Internet DRAFT - draft-finn-detnet-problem-statement
draft-finn-detnet-problem-statement
detnet N. Finn
Internet-Draft P. Thubert
Intended status: Standards Track Cisco
Expires: September 18, 2016 March 17, 2016
Deterministic Networking Problem Statement
draft-finn-detnet-problem-statement-05
Abstract
This paper documents the needs in various industries to establish
multi-hop paths for characterized flows with deterministic properties
.
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 http://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 September 18, 2016.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 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
(http://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.
Finn & Thubert Expires September 18, 2016 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Deterministic Networking Problem Statement March 2016
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. On Deterministic Networking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. Supported topologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2. Flow Characterization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.3. Centralized Path Computation and Installation . . . . . . 6
4.4. Distributed Path Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.5. Duplicated data format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1. Introduction
The Deterministic Networking Use Cases
[I-D.grossman-detnet-use-cases] document illustrates that beyond the
classical case of industrial automation and control systems (IACS),
there are in fact multiple industries with strong and yet relatively
similar needs for deterministic network services with latency
guarantees and ultra-low packet loss.
The generalization of the needs for more deterministic networks have
led to the IEEE 802.1 AVB Task Group becoming the Time-Sensitive
Networking (TSN) [IEEE802.1TSNTG] Task Group (TG), with a much-
expanded constituency from the industrial and vehicular markets.
Along with this expansion, the networks in consideration are becoming
larger and structured, requiring deterministic forwarding beyond the
LAN boundaries. For instance, IACS segregates the network along the
broad lines of the Purdue Enterprise Reference Architecture (PERA)
[ISA95], typically using deterministic local area networks for level
2 control systems, whereas public infrastructures such as Electricity
Automation require deterministic properties over the Wide Area. The
realization is now coming that the convergence of IT and Operational
Technology (OT) networks requires Layer-3, as well as Layer-2,
capabilities.
While the initial user base has focused almost entirely on Ethernet
physical media and Ethernet-based bridging protocol (from several
Standards Development Organizations), the need for Layer-3 expressed
above, must not be confined to Ethernet and Ethernet-like media, and
Finn & Thubert Expires September 18, 2016 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Deterministic Networking Problem Statement March 2016
while such media must be encompassed by any useful DetNet
architecture, cooperation between IETF and other SDOs must not be
limited to IEEE or IEEE 802. Furthermore, while the work completed
and ongoing in other SDOs, and in IEEE 802 in particular, provide an
obvious starting point for a DetNet architecture, we must not assume
that these other SDOs' work confines the space in which the DetNet
architecture progresses.
The properties of deterministic networks will have specific
requirements for the use of routed networks to support these
applications and a new model must be proposed to integrate
determinism in IT technology. The proposed model should enable a
fully scheduled operation orchestrated by a central controller, and
may support a more distributed operation with probably lesser
capabilities. In any fashion, the model should not compromise the
ability of a network to keep carrying the sorts of traffic that is
already carried today in conjunction with new, more deterministic
flows.
Once the abstract model is agreed upon, the IETF will need to specify
the signaling elements to be used to establish a path and the tagging
elements to be used identify the flows that are to be forwarded along
that path. The IETF will also need to specify the necessary
protocols, or protocol additions, based on relevant IETF
technologies, to implement the selected model.
As a result of this work, it will be possible to establish a multi-
hop path over the IP network, for a particular flow with given timing
and precise throughput requirements, and carry this particular flow
along the multi-hop path with such characteristics as low latency and
ultra-low jitter, duplication and elimination of packets over non-
congruent paths for a higher delivery ratio, and/or zero congestion
loss, regardless of the amount of other flows in the network.
Depending on the network capabilities and on the current state,
requests to establish a path by an end-node or a network management
entity may be granted or rejected, an existing path may be moved or
removed, and DetNet flows exceeding their contract may face packet
declassification and drop.
2. Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
Finn & Thubert Expires September 18, 2016 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Deterministic Networking Problem Statement March 2016
3. On Deterministic Networking
The Internet is not the only digital network that has grown
dramatically over the last 30-40 years. Video and audio
entertainment, and control systems for machinery, manufacturing
processes, and vehicles are also ubiquitous, and are now based almost
entirely on digital technologies. Over the past 10 years, engineers
in these fields have come to realize that significant advantages in
both cost and in the ability to accelerate growth can be obtained by
basing all of these disparate digital technologies on packet
networks.
The goals of Deterministic Networking are to enable the migration of
applications that use special-purpose fieldbus technologies (HDMI,
CANbus, ProfiBus, etc... even RS-232!) to packet technologies in
general, and the Internet Protocol in particular, and to support both
these new applications, and existing packet network applications,
over the same physical network.
Considerable experience ([ODVA],[AVnu], [Profinet],[IEC62439],
etc...) has shown that these applications need a some or all of a
suite of features that includes:
1. Time synchronization of all host and network nodes (routers and/
or bridges), accurate to something between 10 nanoseconds and 10
microseconds, depending on the application.
2. Support for critical packet flows that:
* Can be unicast or multicast;
* Need absolute guarantees of minimum and maximum latency end-
to-end across the network; sometimes a tight jitter is
required as well;
* Need a packet loss ratio beyond the classical range for a
particular medium, in the range of 1.0e-9 to 1.0e-12, or
better, on Ethernet, and in the order of 1.0e-5 in Wireless
Sensor mesh Networks;
* Can, in total, absorb more than half of the network's
available bandwidth (that is, massive over-provisioning is
ruled out as a solution);
* Cannot suffer throttling, congestion feedback, or any other
network-imposed transmission delay, although the flows can be
meaningfully characterized either by a fixed, repeating
Finn & Thubert Expires September 18, 2016 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Deterministic Networking Problem Statement March 2016
transmission schedule, or by a maximum bandwidth and packet
size;
3. Multiple methods to schedule, shape, limit, and otherwise control
the transmission of critical packets at each hop through the
network data plane;
4. Robust defenses against misbehaving hosts, routers, or bridges,
both in the data and control planes, with guarantees that a
critical flow within its guaranteed resources cannot be affected
by other flows whatever the pressures on the network;
5. One or more methods to reserve resources in bridges and routers
to carry these flows.
Time synchronization techniques need not be addressed by an IETF
Working Group; there are a number of standards available for this
purpose, including IEEE 1588, IEEE 802.1AS, and more.
The multicast, latency, loss ratio, and non-throttling needs are made
necessary by the algorithms employed by the applications. They are
not simply the transliteration of fieldbus needs to a packet-based
fieldbus simulation, but reflect fundamental mathematics of the
control of a physical system.
With classical forwarding latency- and loss-sensitive packets across
a network, interactions among different critical flows introduce
fundamental uncertainties in delivery schedules. The details of the
queuing, shaping, and scheduling algorithms employed by each bridge
or router to control the output sequence on a given port affect the
detailed makeup of the output stream, e.g. how finely a given flow's
packets are mixed among those of other flows.
This, in turn, has a strong effect on the buffer requirements, and
hence the latency guarantees deliverable, by the next bridge or
router along the path. For this reason, the IEEE 802.1 Time-
Sensitive Networking Task Group has defined a new set of queuing,
shaping, and scheduling algorithms that enable each bridge or router
to compute the exact number of buffers to be allocated for each flow
or class of flows.
Robustness is a common need for networking protocols, but plays a
more important part in real-time control networks, where expensive
equipment, and even lives, can be lost due to misbehaving equipment.
Reserving resources before packet transmission is the one fundamental
shift in the behavior of network applications that is impossible to
avoid. In the first place, a network cannot deliver finite latency
Finn & Thubert Expires September 18, 2016 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Deterministic Networking Problem Statement March 2016
and practically zero packet loss to an arbitrarily high offered load.
Secondly, achieving practically zero packet loss for un-throttled
(though bandwidth limited) flows means that bridges and routers have
to dedicate buffer resources to specific flows or to classes of
flows. The requirements of each reservation have to be translated
into the parameters that control each host's, bridge's, and router's
queuing, shaping, and scheduling functions and delivered to the
hosts, bridges, and routers.
