| DetNet | B. Varga, Ed. |
| Internet-Draft | J. Farkas |
| Intended status: Standards Track | Ericsson |
| Expires: November 7, 2019 | L. Berger |
| LabN Consulting, L.L.C. | |
| A. Malis | |
| S. Bryant | |
| Huawei Technologies | |
| J. Korhonen | |
| May 6, 2019 |
DetNet Data Plane: MPLS over IP
draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-udp-ip-00
This document specifies the MPLS Deterministic Networking data plane operation and encapsulation over an IP network. The approach is modeled on the operation of MPLS and PseudoWires (PW) over IP.
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on November 7, 2019.
Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
Deterministic Networking (DetNet) is a service that can be offered by a network to DetNet flows. DetNet provides these flows with a low packet loss rates and assured maximum end-to-end delivery latency. General background and concepts of DetNet can be found in [I-D.ietf-detnet-architecture].
The DetNet Architecture decomposes the DetNet related data plane functions into two sub-layers: a service sub-layer and a forwarding sub-layer. The service sub-layer is used to provide DetNet service protection and reordering. The forwarding sub-layer is used to provides congestion protection (low loss, assured latency, and limited reordering) leveraging MPLS Traffic Engineering mechanisms.
This document specifies use of the MPLS DetNet encapsulation over an IP network. The approach is modeled on the operation of MPLS and PseudoWires (PW) over an IP Packet Switched Network (PSN) [RFC3985][RFC4385][RFC7510]. It maps the MPLS data plane encapsulation described in [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls] to the DetNet IP data plane defined in [I-D.ietf-detnet-ip].
To carry DetNet with full functionality at the DetNet layer over an IP network, the following components are required (these are a subset of the requirements for MPLS encapsulation listed in [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls]):
These requirements are satisfied by the DetNet over MPLS Encapsulation described in [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls].
This document uses the terminology established in the DetNet architecture [I-D.ietf-detnet-architecture], and the reader is assumed to be familiar with that document and its terminology.
The following abbreviations are used in this document:
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.
This document builds on the specification of MPLS over UDP and IP defined in [RFC7510]. It replaces the F-Label(s) used in [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls] with UDP and IP headers. The UDP and IP header information is used to identify DetNet flows, including member flows, per [I-D.ietf-detnet-ip]. The resulting encapsulation is shown in Figure 1.
Note that this encapsulation works equally well with IPv4, IPv6, and IPv6-based Segment Routing [I-D.ietf-6man-segment-routing-header].
+---------------------------------+ | | | DetNet App-Flow | | Payload Packet | | | +---------------------------------+ <--\ | DetNet Control Word | | +---------------------------------+ +--> DetNet data plane | S-Label | | MPLS encapsulation +---------------------------------+ <--+ | UDP Header | | +---------------------------------+ +--> DetNet data plane | IP Header | | IP encapsulation +---------------------------------+ <--/ | Data-Link | +---------------------------------+ | Physical | +---------------------------------+
Figure 1: IP Encapsulation of DetNet MPLS
d-CW and and S-Labels are used as defined in [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls] and are not modified by this document.
To support outgoing DetNet MPLS over IP, an implementation MUST support the provisioning of IP/UDP header information in place of sets of F-Labels. Note that multiple sets of F-Labels can be provisioned to support PRF on transmitted DetNet flows and therefore, when PRF is supported, multiple IP/UDP headers MAY be provisioned. When multiple IP/UDP headers are provisioned for a particular outgoing app-flow, a copy of the outgoing packet, including the pushed S-Label, MUST be made for each. The headers for each outgoing packet MUST be based on the configuration information and as defined in [RFC7510], with one exception. The one exception is that the UDP Source Port value MUST be set to uniquely identify the DetNet (forwarding sub-layer) flow. The packet MUST then be handed as a DetNet IP packet, per [I-D.ietf-detnet-ip].
To support receive processing an implementation MUST also support the provisioning of received IP/UDP header information. When S-Labels are taken from platform label space, all that is required is to provision that receiving IP/UDP encapsulated DetNet MPLS packets is permitted. Once the IP/UDP header is stripped, the S-label uniquely identifies the app-flow. When S-Labels are not taken from platform label space, IP/UDP header information MUST be provisioned. The provisioned information MUST then be used to identify incoming app-flows based on the combination of S-Label and incoming IP/UDP header. Normal receive processing, including PEOF can then take place.
The security considerations of DetNet in general are discussed in [I-D.ietf-detnet-architecture] and [I-D.sdt-detnet-security]. Other security considerations will be added in a future version of this draft.
This document makes no IANA requests.
RFC7322 limits the number of authors listed on the front page of a draft to a maximum of 5, far fewer than the many individuals below who made important contributions to this draft. The editor wishes to thank and acknowledge each of the following authors for contributing text to this draft. See also Section 8.
Loa Andersson Huawei Email: loa@pi.nu Yuanlong Jiang Huawei Email: jiangyuanlong@huawei.com Norman Finn Huawei 3101 Rio Way Spring Valley, CA 91977 USA Email: norman.finn@mail01.huawei.com Janos Farkas Ericsson Magyar Tudosok krt. 11. Budapest 1117 Hungary Email: janos.farkas@ericsson.com Carlos J. Bernardos Universidad Carlos III de Madrid Av. Universidad, 30 Leganes, Madrid 28911 Spain Email: cjbc@it.uc3m.es Tal Mizrahi Marvell 6 Hamada st. Yokneam Israel Email: talmi@marvell.com Lou Berger LabN Consulting, L.L.C. Email: lberger@labn.net Stewart Bryant Huawei Technologies Email: stewart.bryant@gmail.com Mach Chen Huawei Technologies Email: mach.chen@huawei.com Andrew G. Malis Huawei Technologies Email: agmalis@gmail.com
The author(s) ACK and NACK.
The following people were part of the DetNet Data Plane Solution Design Team:
The DetNet chairs serving during the DetNet Data Plane Solution Design Team:
| [I-D.ietf-detnet-ip] | Korhonen, J., Varga, B., "DetNet IP", 2019. |
| [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls] | Korhonen, J., Varga, B., "DetNet MPLS", 2019. |
| [RFC2119] | Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997. |
| [RFC4385] | Bryant, S., Swallow, G., Martini, L. and D. McPherson, "Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) Control Word for Use over an MPLS PSN", RFC 4385, DOI 10.17487/RFC4385, February 2006. |
| [RFC7510] | Xu, X., Sheth, N., Yong, L., Callon, R. and D. Black, "Encapsulating MPLS in UDP", RFC 7510, DOI 10.17487/RFC7510, April 2015. |
| [RFC8174] | Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017. |
| [I-D.ietf-6man-segment-routing-header] | Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Leddy, J., Matsushima, S. and d. daniel.voyer@bell.ca, "IPv6 Segment Routing Header (SRH)", Internet-Draft draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header-18, April 2019. |
| [I-D.ietf-detnet-architecture] | Finn, N., Thubert, P., Varga, B. and J. Farkas, "Deterministic Networking Architecture", Internet-Draft draft-ietf-detnet-architecture-12, March 2019. |
| [I-D.sdt-detnet-security] | Mizrahi, T., Grossman, E., Hacker, A., Das, S., "Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Security Considerations, draft-sdt-detnet-security, work in progress", 2017. |
| [RFC3985] | Bryant, S. and P. Pate, "Pseudo Wire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) Architecture", RFC 3985, DOI 10.17487/RFC3985, March 2005. |