Internet-Draft MPLS Sub-Stack for DLA March 2023
Song & Xiong Expires 11 September 2023 [Page]
DetNet Working Group
Intended Status:
Standards Track
X. Song
ZTE Corp.
Q. Xiong
ZTE Corp.

MPLS Sub-Stack Encapsulation for Deterministic Latency Action


This document specifies formats and principals for the MPLS header which contains the Deterministic Latency Action (DLA) option, designed for use over a DetNet network with MPLS data plane. It enables guaranteed latency support and makes scheduling decisions for time-sensitive service running on DetNet nodes that operate within a constrained network domain.

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 11 September 2023.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

As specified in [RFC8655] and [RFC8938], Deterministic Networking (DetNet) operates at the IP layer and delivers service with low data loss rates and bounded latency guarantee within a network domain.

As defined in [RFC8964], the DetNet MPLS data plane provides a foundation of building blocks to enable PREOF (Packet Replication, Elimination and Ordering Functions (PREOF)) functions to DetNet service and forwarding sub-layer. The DetNet service sub-layer includes a DetNet Control Word (d-CW), service label (S-Label), an aggregation label (A-Label) in special case of S-Label used for aggregation. The DetNet forwarding sub-layer supports one or more forwarding labels (F-Labels) used to forward a DetNet flow over MPLS domains. The DetNet forwarding sub-layer provides corresponding forwarding assurance with IETF existing functions using resource allocations and explicit routes. But these functions may not be enough to provide the deterministic latency (including bounded latency, low packet loss and in-order delivery) assurance. Because latency variation in one DetNet system results in the need for extra buffer space in the next-hop DetNet system(s), which in turn increases the worst-case per-hop latency. So standard queuing and scheduling algorithms are required to compute and reserve the sufficient buffer space for DetNet nodes along the path of DetNet flows.

To support time-sensitive service with ultra-low loss rates and deterministic latency, it is required to apply feasible scheduling mechanisms to specific applications for deterministic networking. As described in [RFC9320], the end-to-end bounded latency is considered as the sum of non-queuing and queuing delay bounds along with the queuing mechanisms. The value for non-queuing delay bounds (which consist of packet output delay, link delay, frame preemption delay and processing delay) is relative with the physical capability of on-used networks and can be considered to be stable. The unstable latency delay bounds are mainly from queuing delay and regulation delay. The regulation delay is mainly from regulation policy. To simplify the question this draft assumes there is no regulation policy. So the question is left to address the selection for queuing mechanisms and queuing delay information encapsulation in data plane.

The queuing mechanisms, as mentioned in [RFC9320] and [RFC8655], which include Time Aware Shaping IEEE802.1Qbv, Asynchronous Traffic Shaping IEEE802.1Qcr, cyclic-scheduling queuing mechanism proposed in IEEE802.1Qch. There are also discussions on new queuing or scheduling mechanisms such as [I-D.peng-6man-deadline-option] and [I-D.dang-queuing-with-multiple-cyclic-buffers]. In terms of delay guarantee for different applications, to select the right scheduling/queuing mechanism applied to a specific application is required.

Based on the existing DetNet MPLS encapsulations and mechanisms [RFC8964], the draft defines the encoding format for Deterministic Latency Action (DLA) option carried in MPLS sub-stack.

2. Conventions

2.1. 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.

2.2. Terminology

Refer to [RFC8655], [RFC8964], [I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-hdr] and [RFC9320] for the key terms used in this document.

Deterministic Latency (DL):the bound of network latency and delay variation between two DetNet endpoints. It may includes parameters such as bounded latency, bounded delay variation, etc.

Deterministic Latency Action (DLA): used to indicate deterministic latency actions for MPLS Sub-Stack.

3. DetNet DLA Option

3.1. Queuing delay

[RFC8655] provides the architecture for deterministic networking (DetNet) which enables the service delivery of DetNet flows with extremely low packet loss rates and deterministic latency. The forwarding sub-layer provides corresponding forwarding assurance but can not provide the deterministic latency (including bounded latency, low packet loss and in-order delivery). As described at [RFC9320], the end-to-end bounded latency for one DetNet flow is the sum of delay bound of non-queuing and queuing processing latency. The delay bound for non-queuing processing may include output delay, link delay, frame preemption delay, and processing delay, the delay bound for queuing processing may include regulator delay, queuing delay. It is assumed that the delay of non-queuing processing is fixed or be ignorable, the delay of queuing processing is variable. To realize the guarantee of bounded latency service it is important to select right queuing methodology applied to specific applications and carry necessary queuing delay information for computation of end-to-end latency.