4. Problem Statement
4.1. Supported topologies
In some use cases, the end point which run the application is
involved in the deterministic networking operation, for instance by
controlling certain aspects of its throughput such as rate or precise
time of emission. In that case, the deterministic path is end-to-end
from application host to application host.
On the other end, the deterministic portion of a path may be a tunnel
between and ingress and an egress router. In any case, routers and
switches in between should not need to be aware whether the path is
end-to-end of a tunnel.
While it is clear that DetNet does not aim at setting up
deterministic paths over the global Internet, there is still a lack
of clarity on the limits of a domain where a deterministic path can
be set up. These limits may depend in the technology that is used to
seu th epath up, whether it is centralized or distributed.
4.2. Flow Characterization
Deterministic forwarding can only apply on flows with well-defined
characteristics such as periodicity and burstiness. Before a path
can be established to serve them, the expression of those
characteristics, and how the network can serve them, for instance in
shaping and forwarding operations, must be specified.
4.3. Centralized Path Computation and Installation
A centralized routing model, such as provided with a PCE, enables
global and per-flow optimizations. The model is attractive but a
number of issues are left to be solved. In particular:
o whether and how the path computation can be installed by 1) an end
device or 2) a Network Management entity,
Finn & Thubert Expires September 18, 2016 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Deterministic Networking Problem Statement March 2016
o and how the path is set up, either by installing state at each hop
with a direct interaction between the forwarding device and the
PCE, or along a path by injecting a source-routed request at one
end of the path following classical Traffic Engineering (TE)
models.
To enable a centralized model, DetNet should produce the complete SDN
architecture with describes at a high level the interaction and data
models to:
o report the topology and device capabilities to the central
controller;
o establish a direct interface between the centralized PCE to each
device under its control in order to enable a vertical signaling
o request a path setup for a new flow with particular
characteristics over the service interface and control it through
its life cycle;
o support for life cycle management for a path
(instantiate/modify/update/delete)
o support for adaptability to cope with various events such as loss
of a link, etc...
o expose the status of the path to the end devices (UNI interface)
o provide additional reliability through redundancy, in particular
with packet replication and elimination;
o indicate the flows and packet sequences in-band with the flows;
4.4. Distributed Path Setup
Whether a distributed alternative without a PCE can be valuable could
be studied as well. Such an alternative could for instance inherit
from the Resource ReSerVation Protocol [RFC3209] (RSVP-TE) flows.
But the focus of the work should be to deliver the centralized
approach first.
To enable a RSVP-TE like functionality, the following steps would
take place:
1. Neighbors and their capabilities are discovered and exposed to
compute a path that fits the DetNet constraints, typically of
latency, time precision and resource availability.
Finn & Thubert Expires September 18, 2016 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Deterministic Networking Problem Statement March 2016
2. A constrained path is calculated with an improved version of CSPF
that is aware of DetNet.
3. The path is installed using RSVP-TE, associated with flow
identification, per-hop behavior such as replication and
elimination, blocked resources, and flow timing information.
4. Traffic flows are transported through the MPLS-TE tunnel, using
the reserved resources for this flow at each hop.
4.5. Duplicated data format
In some cases the duplication and elimination of packets over non-
congruent paths is required to achieve a sufficiently high delivery
ratio to meet application needs. In these cases, a small number of
packet formats and supporting protocols are required (preferably,
just one) to serialize the packets of a DetNet stream at one point in
the network, replicate them at one or more points in the network, and
discard duplicates at one or more other points in the network,
including perhaps the destination host. Using an existing solution
would be preferable to inventing a new one.
5. Security Considerations
Security in the context of Deterministic Networking has an added
dimension; the time of delivery of a packet can be just as important
as the contents of the packet, itself. A man-in-the-middle attack,
for example, can impose, and then systematically adjust, additional
delays into a link, and thus disrupt or subvert a real-time
application without having to crack any encryption methods employed.
See [RFC7384] for an exploration of this issue in a related context.
