Internet DRAFT - draft-peng-lsr-deterministic-traffic-engineering
draft-peng-lsr-deterministic-traffic-engineering
LSR Shaofu. Peng
Internet-Draft ZTE
Intended status: Standards Track 5 July 2023
Expires: 6 January 2024
IGP Extensions for Deterministic Traffic Engineering
draft-peng-lsr-deterministic-traffic-engineering-01
Abstract
This document describes IGP extensions to support Traffic Engineering
(TE) of deterministic routing, by specifying new information that a
router can place in the advertisement of neighbors. This information
describes additional details regarding the state of the network that
are useful for deterministic traffic engineering path computations.
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 6 January 2024.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2023 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.
Peng Expires 6 January 2024 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Deterministic Routing July 2023
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. ISIS Advertisement of Link Scheduling Capability . . . . . . 4
3.1. Advertisement of CQF Scheduling Capability . . . . . . . 4
3.2. Advertisement of EDF Scheduling Capability . . . . . . . 5
3.3. Advertisement of TQF Scheduling Capability . . . . . . . 5
4. ISIS Advertisement of Link Deterministic Resource . . . . . . 6
4.1. Advertisement of CQF Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1.1. Maximum Reservable Bandwidth of Cycle Level . . . . . 7
4.1.2. Unreserved Bandwidth of Cycle Level . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2. Advertisement of EDF Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.2.1. Maximum Reservable Bandwidth of Delay Level . . . . . 8
4.2.2. Unreserved Bandwidth of Delay Level . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2.3. Maximum Reservable Burst of Delay Level . . . . . . . 10
4.2.4. Unreserved Burst of Delay Level . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.3. Advertisement of TQF Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.3.1. Maximum Reservable Burst of Timeslot . . . . . . . . 11
4.3.2. Unreserved Burst of Timeslot . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5. Advertisement of Rate-based Scheduling Resources . . . . . . 13
5.1. Maximum Reservable Bandwidth of Traffic Class . . . . . . 13
5.2. Unreserved Bandwidth of Traffic Class . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.3. Maximum Reservable Burst of Traffic Class . . . . . . . . 15
5.4. Unreserved Burst of Traffic Class . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6. OSPF Advertisement of Link Deterministic Resource . . . . . . 16
7. Announcement Suppression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
1. Introduction
[RFC8655] describes the architecture of a deterministic network and
defines the QoS goals of deterministic forwarding:
* Minimum and maximum end-to-end latency from source to destination,
timely delivery, and bounded jitter (packet delay variation)
* A bounded packet loss ratio under various assumptions about the
operational states of the nodes and links
* An upper bound on out-of-order packet delivery.
Peng Expires 6 January 2024 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Deterministic Routing July 2023
In order to achieve these goals, deterministic networks use resource
reservation, explicit routing, and service protection, as well as
other means. A deterministic path is typically (but not necessarily)
an explicit route so that it does not suffer temporary interruptions
caused by the convergence of routing or bridging protocols.
Correspondingly, some forwarding technologies have been developed
(such as TSN ATS/CBS/TAS/CQF brought by L2 network), and there are
also some enhanced data plane queueing mechanisms under discussion
for large scaling requirements of IP/MPLS network (such as
[Multi-CQF], [I-D.joung-detnet-asynch-detnet-framework],
[I-D.peng-detnet-deadline-based-forwarding],
[I-D.peng-detnet-packet-timeslot-mechanism]). We can roughly
classify these queueing mechanisms into two categories: rate based
and latency based. For example, ATS, CBS, C-SCORE are rate based
mechanisms, while CQF, EDF, TQF are latency based mechanisms. Some
mechanisms may have mixed characteristics of these two categories.
* The delay performance provided by rate based mechanisms is
generally inversely proportional to the service rate of the
related scheduler, and their worst-case delay evaluation is
relatively overestimated. Generally, traditional bandwidth
resources are still reserved for the service flow on the control
plane, but with particular queueing mechanism on the data plane to
ensure bounded latency forwarding;
* The delay performance provided by latency based mechanism is
related to the time resources occupied by the service by
accurately planning the time slot. In this case, in addition to
reserving traditional bandwidth resources for the service on the
control plane, it also involves time related resources. There is
a clear feature of time based scheduling on the data plane.
