draft-ietf-detnet-architecture-03.txt   draft-ietf-detnet-architecture-04.txt 
DetNet N. Finn DetNet N. Finn
Internet-Draft Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd Internet-Draft Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd
Intended status: Standards Track P. Thubert Intended status: Standards Track P. Thubert
Expires: February 9, 2018 Cisco Expires: May 3, 2018 Cisco
B. Varga B. Varga
J. Farkas J. Farkas
Ericsson Ericsson
August 8, 2017 October 30, 2017
Deterministic Networking Architecture Deterministic Networking Architecture
draft-ietf-detnet-architecture-03 draft-ietf-detnet-architecture-04
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 37 skipping to change at page 1, line 37
configuration, or by manual or automatic network management. configuration, or by manual or automatic network management.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
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 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 February 9, 2018. This Internet-Draft will expire on May 3, 2018.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 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 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
skipping to change at page 12, line 26 skipping to change at page 12, line 26
> /------------+ R node E +------------\ > > /------------+ R node E +------------\ >
> / v + ^ \ > > / v + ^ \ >
end R + v | ^ + E end end R + v | ^ + E end
system + v | ^ + system system + v | ^ + system
> \ v + ^ / > > \ v + ^ / >
> \------------+ R relay E +-----------/ > > \------------+ R relay E +-----------/ >
> > > > > > > > > node > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > node > > > > > > > >
Figure 1 Figure 1
Note that packet replication and elimination does not react to and Packet replication and elimination does not react to and correct
correct failures; it is entirely passive. Thus, intermittent failures; it is entirely passive. Thus, intermittent failures,
failures, mistakenly created packet filters, or misrouted data is mistakenly created packet filters, or misrouted data is handled just
handled just the same as the equipment failures that are detected the same as the equipment failures that are detected handled by
handled by typical routing and bridging protocols. typical routing and bridging protocols.
If packet replication and elimination is used over paths providing If packet replication and elimination is used over paths providing
congestion protection (Section 3.2.1), and member flows that take congestion protection (Section 3.2.1), and member flows that take
different-length paths through the network are combined, a merge different-length paths through the network are combined, a merge
point may require extra buffering to equalize the delays over the point may require extra buffering to equalize the delays over the
different paths. This equalization ensures that the resultant different paths. This equalization ensures that the resultant
compound flow will not exceed its contracted bandwidth even after one compound flow will not exceed its contracted bandwidth even after one
or the other of the paths is restored after a failure. or the other of the paths is restored after a failure.
3.3. Secondary goals for DetNet 3.3. Secondary goals for DetNet
skipping to change at page 15, line 26 skipping to change at page 15, line 26
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,
compound flows, or both. The duplication may also be compound flows, or both. The duplication may also be
inferred from other information such as the precise time of inferred from other information such as the precise time of
reception in a scheduled network. The duplicate elimination reception in a scheduled network. The duplicate elimination
layer may also perform resequencing of packets to restore layer may also perform resequencing of packets to restore
packet order in a flow that was disrupted by the loss of packet order in a flow that was disrupted by the loss of
packets on one or another of the multiple paths taken. packets on one or another of the multiple paths taken.
Flow duplication Flow duplication
As part of DetNet service protection, replicates packets that As part of DetNet service protection, packets that belong to
belong to a DetNet compound flow into two or more DetNet a DetNet compound flow are replicated into two or more DetNet
member flows. Note that this function is separate from member flows. This function is separate from packet
packet sequencing. Flow duplication can be an explicit sequencing. Flow duplication can be an explicit duplication
duplication and remarking of packets, or can be performed by, and remarking of packets, or can be performed by, for
for example, techniques similar to ordinary multicast example, techniques similar to ordinary multicast
replication. Peers with DetNet flow merging. replication. Peers with DetNet flow merging.
