |
| +-----+ +-----+ |
+------+ | | +---------+
+......+ |ETH-1+----+ETH-2| +======+
.L3-ID . +-----+ +-----+ |L3-ID |
+======+ +......+ +======+
|ETH-ID| .L3-ID . |ETH-ID|
+======+ +======+ +------+
|ETH-ID|
+======+
Ethernet domain
<---------------->
Figure 8: IP nodes interconnected by an Ethernet domain
End system "IP-A" uses the original App-flow specific ID ("L3-ID"),
but as it is connected to an Ethernet domain it has to push an
Ethernet-domain specific flow-ID ("VID + multicast MAC address",
referred as "ETH-ID") before sending the packet to "ETH-1" node.
Ethernet switch "ETH-1" can recognize the data flow based on the
"ETH-ID" and it does forwarding toward "ETH-2". "ETH-2" switches the
packet toward the IP router. "IP-1" must be configured to receive
the Ethernet Flow-ID specific multicast stream, but (as it is an L3
node) it decodes the data flow ID based on the "L3-ID" fields of the
received packet.
Figure 9 shows a scenario where MPLS domain nodes ("PE-n" and "P-m")
are connected via two Ethernet switches ("ETH-n").
MPLS domain
<----------------------------------------------->
+=======+ +=======+
|MPLS-ID| |MPLS-ID|
+=======+ +-----+ +-----+ +=======+ +-----+
| | Forward as | | | |
|PE-1 | per ETH-ID | P-2 +-----------+ PE-2|
Push -----> +-+---+ | +---+-+ +-----+
ETH-ID | +-----+----+ | \ Recognize
| v v | +-- ETH-ID
| +-----+ +-----+ |
+---+ | | +----+
+.......+ |ETH-1+----+ETH-2| +=======+
.MPLS-ID. +-----+ +-----+ |MPLS-ID|
+=======+ +=======+
|ETH-ID | +.......+ |ETH-ID |
+=======+ .MPLS-ID. +-------+
+=======+
|ETH-ID |
+=======+
Ethernet domain
<---------------->
Figure 9: MPLS nodes interconnected by an Ethernet domain
"PE-1" uses the MPLS specific ID ("MPLS-ID"), but as it is connected
to an Ethernet domain it has to push an Ethernet-domain specific
flow-ID ("VID + multicast MAC address", referred as "ETH-ID") before
sending the packet to "ETH-1". Ethernet switch "ETH-1" can recognize
the data flow based on the "ETH-ID" and it does forwarding toward
"ETH-2". "ETH-2" switches the packet toward the MPLS node ("P-2").
"P-2" must be configured to receive the Ethernet Flow-ID specific
multicast stream, but (as it is an MPLS node) it decodes the data
flow ID based on the "MPLS-ID" fields of the received packet.
4.10. Advertising resources, capabilities and adjacencies
There are three classes of information that a central controller or There are three classes of information that a central controller or
decentralized control plane needs to know that can only be obtained decentralized control plane needs to know that can only be obtained
from the end systems and/or transit nodes in the network. When using from the end systems and/or transit nodes in the network. When using
a peer-to-peer control plane, some of this information may be a peer-to-peer control plane, some of this information may be
required by a system's neighbors in the network. required by a system's neighbors in the network.
o Details of the system's capabilities that are required in order to o Details of the system's capabilities that are required in order to
accurately allocate that system's resources, as well as other accurately allocate that system's resources, as well as other
systems' resources. This includes, for example, which specific systems' resources. This includes, for example, which specific
queuing and shaping algorithms are implemented (Section 4.3), the queuing and shaping algorithms are implemented (Section 4.4), the
number of buffers dedicated for DetNet allocation, and the worst- number of buffers dedicated for DetNet allocation, and the worst-
case forwarding delay. case forwarding delay.
o The dynamic state of an end or transit node's DetNet resources. o The dynamic state of an end or transit node's DetNet resources.
o The identity of the system's neighbors, and the characteristics of o The identity of the system's neighbors, and the characteristics of
the link(s) between the systems, including the length (in the link(s) between the systems, including the length (in
nanoseconds) of the link(s). nanoseconds) of the link(s).