In order to provide deterministic forwarding QoS, each queueing
mechanism not only discusses the implementation on the data plane,
but also has clear requirements for resource reservation on the
control plane, involving resource types and parameters from strict
mathematical proof.
This document describes IGP extensions to advertise resource
information related with deterministic queueing mechanism in the
network, which may be used for the deterministic traffic engineering
path computations. Note that in the current version, we only define
all different types of deterministic forwarding resource as much as
possible. In later versions, we will summarize and abstract them to
define common parameters.
Peng Expires 6 January 2024 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Deterministic Routing July 2023
2. 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. ISIS Advertisement of Link Scheduling Capability
3.1. Advertisement of CQF Scheduling Capability
A new IS-IS sub-TLV is defined: the CQF Scheduling Capability Sub-
TLV, which is advertised within TLV-22, 222, 23, 223, 141, 25. At
most only one CQF Scheduling Capability Sub-TLV can be included.
The following format is defined for the CQF Scheduling Capability
Sub-TLV:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | Cycle Size 1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Cycle Size 2 | ... ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Cycle Size N |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1
where:
* Type: TBD
* Length: 2*N bytes, depending on the count of the cycle_size.
* Cycle Size: The length of cycle duration, in units of
microseconds. According to [Multi-CQF], A link can support
multiple cycle levels, e.g, 10us, 20us, 30us, etc, each for a
specific service requirement.
Only those links that enable CQF scheduling mechanism need to
advertise the CQF Scheduling Capability Sub-TLV, otherwise there is
no need to advertise.
Peng Expires 6 January 2024 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Deterministic Routing July 2023
3.2. Advertisement of EDF Scheduling Capability
A new IS-IS sub-TLV is defined: the EDF Scheduling Capability Sub-
TLV, which is advertised within TLV-22, 222, 23, 223, 141, 25. At
most only one EDF Scheduling Capability Sub-TLV can be included.
The following format is defined for the EDF Scheduling Capability
Sub-TLV:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | Delay Level 1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Delay Level N | Interval |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2
where:
* Type: TBD
* Length: 6.
* Delay Level: The delay levels that the EDF scheduler supports, in
units of microseconds, such as 10us, 20us, 30us, etc. Delay level
1 is the minimum delay level, e.g, 10us, while delay level N is
the maximum delay level, e.g, 100us.
* Interval: The fixed interval between the adjacent levels, in units
of microseconds. Frequently in EDF scheduling, all delay levels
are separated by a fixed interval, e.g, delay level 1 is 10us,
delay level 2 is 20us, delay level 3 is 30us, etc, i.e., in this
case the fixed interval is 10us. According to the fixed interval,
other delay levels supported can be derived.
Only those links that enable EDF scheduling mechanism need to
advertise the EDF Scheduling Capability Sub-TLV, otherwise there is
no need to advertise.
3.3. Advertisement of TQF Scheduling Capability
A new IS-IS sub-TLV is defined: the TQF Scheduling Capability Sub-
TLV, which is advertised within TLV-22, 222, 23, 223, 141, 25.
Multiple TQF Scheduling Capability Sub-TLV may be included.
Peng Expires 6 January 2024 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Deterministic Routing July 2023
The following format is defined for the TQF Scheduling Capability
Sub-TLV:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | Timeslot Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Orchestration Period Length | Scheduling Period Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3
where:
* Type: TBD
* Length: 6.
* Timeslot Length: The length of each timeslot in the orchestration
period or scheduling period, in units of microseconds. The
typical timeslot length may be 10us, or 20us, etc.
* Orchestration Period Length: The number of timeslots included in
the orchestration period, numbered sequentially from 0 to N-1.
* Scheduling Period Length: The number of timeslots included in the
scheduling period, numbered sequentially from 0 to M-1.
Only those links that enable TQF scheduling mechanism need to
advertise the TQF Scheduling Capability Sub-TLV, otherwise there is
no need to advertise.