Network flow merging Network flow merging
As part of DetNet service protection, merges DetNet member As part of DetNet service protection, merges DetNet member
flows together for packets coming up the stack belonging to a flows together for packets coming up the stack belonging to a
specific DetNet compound flow. Peers with DetNet flow specific DetNet compound flow. Peers with DetNet flow
duplication. DetNet flow merging, together with packet duplication. DetNet flow merging, together with packet
sequencing, duplicate elimination, and DetNet flow sequencing, duplicate elimination, and DetNet flow
duplication, performs packet replication and elimination duplication, performs packet replication and elimination
(Section 3.2.4). (Section 3.2.4).
skipping to change at page 16, line 19 skipping to change at page 16, line 19
Congestion protection Congestion protection
The DetNet transport layer provides congestion protection. The DetNet transport layer provides congestion protection.
See Section 4.5. The actual queuing and shaping mechanisms See Section 4.5. 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 The packet sequencing and duplication elimination functions at the
at the source and destination ends of a DetNet compound flow may be 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.
4.1.2. DetNet Data Plane Overview 4.1.2. DetNet Data Plane Overview
skipping to change at page 22, line 31 skipping to change at page 22, line 31
The source promises that these limits will not be exceeded. If the The source promises that these limits will not be exceeded. If the
source transmits less data than this limit allows, the unused source transmits less data than this limit allows, the unused
resources such as link bandwidth can be made available by the system resources such as link bandwidth can be made available by the system
to non-DetNet packets. However, making those resources available to to non-DetNet packets. However, making those resources available to
DetNet packets in other DetNet flows would serve no purpose. Those DetNet packets in other DetNet flows would serve no purpose. Those
other DetNet flows have their own dedicated resources, on the other DetNet flows have their own dedicated resources, on the
assumption that all DetNet flows can use all of their resources over assumption that all DetNet flows can use all of their resources over
a long period of time. a long period of time.
Note that there is no provision in DetNet for throttling DetNet flows There is no provision in DetNet for throttling DetNet flows (reducing
(reducing the transmission rate via feedback); the assumption is that the transmission rate via feedback); the assumption is that a DetNet
a DetNet flow, to be useful, must be delivered in its entirety. That flow, to be useful, must be delivered in its entirety. That is,
is, while any useful application is written to expect a certain while any useful application is written to expect a certain number of
number of lost packets, the real-time applications of interest to lost packets, the real-time applications of interest to DetNet demand
DetNet demand that the loss of data due to the network is that the loss of data due to the network is extraordinarily
extraordinarily infrequent. infrequent.
Although DetNet strives to minimize the changes required of an Although DetNet strives to minimize the changes required of an
application to allow it to shift from a special-purpose digital application to allow it to shift from a special-purpose digital
network to an Internet Protocol network, one fundamental shift in the network to an Internet Protocol network, one fundamental shift in the
behavior of network applications is impossible to avoid: the behavior of network applications is impossible to avoid: the
reservation of resources before the application starts. In the first reservation of resources before the application starts. In the first
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
skipping to change at page 26, line 35 skipping to change at page 26, line 35
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.
4.6. Service instance 4.6. Service instance
[Note: Service instance represents all the functions required on a A Service instance represents all the functions required on a node to
node to allow the end-to-end service between the UNIs.] allow the end-to-end service between the UNIs.