Typical control networks today rely on complete physical isolation to
prevent rogue access to network resources. DetNet enables the
virtualization of those networks over a converged IT/OT
infrastructure. Doing so, DetNet introduces an additional risk that
flows interact and interfere with one another as they share physical
resources such as Ethernet trunks and radio spectrum. The
requirement is that there is no possible data leak from and into a
deterministic flow, and in a more general fashion there is no
possible influence whatsoever from the outside on a deterministic
flow. The expectation is that physical resources are effectively
associated with a given flow at a given point of time. In that
model, Time Sharing of physical resources becomes transparent to the
individual flows which have no clue whether the resources are used by
other flows at other times.
Security must cover:
Finn & Thubert Expires September 18, 2016 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Deterministic Networking Problem Statement March 2016
o the protection of the signaling protocol
o the authentication and authorization of the controlling nodes
o the identification and shaping of the flows
o the isolation of flows from leakage and other influences from any
activity sharing physical resources.
6. IANA Considerations
This document does not require an action from IANA.
7. Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank Lou Berger, Jouni Korhonen, Erik Nordmark,
George Swallow, Rudy Klecka, Anca Zamfir, David Black, Thomas
Watteyne, Shitanshu Shah, Craig Gunther, Rodney Cummings, Wilfried
Steiner, Marcel Kiessling, Karl Weber, Ethan Grossman, Patrick
Wetterwald, Subha Dhesikan, Rudy Klecka and Pat Thaler for their
various contribution to this work.
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
8.2. Informative References
[AVnu] http://www.avnu.org/, "The AVnu Alliance tests and
certifies devices for interoperability, providing a simple
and reliable networking solution for AV network
implementation based on the IEEE Audio Video Bridging
(AVB) and Time-Sensitive Networking (TSN) standards.".
[CCAMP] IETF, "Common Control and Measurement Plane",
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-ccamp/>.
Finn & Thubert Expires September 18, 2016 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Deterministic Networking Problem Statement March 2016
[EIP] http://www.odva.org/, "EtherNet/IP provides users with the
network tools to deploy standard Ethernet technology (IEEE
802.3 combined with the TCP/IP Suite) for industrial
automation applications while enabling Internet and
enterprise connectivity data anytime, anywhere.",
<http://www.odva.org/Portals/0/Library/
Publications_Numbered/
PUB00138R3_CIP_Adv_Tech_Series_EtherNetIP.pdf>.
[HART] www.hartcomm.org, "Highway Addressable Remote Transducer,
a group of specifications for industrial process and
control devices administered by the HART Foundation".
[I-D.finn-detnet-architecture]
Finn, N., Thubert, P., and M. Teener, "Deterministic
Networking Architecture", draft-finn-detnet-
architecture-03 (work in progress), March 2016.
[I-D.grossman-detnet-use-cases]
Grossman, E., Gunther, C., Thubert, P., Wetterwald, P.,
Raymond, J., Korhonen, J., Kaneko, Y., Das, S., and Y.
Zha, "Deterministic Networking Use Cases", draft-grossman-
detnet-use-cases-01 (work in progress), November 2015.
[I-D.ietf-6tisch-architecture]
Thubert, P., "An Architecture for IPv6 over the TSCH mode
of IEEE 802.15.4", draft-ietf-6tisch-architecture-09 (work
in progress), November 2015.
[I-D.ietf-roll-rpl-industrial-applicability]
Phinney, T., Thubert, P., and R. Assimiti, "RPL
applicability in industrial networks", draft-ietf-roll-
rpl-industrial-applicability-02 (work in progress),
October 2013.
[I-D.ietf-teas-yang-te-topo]
Liu, X., Bryskin, I., Beeram, V., Saad, T., Shah, H., and
O. Dios, "YANG Data Model for TE Topologies", draft-ietf-
teas-yang-te-topo-02 (work in progress), October 2015.
[I-D.svshah-tsvwg-deterministic-forwarding]
Shah, S. and P. Thubert, "Deterministic Forwarding PHB",
draft-svshah-tsvwg-deterministic-forwarding-04 (work in
progress), August 2015.
Finn & Thubert Expires September 18, 2016 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Deterministic Networking Problem Statement March 2016
[I-D.zhao-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller]
Zhao, Q., Li, Z., Dhody, D., and C. Zhou, "PCEP Procedures
and Protocol Extensions for Using PCE as a Central
Controller (PCECC) of LSPs", draft-zhao-pce-pcep-
extension-for-pce-controller-03 (work in progress), March
2016.
