DetNet | B. Varga, Ed. |
Internet-Draft | J. Farkas |
Intended status: Standards Track | Ericsson |
Expires: May 24, 2020 | L. Berger |
LabN Consulting, L.L.C. | |
A. Malis | |
Independent | |
S. Bryant | |
Futurewei Technologies | |
J. Korhonen | |
November 21, 2019 |
DetNet Data Plane: MPLS over UDP/IP
draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-udp-ip-04
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.
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 May 24, 2020.
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 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]):
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]
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
This document makes no IANA requests.
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.
[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-03, 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-03, 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. |
[I-D.ietf-6man-segment-routing-header] | Filsfils, C., Dukes, D., Previdi, S., Leddy, J., Matsushima, S. and D. Voyer, "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. and N. Finn, "Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Security Considerations", Internet-Draft draft-ietf-detnet-security-06, November 2019. |
[RFC8655] | Finn, N., Thubert, P., Varga, B. and J. Farkas, "Deterministic Networking Architecture", RFC 8655, DOI 10.17487/RFC8655, October 2019. |