3.2. DLA Option

The DetNet data plane encapsulation in transport network with MPLS data plane is specified in [RFC8964]. [I-D.xiong-detnet-data-fields-edp] has proposed a commom DetNet data fields for enhanced DetNet data plane and defined a DLA option to carry queuing-based metadata.This document provides additional encapsulation for the DLA in MPLS data plane.

The DetNet routers in data plane perform MPLS forwarding functions to choose a feasible way with sufficient network resources for the incoming packets, and makes right selection on the queuing or scheduling mechanisms applied for specific DetNet flows to satisfy strict QoS criteria in the forwarding output port. The information for the queuing or scheduling mechanisms are carried in DetNet DLA header. Refer to [I-D.stein-srtsn], considering the time latency information are processed per hop so the time latency informations (such as deadline time, cycle identify, etc.) of each DetNet node for DetNet flows are expected to be carried as a set of lists of LSEs in MPLS data plane.

4. MPLS Extension for DLA

4.1. DetNet MPLS Header for DLA

The DetNet MPLS header follows [RFC8964], as showed the below figure 1, the SP-Lable (SPL) is added to indicate Deterministic Latency Action (DLA).

|       DetNet App-Flow     |
|       Payload Packet      |
|     DetNet Control Word   |   |
+---------------------------+   |
|          S-Label          |   | DetNet Data Plane
+---------------------------+   | MPLS Encapsulation
|          SP-Lable         |   |
+---------------------------+   |
|          F-Label(s)       |   |
|         Data-Link         |
|          Physical         |
Figure 1: DetNet MPLS Header

The SP-L (Special Purpose-Label) may be B-SPL [RFC9017], new-SPL, extended SPL [RFC9017]. This draft follows the MNA (MPLS Network Action) solution specified in [I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-hdr] and [I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-fwk], and uses b-SPL to indicate the presence of the MPLS Network Action Sub-Stack (NASS). The value for the bSPL value is to be assigned by IANA and follows the assignment in [I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-hdr]. The SP-Label field is formatted as below figure.

4.2. MPLS Sub-Stack for DLA

 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
|     NASI Label = bSPL (TBA1)          | TC  |S|      TTL      |
Figure 2: SP-Label Format

NASI Label:

A new bSPL value is to be assigned by IANA. It is used to indicate the presence of the MPLS Network Action Sub-Stack (NASS). The assignment for this field value refers to [I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-hdr].

The MPLS sub-stack encoding format for DLA option is showed as figure 3. The format provides DetNet Latency Network Action Indicator (NAI) indicates the specific DLA. Its detailed information is carried in Ancillary Data.

 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
|  Opcode     |          Flag           |P|IHS|S| Res |U|  NASL |
|1|             AD LSE1                       |S|    AD LSE1    |
|1|             AD LSE2                       |S|    AD LSE2    |
|                 ...  ...  ...                                 |
|1|             AD LSEn                       |S|    AD LSEn    |

Figure 3: MPLS LSE Format for DLA

Opcode (3 bits): This is the first 7-bit value in the Label Field. The value is used to indicate DLA and to be assigned by IANA.

Flag (13 bits): identifies the type of queuing mechanisms used in the network. The queuing type format is defined in section 4.2 of [I-D.xiong-detnet-data-fields-edp].

P (1 bit) : If set, it indicates the presence of post-stack network actions.

IHS (2 bits): The scope for MPLS sub-stack. DLA Option is considered to be processed by HBH (Hop-By-Hop), so the value is set to 01 refers to table 2 in [I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-hdr].

Res(3 bits) : Reserved bits.

U (1 bits): Unknown Action Handling.

NASL (4 bits): The Network Action Sub-Stack Length (NASL). The number of additional LSEs in the sub-stack, not including the leading Format LSE.

The first bit in the Label field of the following LSE MUST be set to "1". As specified in [I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-hdr] this is to prevent aliasing the label field with other bSPLs on the legacy routers.