[IEC62439]
IEC, "Industrial communication networks - High
availability automation networks - Part 3: Parallel
Redundancy Protocol (PRP) and High-availability Seamless
Redundancy (HSR) - IEC62439-3", 2012,
<https://webstore.iec.ch/publication/7018>.
[IEEE802.1AS-2011]
IEEE, "Timing and Synchronizations (IEEE 802.1AS-2011)",
2011, <http://standards.ieee.org/getieee802/
download/802.1AS-2011.pdf>.
[IEEE802.1BA-2011]
IEEE, "AVB Systems (IEEE 802.1BA-2011)", 2011,
<http://standards.ieee.org/getieee802/
download/802.1BA-2011.pdf>.
[IEEE802.1Q-2011]
IEEE, "MAC Bridges and VLANs (IEEE 802.1Q-2011", 2011,
<http://standards.ieee.org/getieee802/
download/802.1Q-2011.pdf>.
[IEEE802.1Qat-2010]
IEEE, "Stream Reservation Protocol (IEEE 802.1Qat-2010)",
2010, <http://standards.ieee.org/getieee802/
download/802.1Qat-2010.pdf>.
[IEEE802.1Qav]
IEEE, "Forwarding and Queuing (IEEE 802.1Qav-2009)", 2009,
<http://standards.ieee.org/getieee802/
download/802.1Qav-2009.pdf>.
[IEEE802.1TSNTG]
IEEE Standards Association, "IEEE 802.1 Time-Sensitive
Networks Task Group", 2013,
<http://www.ieee802.org/1/pages/avbridges.html>.
Finn & Thubert Expires September 18, 2016 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Deterministic Networking Problem Statement March 2016
[IEEE802154]
IEEE standard for Information Technology, "IEEE std.
802.15.4, Part. 15.4: Wireless Medium Access Control (MAC)
and Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications for Low-Rate
Wireless Personal Area Networks".
[IEEE802154e]
IEEE standard for Information Technology, "IEEE std.
802.15.4e, Part. 15.4: Low-Rate Wireless Personal Area
Networks (LR-WPANs) Amendment 1: MAC sublayer", April
2012.
[ISA100.11a]
ISA/IEC, "ISA100.11a, Wireless Systems for Automation,
also IEC 62734", 2011, < http://www.isa100wci.org/en-
US/Documents/PDF/3405-ISA100-WirelessSystems-Future-broch-
WEB-ETSI.aspx>.
[ISA95] ANSI/ISA, "Enterprise-Control System Integration Part 1:
Models and Terminology", 2000, <https://www.isa.org/
isa95/>.
[MPLS] IETF, "Multiprotocol Label Switching",
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-mpls/>.
[ODVA] http://www.odva.org/, "The organization that supports
network technologies built on the Common Industrial
Protocol (CIP) including EtherNet/IP.".
[PCE] IETF, "Path Computation Element",
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-pce/>.
[Profinet]
http://us.profinet.com/technology/profinet/, "PROFINET is
a standard for industrial networking in automation.",
<http://us.profinet.com/technology/profinet/>.
[RFC2547] Rosen, E. and Y. Rekhter, "BGP/MPLS VPNs", RFC 2547,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2547, March 1999,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2547>.
[RFC2702] Awduche, D., Malcolm, J., Agogbua, J., O'Dell, M., and J.
McManus, "Requirements for Traffic Engineering Over MPLS",
RFC 2702, DOI 10.17487/RFC2702, September 1999,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2702>.
Finn & Thubert Expires September 18, 2016 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Deterministic Networking Problem Statement March 2016
[RFC3031] Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., and R. Callon, "Multiprotocol
Label Switching Architecture", RFC 3031,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3031, January 2001,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3031>.
[RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
Tunnels", RFC 3209, DOI 10.17487/RFC3209, December 2001,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3209>.
[RFC3272] Awduche, D., Chiu, A., Elwalid, A., Widjaja, I., and X.