The DetNet network reference model is shown in Figure 8 for a DetNet- The DetNet network reference model is shown in Figure 8 for a DetNet-
Service scenario (i.e. between two DetNet-UNIs). In this figure, the 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 end systems ("A" and "B") are connected directly to the edge nodes of
the IP/MPLS network ("PE1" and "PE2"). End-systems participating the IP/MPLS network ("PE1" and "PE2"). End-systems participating
DetNet communication may require connectivity before setting up an DetNet communication may require connectivity before setting up an
App-flow that requires the DetNet service. Such a connectivity App-flow that requires the DetNet service. Such a connectivity
related service instance and the one dedicated for DetNet service related service instance and the one dedicated for DetNet service
share the same access. Packets belonging to a DetNet flow are share the same access. Packets belonging to a DetNet flow are
selected by a filter configured on the access ("F1" and "F2"). As a selected by a filter configured on the access ("F1" and "F2"). As a
skipping to change at page 27, line 28 skipping to change at page 27, line 28
End system | +----+ | / \/ \_ | +----+ | End system End system | +----+ | / \/ \_ | +----+ | End system
"A" -------F1+ | | / \ | | +F2----- "B" "A" -------F1+ | | / \ | | +F2----- "B"
| | +==========+ IP/MPLS +========+ | | | | +==========+ IP/MPLS +========+ | |
| |SI-1| | \__ Net._/ | |SI-2| | | |SI-1| | \__ Net._/ | |SI-2| |
| +----+ | \____/ | +----+ | | +----+ | \____/ | +----+ |
|PE1 | | PE2| |PE1 | | PE2|
+---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+
Figure 8: DetNet network reference model Figure 8: DetNet network reference model
[Note: The tunnel between the service instances may have some special The tunnel between the service instances may have some special
characteristics. For example, in case of a "packet PW" based tunnel, characteristics. For example, in case of a "packet PW" based tunnel,
there are differences in the usage of the packet PW for DetNet there are differences in the usage of the packet PW for DetNet
traffic compared to the network model described in [RFC6658]. In the traffic compared to the network model described in [RFC6658]. In the
DetNet scenario, the packet PW is used exclusively by the DetNet DetNet scenario, the packet PW is used exclusively by the DetNet
flow, whereas [RFC6658] states: "The packet PW appears as a single flow, whereas [RFC6658] states: "The packet PW appears as a single
point-to-point link to the client layer. Network-layer adjacency point-to-point link to the client layer. Network-layer adjacency
formation and maintenance between the client equipments will follow formation and maintenance between the client equipments will follow
the normal practice needed to support the required relationship in the normal practice needed to support the required relationship in
the client layer ... This packet pseudowire is used to transport all the client layer ... This packet pseudowire is used to transport all
of the required layer 2 and layer 3 protocols between LSR1 and of the required layer 2 and layer 3 protocols between LSR1 and LSR2".
LSR2".]
[Note: Examples are provided in Annex 1 of
[I-D.varga-detnet-service-model].]
4.7. Flow identification at technology borders 4.7. Flow identification at technology borders
4.7.1. Exporting flow identification 4.7.1. 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:
skipping to change at page 29, line 30 skipping to change at page 29, line 27
(e.g., two LSRs are interconnected by a L2 bridged domain, etc.). (e.g., two LSRs are interconnected by a L2 bridged domain, etc.).
The three main forwarding methods considered for deterministic The three main forwarding methods considered for deterministic
networking are: networking are:
o IP routing o IP routing
o MPLS label switching o MPLS label switching
o Ethernet bridging 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 add/remove add/remove
Eth Flow-ID IP Flow-ID Eth Flow-ID IP Flow-ID
| | | |
v v v v
+-----------------------------------------------------------+ +-----------------------------------------------------------+
| | | | | | | | | |
| Eth | MPLS | IP | Application data | | Eth | MPLS | IP | Application data |
| | | | | | | | | |
+-----------------------------------------------------------+ +-----------------------------------------------------------+
^ ^
skipping to change at page 30, line 11 skipping to change at page 29, line 49
MPLS Flow-ID MPLS Flow-ID
Figure 9: Packet with multiple Flow-IDs Figure 9: Packet with multiple Flow-IDs
The additional (domain specific) Flow-ID can be The additional (domain specific) Flow-ID can be
o created by a domain specific function or o created by a domain specific function or
o derived from the Flow-ID added to the App-flow, o derived from the Flow-ID added to the App-flow,
so that it must be unique inside the given domain. Note, that the 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 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 transport nodes may lack the function to recognize it; that's why the
additional Flow-ID is added (pushed). additional Flow-ID is added (pushed).