Ancillary Data:

The 19-bit Label field and 4-bit TC field and 8-bit TTL field (except S bit) in the additional LSEs are used to carry the Ancillary Data for specific DLA latency information.

The Ancillary Data LSE1 is expected to carry the latency informationDLA option data defined in section 4.2.2 of [I-D.xiong-detnet-data-fields-edp] of the edge DetNet node. Depend on specific queuing mechanisms used in the network the DLA field length for the latency information for one DetNet node is variable. The specific queuing (including cycle, deadline, etc.) data encapsulation are described in [I-D.xiong-detnet-data-fields-edp].

The first AD LSE is expected to carry the latency information for edge DetNet node. When the length of latency information is more than 32bits less than 64bits, both AD LSE1 and LSE2 are expected to carry the latency information for edge DetNet node. In this case, the DLA option data of next hop is carried in AD LSE3 and LSE4. Along the path of DetNet flows the AD LSE(n-1) and LSEn carry the DLA option data for the peer edge DetNet node. With the DetNet flows are being forwarded in its output ports the corresponding node latency information carried in DLA options are processed hop by hop.

5. IANA Considerations

This document describes a new IANA-managed registry to identify DetNet application processing. The registration procedure is "IETF Review" [RFC8126]. The registry name is "Opcode" and assigned for DLA Indicator, as defined in Table 1.

Table 1: DLA Indicator
Value Description Reference
Unassigned Opcode this document

6. Security Considerations

Security considerations for DetNet are covered in the DetNet Architecture RFC8655 and DetNet Security Considerations [RFC9055]. MPLS security considerations are covered in [RFC8964], [RFC3031], [RFC3032]. These security considerations also apply to this document.

7. Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge Shaofu Peng for his thorough review and very helpful comments.

8. References

8.1. Normative References

Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, , <>.
Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., and R. Callon, "Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture", RFC 3031, DOI 10.17487/RFC3031, , <>.
Rosen, E., Tappan, D., Fedorkow, G., Rekhter, Y., Farinacci, D., Li, T., and A. Conta, "MPLS Label Stack Encoding", RFC 3032, DOI 10.17487/RFC3032, , <>.
Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, , <>.
Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, , <>.
Finn, N., Thubert, P., Varga, B., and J. Farkas, "Deterministic Networking Architecture", RFC 8655, DOI 10.17487/RFC8655, , <>.
Varga, B., Ed., Farkas, J., Berger, L., Malis, A., Bryant, S., and J. Korhonen, "Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Data Plane: MPLS", RFC 8964, DOI 10.17487/RFC8964, , <>.
Andersson, L., Kompella, K., and A. Farrel, "Special-Purpose Label Terminology", RFC 9017, DOI 10.17487/RFC9017, , <>.

8.2. Informative References

Liu, B. and J. Dang, "A Queuing Mechanism with Multiple Cyclic Buffers", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-dang-queuing-with-multiple-cyclic-buffers-00, , <>.
Andersson, L., Bryant, S., Bocci, M., and T. Li, "MPLS Network Actions Framework", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-mpls-mna-fwk-02, , <>.
Rajamanickam, J., Gandhi, R., Zigler, R., Song, H., and K. Kompella, "MPLS Network Action (MNA) Sub-Stack Solution", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-mpls-mna-hdr-00, , <>.
Peng, S., Tan, B., and P. Liu, "Deadline Option", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-peng-6man-deadline-option-01, , <>.
Stein, Y. J., "Segment Routed Time Sensitive Networking", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-stein-srtsn-01, , <>.
Xiong, Q. and D. Yang, "Data Fields for DetNet Enhanced Data Plane", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-xiong-detnet-data-fields-edp-00, , <>.
Varga, B., Ed., Farkas, J., Berger, L., Malis, A., and S. Bryant, "Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Data Plane Framework", RFC 8938, DOI 10.17487/RFC8938, , <>.
Grossman, E., Ed., Mizrahi, T., and A. Hacker, "Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Security Considerations", RFC 9055, DOI 10.17487/RFC9055, , <>.
Finn, N., Le Boudec, J.-Y., Mohammadpour, E., Zhang, J., and B. Varga, "Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Bounded Latency", RFC 9320, DOI 10.17487/RFC9320, , <>.

Authors' Addresses

Xueyan Song
ZTE Corp.
Quan Xiong
ZTE Corp.