Xiao, "Overview and Principles of Internet Traffic
Engineering", RFC 3272, DOI 10.17487/RFC3272, May 2002,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3272>.
[RFC3630] Katz, D., Kompella, K., and D. Yeung, "Traffic Engineering
(TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3630, September 2003,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3630>.
[RFC3945] Mannie, E., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Architecture", RFC 3945,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3945, October 2004,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3945>.
[RFC3985] Bryant, S., Ed. and P. Pate, Ed., "Pseudo Wire Emulation
Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) Architecture", RFC 3985,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3985, March 2005,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3985>.
[RFC4203] Kompella, K., Ed. and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "OSPF Extensions in
Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS)", RFC 4203, DOI 10.17487/RFC4203, October 2005,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4203>.
[RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and J. Ash, "A Path Computation
Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4655, August 2006,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4655>.
[RFC4664] Andersson, L., Ed. and E. Rosen, Ed., "Framework for Layer
2 Virtual Private Networks (L2VPNs)", RFC 4664,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4664, September 2006,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4664>.
[RFC5127] Chan, K., Babiarz, J., and F. Baker, "Aggregation of
Diffserv Service Classes", RFC 5127, DOI 10.17487/RFC5127,
February 2008, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5127>.
Finn & Thubert Expires September 18, 2016 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Deterministic Networking Problem Statement March 2016
[RFC5151] Farrel, A., Ed., Ayyangar, A., and JP. Vasseur, "Inter-
Domain MPLS and GMPLS Traffic Engineering -- Resource
Reservation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)
Extensions", RFC 5151, DOI 10.17487/RFC5151, February
2008, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5151>.
[RFC5305] Li, T. and H. Smit, "IS-IS Extensions for Traffic
Engineering", RFC 5305, DOI 10.17487/RFC5305, October
2008, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5305>.
[RFC5329] Ishiguro, K., Manral, V., Davey, A., and A. Lindem, Ed.,
"Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF Version 3",
RFC 5329, DOI 10.17487/RFC5329, September 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5329>.
[RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation
Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, March 2009,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5440>.
[RFC5673] Pister, K., Ed., Thubert, P., Ed., Dwars, S., and T.
Phinney, "Industrial Routing Requirements in Low-Power and
Lossy Networks", RFC 5673, DOI 10.17487/RFC5673, October
2009, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5673>.
[RFC7384] Mizrahi, T., "Security Requirements of Time Protocols in
Packet Switched Networks", RFC 7384, DOI 10.17487/RFC7384,
October 2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7384>.
[RFC7426] Haleplidis, E., Ed., Pentikousis, K., Ed., Denazis, S.,
Hadi Salim, J., Meyer, D., and O. Koufopavlou, "Software-
Defined Networking (SDN): Layers and Architecture
Terminology", RFC 7426, DOI 10.17487/RFC7426, January
2015, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7426>.
[RFC7554] Watteyne, T., Ed., Palattella, M., and L. Grieco, "Using
IEEE 802.15.4e Time-Slotted Channel Hopping (TSCH) in the
Internet of Things (IoT): Problem Statement", RFC 7554,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7554, May 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7554>.
[TEAS] IETF, "Traffic Engineering Architecture and Signaling",
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-teas/>.
[TiSCH] IETF, "IPv6 over the TSCH mode over 802.15.4",
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-6tisch/>.
Finn & Thubert Expires September 18, 2016 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Deterministic Networking Problem Statement March 2016
[WirelessHART]
www.hartcomm.org, "Industrial Communication Networks -
Wireless Communication Network and Communication Profiles
- WirelessHART - IEC 62591", 2010.
Authors' Addresses
Norm Finn
Cisco Systems
510 McCarthy Blvd
SJ-24
Milpitas, California 95035
USA
Phone: +1 408 526 4495
Email: nfinn@cisco.com
Pascal Thubert
Cisco Systems
Village d'Entreprises Green Side
400, Avenue de Roumanille
Batiment T3
Biot - Sophia Antipolis 06410
FRANCE
Phone: +33 4 97 23 26 34
Email: pthubert@cisco.com
Finn & Thubert Expires September 18, 2016 [Page 15]