The Orchestration Period Length field values contained in each TQF
Scheduling Capacity Sub-TLV must be different from each other.
Otherwise, for a specific orchestration period value, the first TQF
Scheduling Capacity Sub-TLV is selected and others are ignored.
4. ISIS Advertisement of Link Deterministic Resource
4.1. Advertisement of CQF Resources
Peng Expires 6 January 2024 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Deterministic Routing July 2023
4.1.1. Maximum Reservable Bandwidth of Cycle Level
This sub-TLV contains the maximum amount of bandwidth that can be
reserved in the link with the direction from this node to the
neighbor, for a specific cycle level that defined in [Multi-CQF].
Note that oversubscription is prohibited, so this must be less than
the bandwidth of the link.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | Cycle Level |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Maximum Reservable Bandwidth |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4
where:
* Type: TBD
* Length: 6.
* Cycle Level: The length of the specific cycle duration, in units
of microseconds, e.g, 10us, 20us, 30us, etc.
* Maximum Reservable Bandwidth: The maximum amount of bandwidth that
can be reserved in the link for the specific cycle level. It is
encoded in 32 bits in IEEE floating point format. The units are
bytes per second.
This sub-TLV is optional. This sub-TLV SHOULD appear once at most in
each extended IS reachability TLV.
4.1.2. Unreserved Bandwidth of Cycle Level
This sub-TLV contains the amount of bandwidth reservable in the link
with the direction from this node to the neighbor, for a specific
cycle level that defined in [Multi-CQF]. Initially, for a specific
cycle level, the unreserved bandwidth equals the maximum reservable
bandwidth.
Peng Expires 6 January 2024 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Deterministic Routing July 2023
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | Cycle Level |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Unreserved Bandwidth |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 5
where:
* Type: TBD
* Length: 6.
* Cycle Level: The length of the specific cycle duration, in units
of microseconds, e.g, 10us, 20us, 30us, etc.
* Unreserved Bandwidth: The amount of bandwidth reservable in the
link for the specific cycle level. It is encoded in 32 bits in
IEEE floating point format. The units are bytes per second.
For stability reasons, rapid changes in the values in this sub-TLV
SHOULD NOT cause rapid generation of LSPs.
This sub-TLV is optional. This sub-TLV SHOULD appear once at most in
each extended IS reachability TLV.
4.2. Advertisement of EDF Resources
4.2.1. Maximum Reservable Bandwidth of Delay Level
This sub-TLV contains the maximum amount of bandwidth that can be
reserved in the link with the direction from this node to the
neighbor, for a specific delay level that defined in
[I-D.peng-detnet-deadline-based-forwarding]. Note that
oversubscription is prohibited, so this must be less than the
bandwidth of the link, and all delay levels' maximum reservable
bandwidth must meet the schedulability condition equation.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | Delay Level |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Maximum Reservable Bandwidth |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Peng Expires 6 January 2024 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Deterministic Routing July 2023
Figure 6
where:
* Type: TBD
* Length: 6.
* Delay Level: The relative deadline of the specific delay level, in
units of microseconds, e.g, 10us, 20us, 30us, etc.
* Maximum Reservable Bandwidth: The maximum amount of bandwidth that
can be reserved in the link for the specific delay level. It is
encoded in 32 bits in IEEE floating point format. The units are
bytes per second.
This sub-TLV is optional. This sub-TLV SHOULD appear once at most in
each extended IS reachability TLV.
4.2.2. Unreserved Bandwidth of Delay Level
This sub-TLV contains the amount of bandwidth reservable in the link
with the direction from this node to the neighbor, for a specific
delay level that defined in
[I-D.peng-detnet-deadline-based-forwarding]. Initially, for a
specific delay level, the unreserved bandwidth equals the maximum
reservable bandwidth.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | Delay Level |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Unreserved Bandwidth |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 7
where:
* Type: TBD
* Length: 6.
* Delay Level: The relative deadline of the specific delay level, in
units of microseconds, e.g, 10us, 20us, 30us, etc.