4.9. Provisioning model 4.11. Provisioning model
4.9.1. Centralized Path Computation and Installation 4.11.1. Centralized Path Computation and Installation
A centralized routing model, such as provided with a PCE (RFC 4655 A centralized routing model, such as provided with a PCE (RFC 4655
[RFC4655]), enables global and per-flow optimizations. (See [RFC4655]), enables global and per-flow optimizations. (See
Section 4.1.) The model is attractive but a number of issues are Section 4.2.) The model is attractive but a number of issues are
left to be solved. In particular: left to be solved. In particular:
o Whether and how the path computation can be installed by 1) an end o Whether and how the path computation can be installed by 1) an end
device or 2) a Network Management entity, device or 2) a Network Management entity,
o And how the path is set up, either by installing state at each hop o And how the path is set up, either by installing state at each hop
with a direct interaction between the forwarding device and the with a direct interaction between the forwarding device and the
PCE, or along a path by injecting a source-routed request at one PCE, or along a path by injecting a source-routed request at one
end of the path. end of the path.
4.9.2. Distributed Path Setup 4.11.2. Distributed Path Setup
Significant work on distributed path setup can be leveraged from MPLS Significant work on distributed path setup can be leveraged from MPLS
Traffic Engineering, in both its GMPLS and non-GMPLS forms. The Traffic Engineering, in both its GMPLS and non-GMPLS forms. The
protocols within scope are Resource ReSerVation Protocol [RFC3209] protocols within scope are Resource ReSerVation Protocol [RFC3209]
[RFC3473](RSVP-TE), OSPF-TE [RFC4203] [RFC5392] and ISIS-TE [RFC5307] [RFC3473](RSVP-TE), OSPF-TE [RFC4203] [RFC5392] and ISIS-TE [RFC5307]
[RFC5316]. These should be viewed as starting points as there are [RFC5316]. These should be viewed as starting points as there are
feature specific extensions defined that may be applicable to DetNet. feature specific extensions defined that may be applicable to DetNet.
In a Layer-2 only environment, or as part of a layered approach to a In a Layer-2 only environment, or as part of a layered approach to a
mixed environment, IEEE 802.1 also has work, either completed or in mixed environment, IEEE 802.1 also has work, either completed or in
progress. [IEEE802.1Q-2014] Clause 35 describes SRP, a peer-to-peer progress. [IEEE802.1Q-2014] Clause 35 describes SRP, a peer-to-peer
protocol for Layer-2 roughly analogous to RSVP [RFC2205]. protocol for Layer-2 roughly analogous to RSVP [RFC2205].
[IEEE802.1Qca] defines how ISIS can provide multiple disjoint paths [IEEE802.1Qca] defines how ISIS can provide multiple disjoint paths
or distribution trees. Also in progress is [IEEE802.1Qcc], which or distribution trees. Also in progress is [IEEE802.1Qcc], which
expands the capabilities of SRP. expands the capabilities of SRP.
The integration/interaction of the DetNet control layer with an The integration/interaction of the DetNet control layer with an
underlying IEEE 802.1 sub-network control layer will need to be underlying IEEE 802.1 sub-network control layer will need to be
defined. defined.
4.10. Scaling to larger networks 4.12. Scaling to larger networks
Reservations for individual DetNet flows require considerable state Reservations for individual DetNet flows require considerable state
information in each transit node, especially when adequate fault information in each transit node, especially when adequate fault
mitigation (Section 4.5) is required. The DetNet data plane, in mitigation (Section 4.7) is required. The DetNet data plane, in
order to support larger numbers of DetNet flows, must support the order to support larger numbers of DetNet flows, must support the
aggregation of DetNet flows into tunnels, which themselves can be aggregation of DetNet flows into tunnels, which themselves can be
viewed by the transit nodes' data planes largely as individual DetNet viewed by the transit nodes' data planes largely as individual DetNet
flows. Without such aggregation, the per-relay system may limit the flows. Without such aggregation, the per-relay system may limit the
scale of DetNet networks. scale of DetNet networks.
