Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-ip-preof
draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-ip-preof
DetNet B. Varga
Internet-Draft J. Farkas
Intended status: Informational Ericsson
Expires: 25 August 2024 A. Malis
Malis Consulting
22 February 2024
Deterministic Networking (DetNet): DetNet PREOF via MPLS over UDP/IP
draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-ip-preof-11
Abstract
This document describes how DetNet IP data plane can support the
Packet Replication, Elimination, and Ordering Functions (PREOF) built
on the existing MPLS PREOF solution defined for DetNet MPLS Data
Plane and the mechanisms defined by MPLS-over-UDP technology.
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 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 25 August 2024.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2024 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 Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Varga, et al. Expires 25 August 2024 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft PREOF DetNet IP February 2024
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Terms Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Requirements for adding PREOF to DetNet IP . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Adding PREOF to DetNet IP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.1. Solution Basics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.2. Encapsulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.3. Packet Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.4. Flow Aggregation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.5. PREOF Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.6. PREOF capable DetNet IP domain . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. Control and Management Plane Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1. Introduction
The DetNet Working Group has defined Packet Replication (PRF), Packet
Elimination (PEF) and Packet Ordering (POF) functions (represented as
PREOF) to provide service protection by the DetNet service sub-layer
[RFC8655]. The PREOF service protection method relies on copies of
the same packet sent over multiple maximally disjoint paths and uses
sequencing information to eliminate duplicates. A possible
implementation of the PRF and PEF functions is described in
[IEEE8021CB] and the related YANG data model is defined in
[IEEEP8021CBcv]. A possible implementation of the POF function is
described in [I-D.ietf-detnet-pof]. Figure 1 shows a DetNet flow on
which PREOF functions are applied during forwarding from the source
to the destination.
Varga, et al. Expires 25 August 2024 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft PREOF DetNet IP February 2024
+------------+
+---------------E1---+ | |
+---+ | | +---R3---+ | +---+
|src|------R1 +---+ | E3----O----+dst|
+---+ | | E2-------+ +---+
+----------R2 |
+-----------------+
R: replication function (PRF)
E: elimination function (PEF)
O: ordering function (POF)
Figure 1: PREOF scenario in a DetNet network
In general, the use of PREOF functions require sequencing information
to be included in the packets of a DetNet compound flow. This can be
done by adding a sequence number or time stamp as part of DetNet
encapsulation. Sequencing information is typically added once, at or
close to the source.
The DetNet MPLS data plane [RFC8964] specifies how sequencing
information is encoded in the MPLS header. However, the DetNet IP
data plane described in [RFC8939] does not specify how sequencing
information can be encoded in the IP packet. This document provides
sequencing information to DetNet IP nodes, so it results in an
improved version of the DetNet IP data plane. As suggested by
[RFC8938], the solution uses existing standardized headers and
encapsulations. The improvement is achieved by re-using the DetNet
MPLS over UDP/IP data plane [RFC9025] with the restriction of using
zero F-labels.
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:
DetNet Deterministic Networking.
PEF Packet Elimination Function.
Varga, et al. Expires 25 August 2024 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft PREOF DetNet IP February 2024
POF Packet Ordering Function.
PREOF Packet Replication, Elimination and Ordering Functions.
PRF Packet Replication Function.
3. Requirements for adding PREOF to DetNet IP
The requirements for adding PREOF to DetNet IP are:
* to reuse existing DetNet data plane solutions (e.g., [RFC8964],
[RFC9025]).
* to allow the DetNet service sub-layer for IP packet switched
networks with minimal implementation effort.
The described solution practically gains from MPLS header fields
without requiring the support of the MPLS forwarding plane.
4. Adding PREOF to DetNet IP
4.1. Solution Basics
The DetNet IP encapsulation supporting DetNet Service sub-layer is
based on the "UDP tunneling" concept. The solution creates a set of
underlay UDP/IP tunnels between an overlay set of DetNet relay nodes.
At the edge of a PREOF capable DetNet IP domain the DetNet flow is
encapsulated in an UDP packet containing the sequence number used by
PREOF functions within the domain. This solution maintains the 6-
tuple-based DetNet flow identification in DetNet transit nodes, which
operate at the DetNet forwarding sub-layer between the DetNet service
sub-layer nodes; therefore, it is compatible with [RFC8939].