Peng Expires 6 January 2024 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Deterministic Routing July 2023
* Unreserved Bandwidth: The amount of bandwidth reservable in the
link for the specific delay level. It is encoded in 32 bits in
IEEE floating point format. The units are bytes per second.
For stability reasons, rapid changes in the values in this sub-TLV
SHOULD NOT cause rapid generation of LSPs.
This sub-TLV is optional. This sub-TLV SHOULD appear once at most in
each extended IS reachability TLV.
4.2.3. Maximum Reservable Burst of Delay Level
This sub-TLV contains the maximum amount of burst that can be
reserved in the link with the direction from this node to the
neighbor, for a specific delay level that defined in
[I-D.peng-detnet-deadline-based-forwarding]. All delay levels'
maximum reservable burst must meet the schedulability condition
equation.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | Delay Level |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Maximum Reservable Burst |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 8
where:
* Type: TBD
* Length: 6.
* Delay Level: The relative deadline of the specific delay level, in
units of microseconds, e.g, 10us, 20us, 30us, etc.
* Maximum Reservable Burst: The maximum amount of burst that can be
reserved in the link for the specific delay level, in units of
bytes.
This sub-TLV is optional. This sub-TLV SHOULD appear once at most in
each extended IS reachability TLV.
Peng Expires 6 January 2024 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Deterministic Routing July 2023
4.2.4. Unreserved Burst of Delay Level
This sub-TLV contains the amount of burst reservable in the link with
the direction from this node to the neighbor, for a specific delay
level that defined in [I-D.peng-detnet-deadline-based-forwarding].
Initially, for a specific delay level, the unreserved burst equals
the maximum reservable burst.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | Delay Level |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Unreserved Burst |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 9
where:
* Type: TBD
* Length: 6.
* Delay Level: The relative deadline of the specific delay level, in
units of microseconds, e.g, 10us, 20us, 30us, etc.
* Unreserved Burst: The amount of bandwidth reservable in the link
for the specific delay level, in units of bytes.
For stability reasons, rapid changes in the values in this sub-TLV
SHOULD NOT cause rapid generation of LSPs.
This sub-TLV is optional. This sub-TLV SHOULD appear once at most in
each extended IS reachability TLV.
4.3. Advertisement of TQF Resources
4.3.1. Maximum Reservable Burst of Timeslot
This sub-TLV contains the maximum amount of burst that can be
reserved in the link with the direction from this node to the
neighbor, for a specific timeslot that defined in
[I-D.peng-detnet-packet-timeslot-mechanism]. The speficif timeslot
mentioned is a timeslot in the orchestration period which faces to
the service flow and provides a timeslot resource pool for the
service.
Peng Expires 6 January 2024 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Deterministic Routing July 2023
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | Timeslot Number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Orchestration Period Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Maximum Reservable Burst |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 10
where:
* Type: TBD
* Length: 10.
* Timeslot Number: The number of the timeslot in the orchestration
period. For the orchestration period which contains N timeslots,
The number of the first timeslot is 0, and the number of the last
timeslot is N-1.
* Orchestration Period Length: The length of the Orchestration
Period, in microseconds (us). This field indicates one of
multiple orchestration period instances configured on the link.
* Maximum Reservable Burst: The maximum amount of burst that can be
reserved in the link for the specific timeslot, in units of bytes.
This sub-TLV is optional. This sub-TLV SHOULD appear once at most in
each extended IS reachability TLV.
4.3.2. Unreserved Burst of Timeslot
This sub-TLV contains the amount of burst reservable in the link with
the direction from this node to the neighbor, for a specific timeslot
that defined in [I-D.peng-detnet-packet-timeslot-mechanism].
Initially, for a specific timeslot, the unreserved burst equals the
maximum reservable burst.
Peng Expires 6 January 2024 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Deterministic Routing July 2023
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | Timeslot Number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Orchestration Period Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Unreserved Burst |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 11
where:
* Type: TBD
* Length: 10.
* Timeslot Number: The number of the timeslot in the orchestration
period. For the orchestration period which contains N timeslots,
The number of the first timeslot is 0, and the number of the last
timeslot is N-1.