4.11. Connected islands vs. networks 4.13. Connected islands vs. networks
Given that users have deployed examples of the IEEE 802.1 TSN TG Given that users have deployed examples of the IEEE 802.1 TSN TG
standards, which provide capabilities similar to DetNet, it is standards, which provide capabilities similar to DetNet, it is
obvious to ask whether the IETF DetNet effort can be limited to obvious to ask whether the IETF DetNet effort can be limited to
providing Layer-2 connections (VPNs) between islands of bridged TSN providing Layer-2 connections (VPNs) between islands of bridged TSN
networks. While this capability is certainly useful to some networks. While this capability is certainly useful to some
applications, and must not be precluded by DetNet, tunneling alone is applications, and must not be precluded by DetNet, tunneling alone is
not a sufficient goal for the DetNet WG. As shown in the not a sufficient goal for the DetNet WG. As shown in the
Deterministic Networking Use Cases draft [I-D.ietf-detnet-use-cases], Deterministic Networking Use Cases draft [I-D.ietf-detnet-use-cases],
there are already deployments of Layer-2 TSN networks that are there are already deployments of Layer-2 TSN networks that are
skipping to change at page 24, line 33 skipping to change at page 33, line 23
6.1. Flat vs. hierarchical control 6.1. Flat vs. hierarchical control
Boxes that are solely routers or solely bridges are rare in today's Boxes that are solely routers or solely bridges are rare in today's
market. In a multi-tenant data center, multiple users' virtual market. In a multi-tenant data center, multiple users' virtual
Layer-2/Layer-3 topologies exist simultaneously, implemented on a Layer-2/Layer-3 topologies exist simultaneously, implemented on a
network whose physical topology bears only accidental resemblance to network whose physical topology bears only accidental resemblance to
the virtual topologies. the virtual topologies.
While the forwarding topology (the bridges and routers) are an While the forwarding topology (the bridges and routers) are an
important consideration for a DetNet Flow Management Entity important consideration for a DetNet Flow Management Entity
(Section 4.1.1), so is the purely physical topology. Ultimately, the (Section 4.2.1), so is the purely physical topology. Ultimately, the
model used by the management entities is based on boxes, queues, and model used by the management entities is based on boxes, queues, and
links. The authors hope that the work of the TEAS WG will help to links. The authors hope that the work of the TEAS WG will help to
clarify exactly what model parameters need to be traded between the clarify exactly what model parameters need to be traded between the
intermediate nodes and the controller(s). intermediate nodes and the controller(s).
6.2. Peer-to-peer reservation protocol 6.2. Peer-to-peer reservation protocol
As described in Section 4.9.2, the DetNet WG needs to decide whether As described in Section 4.11.2, the DetNet WG needs to decide whether
to support a peer-to-peer protocol for a source and a destination to to support a peer-to-peer protocol for a source and a destination to
reserve resources for a DetNet stream. Assuming that enabling the reserve resources for a DetNet stream. Assuming that enabling the
involvement of the source and/or destination is desirable (see involvement of the source and/or destination is desirable (see
Deterministic Networking Use Cases [I-D.ietf-detnet-use-cases]), it Deterministic Networking Use Cases [I-D.ietf-detnet-use-cases]), it
remains to decide whether the DetNet WG will make it possible to remains to decide whether the DetNet WG will make it possible to
deploy at least some DetNet capabilities in a network using only a deploy at least some DetNet capabilities in a network using only a
peer-to-peer protocol, without a central controller. peer-to-peer protocol, without a central controller.
(Note that a UNI (see Section 4.1.3) between an end system and a (Note that a UNI (see Section 4.2.3) between an end system and a
DetNet edge node, for sources and/or listeners to request DetNet DetNet edge node, for sources and/or listeners to request DetNet
services, can be either the first hop of a per-to-peer reservation services, can be either the first hop of a per-to-peer reservation
protocol, or can be deflected by the DetNet edge node to a central protocol, or can be deflected by the DetNet edge node to a central
controller for resolution. Similarly, a decision by a central controller for resolution. Similarly, a decision by a central
controller can be effected by the controller instructing the end controller can be effected by the controller instructing the end
system or DetNet edge node to initiate a per-to-peer protocol system or DetNet edge node to initiate a per-to-peer protocol
activity.) activity.)
6.3. Wireless media interactions 6.3. Wireless media interactions
skipping to change at page 25, line 47 skipping to change at page 34, line 41
See [RFC7384] for an exploration of this issue in a related context. See [RFC7384] for an exploration of this issue in a related context.
Furthermore, in a control system where millions of dollars of Furthermore, in a control system where millions of dollars of
equipment, or even human lives, can be lost if the DetNet QoS is not equipment, or even human lives, can be lost if the DetNet QoS is not
delivered, one must consider not only simple equipment failures, delivered, one must consider not only simple equipment failures,
where the box or wire instantly becomes perfectly silent, but bizarre where the box or wire instantly becomes perfectly silent, but bizarre
errors such as can be caused by software failures. Because there is errors such as can be caused by software failures. Because there is
essential no limit to the kinds of failures that can occur, essential no limit to the kinds of failures that can occur,
protecting against realistic equipment failures is indistinguishable, protecting against realistic equipment failures is indistinguishable,
in most cases, from protecting against malicious behavior, whether in most cases, from protecting against malicious behavior, whether
accidental or intentional. See also Section 4.5. accidental or intentional. See also Section 4.7.