Figure 2 shows how the PREOF capable DetNet IP data plane fits into
the DetNet sub-layers.
DetNet IP
.
.
+------------+
| Service | d-CW, Service-ID (S-label)
+------------+
| Forwarding | UDP/IP Header
+------------+
*d-CW: DetNet Control Word
Varga, et al. Expires 25 August 2024 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft PREOF DetNet IP February 2024
Figure 2: PREOF capable DetNet IP data plane
4.2. Encapsulation
The PREOF capable DetNet IP encapsulation builds on encapsulating
DetNet PseudoWire (PW) directly over UDP. That is, it combines
DetNet MPLS [RFC8964] with DetNet MPLS-in-UDP [RFC9025], without
using any F-Labels as shown in Figure 3. DetNet flows are identified
at the receiving DetNet service sub-layer processing node via the
S-Label and/or the UDP/IP header information. Sequencing information
for PREOF is provided by the DetNet Control Word (d-CW) as per
[RFC8964]. The S-label is used to identify both the DetNet flow and
the DetNet App-flow type. The UDP tunnel is used to direct the
packet across the DetNet domain to the next DetNet service sub-layer
processing node.
+---------------------------------+
| |
| DetNet App-Flow |
| (original IP) Packet |
| |
+---------------------------------+ <--\
| DetNet Control Word | |
+---------------------------------+ +--> PREOF capable
| Service-ID (S-Label) | | DetNet IP data
+---------------------------------+ | plane encapsulation
| UDP Header | |
+---------------------------------+ |
| IP Header | |
+---------------------------------+ <--/
| Data-Link |
+---------------------------------+
| Physical |
+---------------------------------+
Figure 3: PREOF capable DetNet IP encapsulation
4.3. Packet Processing
IP ingress and egress nodes of the PREOF capable DetNet IP domain add
and remove a DetNet service-specific d-CW and Service-ID (i.e.,
S-Label). Relay nodes can change Service-ID values when processing a
DetNet flow, i.e., incoming and outgoing Service-IDs of a DetNet flow
can be different. Service-ID values are provisioned per DetNet
service via configuration, e.g., via the Controller Plane described
in [RFC8938]. In some PREOF topologies, the node performing
Varga, et al. Expires 25 August 2024 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft PREOF DetNet IP February 2024
replication sends the packets to multiple nodes performing e.g., PEF
or POF and the replication node can use different Service-ID values
for the different member flows for the same DetNet service.
Note, that Service-IDs is a local ID on the receiver side providing
identification of the DetNet flow at the downstream DetNet service
sub-layer receiver.
4.4. Flow Aggregation
Two methods can be used for flow aggregation:
* aggregation using same UDP tunnel,
* aggregating DetNet flows as a new DetNet flow.
In the first case, the different DetNet PseudoWires use the same UDP
tunnel, so they are treated as a single (aggregated) flow at the
forwarding sub-layer. At the service sub-layer, each flow uses a
different Service ID (see Figure 3 ).
For the second option, an additional hierarchy is created thanks to
an additional Service-ID and d-CW tuple added to the encapsulation.
The Aggregate-ID is a special case of a Service-ID, whose properties
are known only at the aggregation and de-aggregation end points. It
is a property of the Aggregate-ID that it is followed by a d-CW
followed by a Service-ID/d-CW tuple. Figure 4 shows the
encapsulation in case of aggregation.
Varga, et al. Expires 25 August 2024 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft PREOF DetNet IP February 2024
+---------------------------------+
| |
| DetNet App-Flow |
| Payload Packet |
| |
+---------------------------------+ <--\
| DetNet Control Word | |
+---------------------------------+ +--> PREOF capable
| Service-ID (S-Label) | | DetNet IP data
+---------------------------------+ | plane encapsulation
| DetNet Control Word | |
+---------------------------------+ |
| Aggregate-ID (A-Label) | |
+---------------------------------+ |
| UDP Header | |
+---------------------------------+ |
| IP Header | |
+---------------------------------+ <--/
| Data-Link |
+---------------------------------+
| Physical |
+---------------------------------+
Figure 4: Aggregating DetNet flows as a new DetNet flow
The option used for aggregation is known by configuration of the
aggregation/de-aggregation nodes.