* Orchestration Period Length: The length of the Orchestration
Period, in microseconds (us). This field indicates one of
multiple orchestration period instances configured on the link.
* Unreserved Burst: The amount of burst reservable in the link for
the specific timeslot, in units of bytes.
For stability reasons, rapid changes in the values in this sub-TLV
SHOULD NOT cause rapid generation of LSPs.
This sub-TLV is optional. This sub-TLV SHOULD appear once at most in
each extended IS reachability TLV.
5. Advertisement of Rate-based Scheduling Resources
5.1. Maximum Reservable Bandwidth of Traffic Class
This sub-TLV contains the maximum amount of bandwidth that can be
reserved in the link with the direction from this node to the
neighbor for a specific traffic class. Note that oversubscription is
prohibited, so this must be less than the bandwidth of the link. An
example is in TSN CBS scheduling, where dedicated bandwidth resources
are allocated for each traffic class.
Peng Expires 6 January 2024 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Deterministic Routing July 2023
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | Traffic Class |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Maximum Reservable Bandwidth |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 12
where:
* Type: TBD
* Length: 5.
* Traffic Class: This is the DS field defined in [RFC2474].
* Maximum Reservable Bandwidth: The maximum amount of bandwidth that
can be reserved in the link for the specific traffic class. It is
encoded in 32 bits in IEEE floating point format. The units are
bytes per second.
This sub-TLV is optional. This sub-TLV SHOULD appear once at most in
each extended IS reachability TLV.
5.2. Unreserved Bandwidth of Traffic Class
This sub-TLV contains the amount of bandwidth reservable in the link
with the direction from this node to the neighbor for a specific
traffic class. Initially, for a specific traffic class, the
unreserved bandwidth equals the maximum reservable bandwidth.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | Traffic Class |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Unreserved Bandwidth |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 13
where:
* Type: TBD
* Length: 6.
Peng Expires 6 January 2024 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Deterministic Routing July 2023
* Traffic Class: This is the DS field defined in [RFC2474].
* Unreserved Bandwidth: The amount of bandwidth reservable in the
link for the specific delay level. It is encoded in 32 bits in
IEEE floating point format. The units are bytes per second.
For stability reasons, rapid changes in the values in this sub-TLV
SHOULD NOT cause rapid generation of LSPs.
This sub-TLV is optional. This sub-TLV SHOULD appear once at most in
each extended IS reachability TLV.
5.3. Maximum Reservable Burst of Traffic Class
This sub-TLV contains the maximum amount of burst that can be
reserved in the link with the direction from this node to the
neighbor for a specific traffic class. An example is in TSN CBS
scheduling, where maximum burst per traffic class is needed to
calculate the worst-case latency for each traffic class.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | Traffic Class |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Maximum Reservable Burst |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 14
where:
* Type: TBD
* Length: 6.
* Traffic Class: This is the DS field defined in [RFC2474].
* Maximum Reservable Burst: The maximum amount of burst that can be
reserved in the link for the specific delay level, in units of
bytes.
This sub-TLV is optional. This sub-TLV SHOULD appear once at most in
each extended IS reachability TLV.
Peng Expires 6 January 2024 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Deterministic Routing July 2023
5.4. Unreserved Burst of Traffic Class
This sub-TLV contains the amount of burst reservable in the link with
the direction from this node to the neighbor for a specific traffic
class. Initially, for a specific traffic class, the unreserved burst
equals the maximum reservable burst.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | Traffic Class |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Unreserved Burst |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 15
where:
* Type: TBD
* Length: 6.
* Traffic Class: This is the DS field defined in [RFC2474].
* Unreserved Burst: The amount of bandwidth reservable in the link
for the specific delay level, in units of bytes.
For stability reasons, rapid changes in the values in this sub-TLV
SHOULD NOT cause rapid generation of LSPs.
This sub-TLV is optional. This sub-TLV SHOULD appear once at most in
each extended IS reachability TLV.
6. OSPF Advertisement of Link Deterministic Resource
Provided in next versions.