Security must cover: Security must cover:
o the protection of the signaling protocol o the protection of the signaling protocol
o the authentication and authorization of the controlling systems o the authentication and authorization of the controlling systems
o the identification and shaping of the DetNet flows o the identification and shaping of the DetNet flows
8. Privacy Considerations 8. Privacy Considerations
DetNet is provides a Quality of Service (QoS), and as such, does not DetNet is provides a Quality of Service (QoS), and as such, does not
directly raise any new privacy considerations. directly raise any new privacy considerations.
However, the requirement for every (or almost every) node along the However, the requirement for every (or almost every) node along the
skipping to change at page 27, line 22 skipping to change at page 36, line 22
artnum/046615!opendocument>. artnum/046615!opendocument>.
[I-D.dt-detnet-dp-alt] [I-D.dt-detnet-dp-alt]
Korhonen, J., Farkas, J., Mirsky, G., Thubert, P., Korhonen, J., Farkas, J., Mirsky, G., Thubert, P.,
Zhuangyan, Z., and L. Berger, "DetNet Data Plane Protocol Zhuangyan, Z., and L. Berger, "DetNet Data Plane Protocol
and Solution Alternatives", draft-dt-detnet-dp-alt-04 and Solution Alternatives", draft-dt-detnet-dp-alt-04
(work in progress), September 2016. (work in progress), September 2016.
[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-10 (work of IEEE 802.15.4", draft-ietf-6tisch-architecture-11 (work
in progress), June 2016. in progress), January 2017.
[I-D.ietf-6tisch-tsch] [I-D.ietf-6tisch-tsch]
Watteyne, T., Palattella, M., and L. Grieco, "Using Watteyne, T., Palattella, M., and L. Grieco, "Using
IEEE802.15.4e TSCH in an IoT context: Overview, Problem IEEE802.15.4e TSCH in an IoT context: Overview, Problem
Statement and Goals", draft-ietf-6tisch-tsch-06 (work in Statement and Goals", draft-ietf-6tisch-tsch-06 (work in
progress), March 2015. progress), March 2015.
[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-00 (work Statement", draft-ietf-detnet-problem-statement-01 (work
in progress), April 2016. in progress), September 2016.
[I-D.ietf-detnet-use-cases] [I-D.ietf-detnet-use-cases]
Grossman, E., Gunther, C., Thubert, P., Wetterwald, P., Grossman, E., Gunther, C., Thubert, P., Wetterwald, P.,
Raymond, J., Korhonen, J., Kaneko, Y., Das, S., Zha, Y., Raymond, J., Korhonen, J., Kaneko, Y., Das, S., Zha, Y.,
Varga, B., Farkas, J., Goetz, F., and J. Schmitt, Varga, B., Farkas, J., Goetz, F., Schmitt, J., Vilajosana,
X., Mahmoodi, T., Spirou, S., and P. Vizarreta,
"Deterministic Networking Use Cases", draft-ietf-detnet- "Deterministic Networking Use Cases", draft-ietf-detnet-
use-cases-10 (work in progress), July 2016. use-cases-11 (work in progress), October 2016.
[I-D.ietf-roll-rpl-industrial-applicability] [I-D.ietf-roll-rpl-industrial-applicability]
Phinney, T., Thubert, P., and R. Assimiti, "RPL Phinney, T., Thubert, P., and R. Assimiti, "RPL
applicability in industrial networks", draft-ietf-roll- applicability in industrial networks", draft-ietf-roll-
rpl-industrial-applicability-02 (work in progress), rpl-industrial-applicability-02 (work in progress),
October 2013. October 2013.
[I-D.svshah-tsvwg-deterministic-forwarding] [I-D.svshah-tsvwg-deterministic-forwarding]
Shah, S. and P. Thubert, "Deterministic Forwarding PHB", Shah, S. and P. Thubert, "Deterministic Forwarding PHB",
draft-svshah-tsvwg-deterministic-forwarding-04 (work in draft-svshah-tsvwg-deterministic-forwarding-04 (work in
progress), August 2015. progress), August 2015.
[I-D.varga-detnet-service-model]
Varga, B. and J. Farkas, "DetNet Service Model", draft-
varga-detnet-service-model-01 (work in progress), October
2016.