If several Detnet flows are aggregated in a single UDP tunnel, they
all need to follow the same path in the network.
4.5. PREOF Processing
A node operating on a received DetNet flow at the DetNet service sub-
layer uses the local context associated with a received Service-ID to
determine which local DetNet operation(s) are applied to received
packet. A Service-ID can be allocated to be unique and enabling
DetNet flow identification regardless of which input interface or UDP
tunnel the packet is received. It is important to note that Service-
ID values are driven by the receiver, not the sender.
The DetNet forwarding sub-layer is supported by the UDP tunnel and is
responsible for providing resource allocation and explicit routes.
The outgoing PREOF encapsulation and processing can be implemented
via the provisioning of UDP and IP header information. Note, when
PRF is performed at the DetNet service sub-layer, there are multiple
Varga, et al. Expires 25 August 2024 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft PREOF DetNet IP February 2024
member flows, and each member flow requires their own Service-ID, UDP
and IP header information. The headers for each outgoing packet are
formatted according to the configuration information, and the UDP
Source Port value is set to uniquely identify the DetNet flow. The
packet is then handled as a PREOF capable DetNet IP packet.
The incoming PREOF processing can be implemented via the provisioning
of received Service-ID, UDP and IP header information. The
provisioned information is used to identify incoming app-flows based
on the combination of Service-ID and/or incoming encapsulation header
information.
4.6. PREOF capable DetNet IP domain
Figure 5 shows using PREOF in a PREOF capable DetNet IP network,
where service protection is provided end to end, an not only within
sub-networks like depicted in Figure 4 of [RFC8939].
<---------- PREOF capable DetNet IP --------------->
______
____ / \__
____ / \__/ \____________
+----+ __/ \____/ \ +----+
|src |_____/ \___| dst|
+----+ \_______ DetNet network __________/ +----+
\_______ _/
\ __ __/
\_______/ \___/
+------------+
+---------------E1---+ | |
+----+ | | +---R3---+ | +----+
|src |------R1 +---+ | E3----O----+ dst|
+----+ | | E2-------+ +----+
+----------R2 |
+-----------------+
Figure 5: PREOF capable DetNet IP domain
5. Control and Management Plane Parameters
The information needed to identify individual and aggregated DetNet
flows is summarized as follows:
* Service-ID information to be mapped to UDP/IP flows. Note that,
for example, a single Service-ID can map to multiple sets of UDP/
IP information when PREOF is used.
Varga, et al. Expires 25 August 2024 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft PREOF DetNet IP February 2024
* IPv4 or IPv6 source address field.
* IPv4 or IPv6 source address prefix length, where a zero (0) value
effectively means that the address field is ignored.
* IPv4 or IPv6 destination address field.
* IPv4 or IPv6 destination address prefix length, where a zero (0)
effectively means that the address field is ignored.
* IPv6 flow label field.
* IPv4 protocol field being equal to "UDP".
* IPv6 (last) next header field being equal to "UDP".
* For the IPv4 Type of Service and IPv6 Traffic Class Fields:
- Whether or not the DSCP field is used in flow identification as
the use of the DSCP field for flow identification is optional.
- If the DSCP field is used to identify a flow, then the flow
identification information (for that flow) includes a list of
DSCPs used by the given DetNet flow.
* UDP Source Port. Support for both exact and wildcard matching is
required. Port ranges can optionally be used.
* UDP Destination Port. Support for both exact and wildcard
matching is required. Port ranges can optionally be used.
* For end systems, an optional maximum IP packet size that should be
used for that outgoing DetNet IP flow.
This information is provisioned per DetNet flow via configuration,
e.g., via the controller plane.
Ordering of the set of information used to identify an individual
DetNet flow can, for example, be used to provide a DetNet service for
a specific UDP flow, with unique Source and Destination Port field
values, while providing a different service for the aggregate of all
other flows with that same UDP Destination Port value.