7. Announcement Suppression
To prevent oscillations and unnecessary advertisements,
implementations MUST comply with the requirements found in sections 5
and 6 of [RFC8570] regarding announcement thresholds, filters, and
suppression.
Peng Expires 6 January 2024 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Deterministic Routing July 2023
8. IANA Considerations
TBD
9. Security Considerations
This document introduces no new security issues. Security of routing
within a domain is already addressed as part of the routing protocols
themselves. This document proposes no changes to those security
architectures.
The authentication methods described in [RFC5304] and [RFC5310] for
IS-IS, [RFC2328] and [RFC7474] for OSPFv2 and [RFC5340] and [RFC4552]
for OSPFv3 SHOULD be used to prevent attacks on the IGPs.
10. Acknowledgements
TBD.
11. References
11.1. Normative References
[I-D.joung-detnet-asynch-detnet-framework]
Joung, J., Ryoo, J., Cheung, T., Li, Y., and P. Liu,
"Asynchronous Deterministic Networking Framework for
Large-Scale Networks", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
draft-joung-detnet-asynch-detnet-framework-02, 26 March
2023, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-joung-
detnet-asynch-detnet-framework-02>.
[I-D.peng-detnet-deadline-based-forwarding]
Peng, S., Liu, P., and D. Yang, "Deadline Based
Deterministic Forwarding", Work in Progress, Internet-
Draft, draft-peng-detnet-deadline-based-forwarding-05, 12
March 2023, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-
peng-detnet-deadline-based-forwarding-05>.
[I-D.peng-detnet-packet-timeslot-mechanism]
Peng, S., Liu, P., Basu, K., Liu, A., and D. Yang,
"Generic Packet Timeslot Scheduling Mechanism", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-peng-detnet-packet-
timeslot-mechanism-02, 22 May 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-peng-detnet-
packet-timeslot-mechanism-02>.
Peng Expires 6 January 2024 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Deterministic Routing July 2023
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC2328] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2328, April 1998,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2328>.
[RFC2474] Nichols, K., Blake, S., Baker, F., and D. Black,
"Definition of the Differentiated Services Field (DS
Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers", RFC 2474,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2474, December 1998,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2474>.
[RFC4552] Gupta, M. and N. Melam, "Authentication/Confidentiality
for OSPFv3", RFC 4552, DOI 10.17487/RFC4552, June 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4552>.
[RFC5304] Li, T. and R. Atkinson, "IS-IS Cryptographic
Authentication", RFC 5304, DOI 10.17487/RFC5304, October
2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5304>.
[RFC5310] Bhatia, M., Manral, V., Li, T., Atkinson, R., White, R.,
and M. Fanto, "IS-IS Generic Cryptographic
Authentication", RFC 5310, DOI 10.17487/RFC5310, February
2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5310>.
[RFC5340] Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., Moy, J., and A. Lindem, "OSPF
for IPv6", RFC 5340, DOI 10.17487/RFC5340, July 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5340>.
[RFC7474] Bhatia, M., Hartman, S., Zhang, D., and A. Lindem, Ed.,
"Security Extension for OSPFv2 When Using Manual Key
Management", RFC 7474, DOI 10.17487/RFC7474, April 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7474>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8570] Ginsberg, L., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Giacalone, S., Ward,
D., Drake, J., and Q. Wu, "IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE)
Metric Extensions", RFC 8570, DOI 10.17487/RFC8570, March
2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8570>.
Peng Expires 6 January 2024 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Deterministic Routing July 2023
[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>.
11.2. Informative References
[CBS] "IEEE802.1Qav", 2009,
<https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8684664>.
[CQF] "IEEE802.1Qch", 2017,
<https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7961303>.
[Multi-CQF]
"Multiple Cyclic Queuing and Forwarding", 2021,
<https://www.ieee802.org/1/files/public/docs2021/new-finn-
multiple-CQF-0921-v02.pdf>.
Author's Address
Shaofu Peng
ZTE
China
Email: peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn
Peng Expires 6 January 2024 [Page 19]