[IEEE802.11-2012] [IEEE802.11-2012]
IEEE, "Wireless LAN Medium Access Control (MAC) and IEEE, "Wireless LAN Medium Access Control (MAC) and
Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications", 2012, Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications", 2012,
<http://standards.ieee.org/getieee802/ <http://standards.ieee.org/getieee802/
download/802.11-2012.pdf>. download/802.11-2012.pdf>.
[IEEE802.1AS-2011] [IEEE802.1AS-2011]
IEEE, "Timing and Synchronizations (IEEE 802.1AS-2011)", IEEE, "Timing and Synchronizations (IEEE 802.1AS-2011)",
2011, <http://standards.ieee.org/getIEEE802/ 2011, <http://standards.ieee.org/getIEEE802/
download/802.1AS-2011.pdf>. download/802.1AS-2011.pdf>.
[IEEE802.1BA-2011] [IEEE802.1BA-2011]
IEEE, "AVB Systems (IEEE 802.1BA-2011)", 2011, IEEE, "AVB (Audio Video Bridging) Systems (IEEE 802.1BA-
<http://standards.ieee.org/getIEEE802/ 2011)", 2011, <http://standards.ieee.org/getIEEE802/
download/802.1BA-2011.pdf>. download/802.1BA-2011.pdf>.
[IEEE802.1CB] [IEEE802.1CB]
IEEE, "Frame Replication and Elimination for Reliability IEEE, "Frame Replication and Elimination for Reliability
(IEEE Draft P802.1CB)", 2016, (IEEE Draft P802.1CB)", 2016,
<http://www.ieee802.org/1/files/private/cb-drafts/>. <http://www.ieee802.org/1/files/private/cb-drafts/>.
[IEEE802.1Q-2014] [IEEE802.1Q-2014]
IEEE, "MAC Bridges and VLANs (IEEE 802.1Q-2014", 2014, IEEE, "MAC Bridges and VLANs (IEEE 802.1Q-2014", 2014,
<http://standards.ieee.org/getieee802/ <http://standards.ieee.org/getieee802/
skipping to change at page 29, line 15 skipping to change at page 38, line 27
[IEEE802.1Qch] [IEEE802.1Qch]
IEEE, "Cyclic Queuing and Forwarding", 2016, IEEE, "Cyclic Queuing and Forwarding", 2016,
<http://www.ieee802.org/1/files/private/ch-drafts/>. <http://www.ieee802.org/1/files/private/ch-drafts/>.
[IEEE802.1TSNTG] [IEEE802.1TSNTG]
IEEE Standards Association, "IEEE 802.1 Time-Sensitive 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>.
[IEEE802.3-2012] [IEEE802.3-2012]
IEEE, "IEEE Stabdard for Ethernet", 2012, IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Ethernet", 2012,
<http://standards.ieee.org/getieee802/ <http://standards.ieee.org/getieee802/
download/802.3-2012.pdf>. download/802.3-2012.pdf>.
[IEEE802.3br] [IEEE802.3br]
IEEE, "Interspersed Express Traffic", 2016, IEEE, "Interspersed Express Traffic", 2016,
<http://www.ieee802.org/3/br/>. <http://www.ieee802.org/3/br/>.
[IEEE802154] [IEEE802154]
IEEE standard for Information Technology, "IEEE std. IEEE Standard for Information Technology, "IEEE 802.15.4,
802.15.4, Part. 15.4: Wireless Medium Access Control (MAC) Part. 15.4: Wireless Medium Access Control (MAC) and
and Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications for Low-Rate Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications for Low-Rate Wireless
Wireless Personal Area Networks", June 2011. Personal Area Networks", June 2011.
[IEEE802154e] [IEEE802154e]
IEEE standard for Information Technology, "IEEE std. IEEE Standard for Information Technology, "IEEE 802.15.4e,
802.15.4e, Part. 15.4: Low-Rate Wireless Personal Area Part. 15.4: Low-Rate Wireless Personal Area Networks (LR-
Networks (LR-WPANs) Amendment 1: MAC sublayer", April WPANs) Amendment 1: MAC sublayer", April 2012.
2012.