The minimum set of information for the configuration of the DetNet
service sub-layer is summarized as follows:
* App-flow identification information.
Varga, et al. Expires 25 August 2024 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft PREOF DetNet IP February 2024
* Sequence number length.
* PREOF + related Service-ID(s).
* Associated forwarding sub-layer information.
* Service aggregation information.
The minimum set of information for the configuration of the DetNet
forwarding sub-layer is summarized as follows:
* UDP tunnel specific information.
* Traffic parameters.
These parameters are defined in the DetNet Flow and Service
information model [RFC9016] and the DetNet YANG model.
Note: this document focuses on the use of MPLS over UDP/IP
encapsulation throughout an entire DetNet IP network, making MPLS-
based DetNet OAM techniques applicable [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls-oam].
Using the described encapsulation only for a portion of a DetNet IP
network that handles the PREOF functionality would complicate OAM.
6. Security Considerations
There are no new DetNet related security considerations introduced by
this solution. Security considerations of DetNet MPLS [RFC8964] and
DetNet MPLS over UDP/IP [RFC9025] apply.
7. IANA Considerations
This document makes no IANA requests.
8. Acknowledgements
Authors extend their appreciation to Stewart Bryant, Pascal Thubert,
David Black, Shirley Yangfan and Greg Mirsky for their insightful
comments and productive discussion that helped to improve the
document.
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls-oam]
Mirsky, G., Chen, M., and B. Varga, "Operations,
Administration and Maintenance (OAM) for Deterministic
Varga, et al. Expires 25 August 2024 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft PREOF DetNet IP February 2024
Networks (DetNet) with MPLS Data Plane", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-oam-15, 12 January
2024, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-
detnet-mpls-oam-15>.
[RFC8655] Finn, N., Thubert, P., Varga, B., and J. Farkas,
"Deterministic Networking Architecture", RFC 8655,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8655, October 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8655>.
[RFC8938] Varga, B., Ed., Farkas, J., Berger, L., Malis, A., and S.
Bryant, "Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Data Plane
Framework", RFC 8938, DOI 10.17487/RFC8938, November 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8938>.
[RFC8939] Varga, B., Ed., Farkas, J., Berger, L., Fedyk, D., and S.
Bryant, "Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Data Plane:
IP", RFC 8939, DOI 10.17487/RFC8939, November 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8939>.
[RFC8964] 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, January
2021, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8964>.
[RFC9016] Varga, B., Farkas, J., Cummings, R., Jiang, Y., and D.
Fedyk, "Flow and Service Information Model for
Deterministic Networking (DetNet)", RFC 9016,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9016, March 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9016>.
[RFC9025] Varga, B., Ed., Farkas, J., Berger, L., Malis, A., and S.
Bryant, "Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Data Plane:
MPLS over UDP/IP", RFC 9025, DOI 10.17487/RFC9025, April
2021, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9025>.
9.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-detnet-pof]
Varga, B., Farkas, J., Kehrer, S., and T. Heer,
"Deterministic Networking (DetNet): Packet Ordering
Function", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-
detnet-pof-11, 15 January 2024,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-detnet-
pof-11>.
Varga, et al. Expires 25 August 2024 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft PREOF DetNet IP February 2024
[IEEE8021CB]
IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area
networks -- Frame Replication and Elimination for
Reliability", DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2017.8091139, October
2017,
<https://standards.ieee.org/standard/802_1CB-2017.html>.
[IEEEP8021CBcv]
Kehrer, S., "FRER YANG Data Model and Management
Information Base Module", IEEE P802.1CBcv
/D1.2 P802.1CBcv, March 2021,
<https://www.ieee802.org/1/files/private/cv-drafts/d1/802-
1CBcv-d1-2.pdf>.
Authors' Addresses
Balazs Varga
Ericsson
Budapest
Magyar Tudosok krt. 11.
1117
Hungary
Email: balazs.a.varga@ericsson.com
Janos Farkas
Ericsson
Budapest
Magyar Tudosok krt. 11.
1117
Hungary
Email: janos.farkas@ericsson.com
Andrew G. Malis
Malis Consulting
Email: agmalis@gmail.com
Varga, et al. Expires 25 August 2024 [Page 12]