4.7.3. Flow-ID mapping examples 4.7.3. Flow-ID mapping examples
IP nodes and MPLS nodes are assumed to be configured to push such an IP nodes and MPLS nodes are assumed to be configured to push such an
additional (domain specific) Flow-ID when sending traffic to an additional (domain specific) Flow-ID when sending traffic to an
Ethernet switch (as shown in the examples below). Ethernet switch (as shown in the examples below).
skipping to change at page 32, line 7 skipping to change at page 31, line 44
"PE-1" uses the MPLS specific ID ("MPLS-ID"), but as it is connected "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 to an Ethernet domain it has to push an Ethernet-domain specific
flow-ID ("VID + multicast MAC address", referred as "ETH-ID") before flow-ID ("VID + multicast MAC address", referred as "ETH-ID") before
sending the packet to "ETH-1". Ethernet switch "ETH-1" can recognize 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 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"). "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 "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 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. flow ID based on the "MPLS-ID" fields of the received packet.
One can appreciate from the above example that, when the means used
for DetNet flow identifcation is altered or exported, the means for
encoding the sequence number information must similarly be altered or
exported.
4.8. Advertising resources, capabilities and adjacencies 4.8. 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
skipping to change at page 36, line 7 skipping to change at page 36, line 7
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-11 (work of IEEE 802.15.4", draft-ietf-6tisch-architecture-12 (work
in progress), January 2017. in progress), August 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-01 (work Statement", draft-ietf-detnet-problem-statement-02 (work
in progress), September 2016. in progress), September 2017.
[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., Schmitt, J., Vilajosana, Varga, B., Farkas, J., Goetz, F., Schmitt, J., Vilajosana,
X., Mahmoodi, T., Spirou, S., and P. Vizarreta, X., Mahmoodi, T., Spirou, S., Vizarreta, P., Huang, D.,
"Deterministic Networking Use Cases", draft-ietf-detnet- Geng, X., Dujovne, D., and M. Seewald, "Deterministic
use-cases-12 (work in progress), April 2017. Networking Use Cases", draft-ietf-detnet-use-cases-13
(work in progress), September 2017.
[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
skipping to change at page 38, line 12 skipping to change at page 38, line 12
IEEE, "IEEE Std 802.3 Standard for Ethernet", 2015, IEEE, "IEEE Std 802.3 Standard for Ethernet", 2015,
<http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7428776/>. <http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7428776/>.
[IEEE802.3br] [IEEE802.3br]
IEEE, "IEEE Std 802.3br Standard for Ethernet Amendment 5: IEEE, "IEEE Std 802.3br Standard for Ethernet Amendment 5:
Specification and Management Parameters for Interspersing Specification and Management Parameters for Interspersing
Express Traffic", 2016, Express Traffic", 2016,
<http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7900321/>. <http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7900321/>.
[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,
isa95/>. <https://www.isa.org/isa95/>.
[ODVA] http://www.odva.org/, "The organization that supports [ODVA] http://www.odva.org/, "The organization that supports
network technologies built on the Common Industrial network technologies built on the Common Industrial
Protocol (CIP) including EtherNet/IP.". Protocol (CIP) including EtherNet/IP.".
[PCE] IETF, "Path Computation Element", [PCE] IETF, "Path Computation Element",
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-pce/>. <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-pce/>.
[Profinet] [Profinet]
http://us.profinet.com/technology/profinet/, "PROFINET is http://us.profinet.com/technology/profinet/, "PROFINET is
a standard for industrial networking in automation.", a standard for industrial networking in automation.",
<http://us.profinet.com/technology/profinet/>. <http://us.profinet.com/technology/profinet/>.
[RFC2205] Braden, R., Ed., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and S. [RFC2205] Braden, R., Ed., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and S.
Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1 Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1
Functional Specification", RFC 2205, DOI 10.17487/RFC2205, Functional Specification", RFC 2205, DOI 10.17487/RFC2205,
September 1997, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2205>. September 1997, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2205>.
[RFC2475] Blake, S., Black, D., Carlson, M., Davies, E., Wang, Z., [RFC2475] Blake, S., Black, D., Carlson, M., Davies, E., Wang, Z.,
and W. Weiss, "An Architecture for Differentiated and W. Weiss, "An Architecture for Differentiated
Services", RFC 2475, DOI 10.17487/RFC2475, December 1998, Services", RFC 2475, DOI 10.17487/RFC2475, December 1998,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2475>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2475>.
[RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V., [RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
Tunnels", RFC 3209, DOI 10.17487/RFC3209, December 2001, Tunnels", RFC 3209, DOI 10.17487/RFC3209, December 2001,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3209>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3209>.
[RFC3473] Berger, L., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label [RFC3473] Berger, L., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol- Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-
Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3473, January 2003, DOI 10.17487/RFC3473, January 2003,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3473>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3473>.
[RFC3550] Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V. [RFC3550] Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V.
Jacobson, "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Jacobson, "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time
Applications", STD 64, RFC 3550, DOI 10.17487/RFC3550, Applications", STD 64, RFC 3550, DOI 10.17487/RFC3550,
July 2003, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3550>. July 2003, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3550>.
[RFC4203] Kompella, K., Ed. and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "OSPF Extensions in [RFC4203] Kompella, K., Ed. and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "OSPF Extensions in
Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS)", RFC 4203, DOI 10.17487/RFC4203, October 2005, (GMPLS)", RFC 4203, DOI 10.17487/RFC4203, October 2005,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4203>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4203>.
[RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and J. Ash, "A Path Computation [RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and J. Ash, "A Path Computation
Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655, Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4655, August 2006, DOI 10.17487/RFC4655, August 2006,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4655>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4655>.
[RFC5307] Kompella, K., Ed. and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "IS-IS Extensions [RFC5307] Kompella, K., Ed. and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "IS-IS Extensions
in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS)", RFC 5307, DOI 10.17487/RFC5307, October 2008, (GMPLS)", RFC 5307, DOI 10.17487/RFC5307, October 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5307>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5307>.
[RFC5316] Chen, M., Zhang, R., and X. Duan, "ISIS Extensions in [RFC5316] Chen, M., Zhang, R., and X. Duan, "ISIS Extensions in
Support of Inter-Autonomous System (AS) MPLS and GMPLS Support of Inter-Autonomous System (AS) MPLS and GMPLS
Traffic Engineering", RFC 5316, DOI 10.17487/RFC5316, Traffic Engineering", RFC 5316, DOI 10.17487/RFC5316,
December 2008, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5316>. December 2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5316>.
[RFC5392] Chen, M., Zhang, R., and X. Duan, "OSPF Extensions in [RFC5392] Chen, M., Zhang, R., and X. Duan, "OSPF Extensions in
Support of Inter-Autonomous System (AS) MPLS and GMPLS Support of Inter-Autonomous System (AS) MPLS and GMPLS
Traffic Engineering", RFC 5392, DOI 10.17487/RFC5392, Traffic Engineering", RFC 5392, DOI 10.17487/RFC5392,
January 2009, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5392>. January 2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5392>.
[RFC5673] Pister, K., Ed., Thubert, P., Ed., Dwars, S., and T. [RFC5673] Pister, K., Ed., Thubert, P., Ed., Dwars, S., and T.
Phinney, "Industrial Routing Requirements in Low-Power and Phinney, "Industrial Routing Requirements in Low-Power and
Lossy Networks", RFC 5673, DOI 10.17487/RFC5673, October Lossy Networks", RFC 5673, DOI 10.17487/RFC5673, October
2009, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5673>. 2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5673>.
[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>. <https://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>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6372>.
[RFC6658] Bryant, S., Ed., Martini, L., Swallow, G., and A. Malis, [RFC6658] Bryant, S., Ed., Martini, L., Swallow, G., and A. Malis,
"Packet Pseudowire Encapsulation over an MPLS PSN", "Packet Pseudowire Encapsulation over an MPLS PSN",
RFC 6658, DOI 10.17487/RFC6658, July 2012, RFC 6658, DOI 10.17487/RFC6658, July 2012,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6658>. <https://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, <https://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, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7426>.
[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/>.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Norman Finn Norman Finn
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd
3755 Avocado Blvd. 3755 Avocado Blvd.
PMB 436 PMB 436
 End of changes. 36 change blocks. 
66 lines changed or deleted 62 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.46. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/