[ISA100.11a] [ISA100.11a]
ISA/IEC, "ISA100.11a, Wireless Systems for Automation, ISA/IEC, "ISA100.11a, Wireless Systems for Automation,
also IEC 62734", 2011, < http://www.isa100wci.org/en- also IEC 62734", 2011, < http://www.isa100wci.org/en-
US/Documents/PDF/3405-ISA100-WirelessSystems-Future-broch- US/Documents/PDF/3405-ISA100-WirelessSystems-Future-broch-
WEB-ETSI.aspx>. WEB-ETSI.aspx>.
[ISA95] ANSI/ISA, "Enterprise-Control System Integration Part 1: [ISA95] ANSI/ISA, "Enterprise-Control System Integration Part 1:
Models and Terminology", 2000, <https://www.isa.org/ Models and Terminology", 2000, <https://www.isa.org/
isa95/>. isa95/>.
skipping to change at page 31, line 25 skipping to change at page 40, line 35
[RFC5921] Bocci, M., Ed., Bryant, S., Ed., Frost, D., Ed., Levrau, [RFC5921] Bocci, M., Ed., Bryant, S., Ed., Frost, D., Ed., Levrau,
L., and L. Berger, "A Framework for MPLS in Transport L., and L. Berger, "A Framework for MPLS in Transport
Networks", RFC 5921, DOI 10.17487/RFC5921, July 2010, Networks", RFC 5921, DOI 10.17487/RFC5921, July 2010,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5921>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5921>.
[RFC6372] Sprecher, N., Ed. and A. Farrel, Ed., "MPLS Transport [RFC6372] Sprecher, N., Ed. and A. Farrel, Ed., "MPLS Transport
Profile (MPLS-TP) Survivability Framework", RFC 6372, Profile (MPLS-TP) Survivability Framework", RFC 6372,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6372, September 2011, DOI 10.17487/RFC6372, September 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6372>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6372>.
[RFC6658] Bryant, S., Ed., Martini, L., Swallow, G., and A. Malis,
"Packet Pseudowire Encapsulation over an MPLS PSN",
RFC 6658, DOI 10.17487/RFC6658, July 2012,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6658>.
[RFC7384] Mizrahi, T., "Security Requirements of Time Protocols in [RFC7384] Mizrahi, T., "Security Requirements of Time Protocols in
Packet Switched Networks", RFC 7384, DOI 10.17487/RFC7384, Packet Switched Networks", RFC 7384, DOI 10.17487/RFC7384,
October 2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7384>. October 2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7384>.
[RFC7426] Haleplidis, E., Ed., Pentikousis, K., Ed., Denazis, S., [RFC7426] Haleplidis, E., Ed., Pentikousis, K., Ed., Denazis, S.,
Hadi Salim, J., Meyer, D., and O. Koufopavlou, "Software- Hadi Salim, J., Meyer, D., and O. Koufopavlou, "Software-
Defined Networking (SDN): Layers and Architecture Defined Networking (SDN): Layers and Architecture
Terminology", RFC 7426, DOI 10.17487/RFC7426, January Terminology", RFC 7426, DOI 10.17487/RFC7426, January
2015, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7426>. 2015, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7426>.
skipping to change at page 32, line 4 skipping to change at page 41, line 11
[TEAS] IETF, "Traffic Engineering Architecture and Signaling", [TEAS] IETF, "Traffic Engineering Architecture and Signaling",
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-teas/>. <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-teas/>.
[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.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Norman Finn Norman Finn
Self-employed Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd
1807 Santa Rita Rd 3755 Avocado Blvd.
Suite D, PMB 345 PMB 436
Pleasanton, California 94566 La Mesa, California 91941
US US
Phone: +1 925 980 6430 Phone: +1 925 980 6430
Email: nfinn@alumni.caltech.edu Email: norman.finn@mail01.huawei.com
Pascal Thubert Pascal Thubert
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
Village d'Entreprises Green Side Village d'Entreprises Green Side
400, Avenue de Roumanille 400, Avenue de Roumanille
Batiment T3 Batiment T3
Biot - Sophia Antipolis 06410 Biot - Sophia Antipolis 06410
FRANCE FRANCE
Phone: +33 4 97 23 26 34 Phone: +33 4 97 23 26 34
Email: pthubert@cisco.com Email: pthubert@cisco.com
Balazs Varga
Ericsson
Konyves Kalman krt. 11/B
Budapest 1097
Hungary
Email: balazs.a.varga@ericsson.com
Janos Farkas
Ericsson
Konyves Kalman krt. 11/B
Budapest 1097
Hungary
Email: janos.farkas@ericsson.com
 End of changes. 64 change blocks. 
99 lines changed or deleted 465 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.45. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/