DetNet B. Varga, Ed.
Internet-Draft J. Farkas
Intended status: Standards Track Ericsson
Expires: April 30, 2020 L. Berger
LabN Consulting, L.L.C.
A. Malis
S. Bryant
Futurewei Technologies
J. Korhonen
October 28, 2019

DetNet Data Plane: MPLS over UDP/IP


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 over UDP/IP packet switched networks.

Status of This Memo

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

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 April 30, 2020.

Copyright Notice

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 ( 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.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

Deterministic Networking (DetNet) is a service that can be offered by a network to DetNet flows. DetNet provides these flows extremely low packet loss rates and assured maximum end-to-end delivery latency. General background and concepts of DetNet can be found in [RFC8655].

This document specifies use of the MPLS DetNet encapsulation over an IP network. The approach is modeled on the operation of MPLS over an IP Packet Switched Network (PSN) [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 MPLS flows 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]):

  1. A method for identifying DetNet flows to the processing element.
  2. A method for carrying the DetNet sequence number.
  3. A method for distinguishing DetNet OAM packets from DetNet data packets.
  4. A method for carrying queuing and forwarding indication.

These requirements are satisfied by the DetNet over MPLS Encapsulation described in [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls] and they are partly satisfied by the DetNet IP data plane defined in [I-D.ietf-detnet-ip]

2. Terminology

2.1. Terms Used in This Document

This document uses the terminology established in the DetNet architecture [RFC8655], and the reader is assumed to be familiar with that document and its terminology.

2.2. Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this document:

A DetNet Control Word (d-CW) is used for sequencing and identifying duplicate packets of a DetNet flow at the DetNet service sub-layer.
Deterministic Networking.
A special case of an S-Label, whose properties are known only at the aggregation and deaggregation end-points.
A Detnet "forwarding" label that identifies the LSP used to forward a DetNet flow across an MPLS PSN, e.g., a hop-by-hop label used between label switching routers.
Multiprotocol Label Switching.
Operations, Administration, and Maintenance.
Packet Elimination Function.
Packet Ordering Function.
Packet Replication, Elimination and Ordering Functions.
Packet Replication Function.
Packet Switched Network.
A DetNet "service" label that is used between DetNet nodes that also implement the DetNet service sub-layer functions. An S-Label is also used to identify a DetNet flow at DetNet service sub-layer.

2.3. Requirements Language

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.

3. DetNet MPLS Operation over DetNet IP PSNs

This document builds on the specification of MPLS over UDP defined in [RFC7510]. It may replace partly or entirely 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. There may be zero or more F-label(s) between the S-label and the UDP header.

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
+---------------------------------+    |
|          [ F-label(s) ]         |    |
+---------------------------------+ <--+
|           UDP Header            |    |
+---------------------------------+    +--> DetNet data plane
|           IP Header             |    |    IP encapsulation
+---------------------------------+ <--/
|           Data-Link             |
|           Physical              |


Figure 1: UDP/IP Encapsulation of DetNet MPLS

S-Labels, d-CW and zero or more F-Labels are used as defined in [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls] and are not modified by this document. In case of aggregates the A-Label is treated as an S-Label and it too is not modified.

4. DetNet Data Plane Procedures

To support outgoing DetNet MPLS over UDP/IP encapsulation, an implementation MUST support the provisioning of UDP and IP header information in addition or in place of F-Label(s). Note, when PRF is performed at the MPLS service sub-layer, there will be multiple member flows, and each member flow will require the provisioning of their own UDP and IP header information. The headers for each outgoing packet MUST be formatted according to the configuration information and as defined in [RFC7510], with one exception. Note that the UDP Source Port value MUST be set to uniquely identify the DetNet flow. The packet MUST then be handed as a DetNet IP packet, per [I-D.ietf-detnet-ip]. This includes QoS related traffic treatment.

To support receive processing an implementation MUST also support the provisioning of received UDP and IP header information. The provisioned information MUST be used to identify incoming app-flows based on the combination of S-Label and incoming encapsulation header information. Normal receive processing as defined in [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls], including PEF and POF, can then take place.

5. Management and Control Information Summary

The following summarizes the set of information that is needed to configure DetNet MPLS over UDP/IP:

This information MUST be provisioned per DetNet flow via configuration, e.g., via the controller or management plane.

It is the responsibility of the DetNet controller plane to properly provision both flow identification information and the flow specific resources needed to provided the traffic treatment needed to meet each flow's service requirements. This applies for aggregated and individual flows.

6. Security Considerations

The security considerations of DetNet in general are discussed in [RFC8655] and [I-D.ietf-detnet-security]. MPLS and IP specific security considerations are described in [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls] and [I-D.ietf-detnet-ip]. This draft does not have additional security considerations.

7. IANA Considerations

This document makes no IANA requests.

8. Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank Pat Thaler, Norman Finn, Loa Anderson, David Black, Rodney Cummings, Ethan Grossman, Tal Mizrahi, David Mozes, Craig Gunther, George Swallow, Yuanlong Jiang and Carlos J. Bernardos for their various contributions to this work.

9. References

9.1. Normative References

[I-D.ietf-detnet-ip] Varga, B., Farkas, J., Berger, L., Fedyk, D., Malis, A., Bryant, S. and J. Korhonen, "DetNet Data Plane: IP", Internet-Draft draft-ietf-detnet-ip-02, October 2019.
[I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls] Varga, B., Farkas, J., Berger, L., Fedyk, D., Malis, A., Bryant, S. and J. Korhonen, "DetNet Data Plane: MPLS", Internet-Draft draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-02, October 2019.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997.
[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.

9.2. Informative References

[I-D.ietf-6man-segment-routing-header] Filsfils, C., Dukes, D., Previdi, S., Leddy, J., Matsushima, S. and d., "IPv6 Segment Routing Header (SRH)", Internet-Draft draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header-26, October 2019.
[I-D.ietf-detnet-security] Mizrahi, T., Grossman, E., Hacker, A., Das, S., Dowdell, J., Austad, H., Stanton, K. and N. Finn, "Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Security Considerations", Internet-Draft draft-ietf-detnet-security-05, August 2019.
[RFC8655] Finn, N., Thubert, P., Varga, B. and J. Farkas, "Deterministic Networking Architecture", RFC 8655, DOI 10.17487/RFC8655, October 2019.

Authors' Addresses

Balázs Varga (editor) Ericsson Magyar Tudosok krt. 11. Budapest, 1117 Hungary EMail:
János Farkas Ericsson Magyar Tudosok krt. 11. Budapest, 1117 Hungary EMail:
Lou Berger LabN Consulting, L.L.C. EMail:
Andrew G. Malis Independent EMail:
Stewart Bryant Futurewei Technologies EMail:
Jouni Korhonen EMail: