Internet DRAFT - draft-ryoo-detnet-ontime-forwarding

draft-ryoo-detnet-ontime-forwarding







DetNet Working Group                                             Y. Ryoo
Internet-Draft                                                      ETRI
Intended status: Standards Track                        29 February 2024
Expires: 1 September 2024


         On-time Forwarding with Push-In First-Out (PIFO) queue
                 draft-ryoo-detnet-ontime-forwarding-00

Abstract

   This document describes operations of data plane and controller plane
   for Deterministic Networking (DetNet) to forward packets to meet
   minimum and maximum end-to-end latency requirements, while utilizing
   Push-In First-Out (PIFO) queue.

   According to the solution described in this document, forwarding
   nodes do not need to maintain flow states or to be time-synchronized
   with each other.

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 1 September 2024.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2024 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.










Ryoo                    Expires 1 September 2024                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft             On-time Forwarding              February 2024


   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.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.1.  Symbols Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.2.  Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  Temporal Model  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   5.  Data Plane Operation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     5.1.  Queuing Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   6.  Controller Plane Operation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   7.  Capability Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   8.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   9.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   10. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     10.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     10.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11

1.  Introduction

   Deterministic Networking (DetNet) whose architecture is defined in
   [RFC8655] provides the capability to carry specified unicast or
   multicast flows with extremely low packet loss rates and bounded end-
   to-end latency.

   On-time forwarding is a critical feature of deterministic networks,
   especially of networks dealing with industrial process control
   signaling.  The on-time forwarding is characterized as packets
   belonging to a flow are delivered within minimum end-to-end latency
   (MinLatency) and maximum end-to-end latency (MaxLatency) requirements
   for the flow.  The difference between MaxLatency and MinLatency is
   the end-to-end latency variation, which becomes smaller as the
   requirement for on-time delivery precision becomes stricter.  When
   MinLatency does not require to be guaranteed, it can be viewed as in-
   time forwarding.






Ryoo                    Expires 1 September 2024                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft             On-time Forwarding              February 2024


   This document describes operations of data plane and controller plane
   for DetNet to forward packets to meet minimum and maximum end-to-end
   latency requirements, while utilizing Push-In First-Out (PIFO) queue.
   Given MinLatency and MaxLatency requirements for a flow and non-
   queuing delays and available buffer resources on the path selected
   for the flow, the controller calculates lower and upper node delay
   bounds for each node on the path.  When a packet arrives at a node,
   the node computes minimum departure time, nominal departure time, and
   maximum departure time for the packet based on the lower and upper
   node delay bounds calculated by the controller for the node.  Using
   the PIFO queue, the packets are arranged in the ascending order of
   their nominal departure times in the PIFO queue and forwarded between
   their minimum and maximum departure times.

2.  Terminology

2.1.  Symbols Used in This Document

   E2E_F       end-to-end fixed delay
   E2E_VL      end-to-end variable delay lower bound
   E2E_VU      end-to-end variable delay upper bound
   MaxLatency  maximum end-to-end latency that must be guaranteed
   MinLatency  minimum end-to-end latency that must be guaranteed
   N_L         node delay lower bound
   N_U         node delay upper bound
   R_L         remaining end-to-end latency lower bound
   R_U         remaining end-to-end latency upper bound

2.2.  Abbreviations


3.  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.

4.  Temporal Model

   This document separates end-to-end latency into two components: end-
   to-end variable delay and end-to-end fixed delay.  The end-to-end
   variable delay is the sum of variable delays occurring in nodes and
   links on the path, and has its upper and lower bounds, which are
   denoted by E2E_VU and E2E_VL, respectively.  Using the terms defined
   in [RFC9320], one obvious example of a variable delay is a queuing
   delay.  Other delays, such as output delay, link delay, and



Ryoo                    Expires 1 September 2024                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft             On-time Forwarding              February 2024


   processing delay, can be classified as variable delays depending on
   implementation.  On the other hand, the end-to-end fixed delay,
   denoted by E2E_F, is the sum of fixed delays occurring in links and
   nodes on the path.  Some or all of the delays except the queuing
   delay can be included in the E2E_F depending on how the nodes and
   links are implemented.  When an implementation can provide a fixed
   value for any non-queuing delay, that delay is considered a fixed
   delay in this document.  An example of a fixed delay is the first-
   bit-out to first-bit-in delay of the link delay [RFC9320] unless the
   link is formed virtually.  When a flow consists of packets of a
   constant size, the first-bit-in to last-bit-in delay of the link
   delay [RFC9320] also becomes a fixed delay.  In this document, we
   assume that the first-bit-out to first-bit-in delay, which is
   commonly called link propagation delay, is classified as a fixed
   delay that depends on length of a link.

   When a flow is requested, the non-queuing delays are known to a
   controller by considering network topology, port speeds, link
   lengths, maximum and minimum processing and output delays of nodes,
   and maximum and minimum packet sizes of the flow.

   In order to guarantee MaxLatency and MinLatency, the sum of E2E_F and
   E2E_VU MUST be less than or equal to MaxLatency, and the sum of E2E_F
   and E2E_VL MUST be greater than or equal to MinLatency.  Figure 1
   shows the relationship among the aforementioned end-to-end
   parameters.



   |<---------- maximum end-to-end latency (MaxLatency) --------->|
   |<---- minimum end-to-end latency (MinLatency) ---->|          :
   :                                                   :          :
   |<-- end-to-end fixed -->|<------- end-to-end variable ------->|
        delay (E2E_F)       :         delay upper bound (E2E_VU)
                            :                          :
                            |<- end-to-end variable -->|
                                delay lower bound (E2E_VL)


         Figure 1: Relationship among end-to-end latency parameters











Ryoo                    Expires 1 September 2024                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft             On-time Forwarding              February 2024


   For the data plane operation described in the document, E2E_VU and
   E2E_VL are divided into all the nodes on the path, and the controller
   assigns a node delay upper bound (N_U) and a node delay lower bound
   (N_L) to each node.  N_U and N_L are upper and lower bounds of the
   time a packet can reside in a node, and their values may be different
   for each node.  For the sake of brevity, we omit the index for a node
   in this document.  How the controller determines the values of N_U
   and N_L is described in Section 6.

   Once N_U and N_L are given, a node performs the data plane operation
   as described in Section 5.

5.  Data Plane Operation

   As mentioned in the previous section, N_L and N_U are assumed to be
   set in each node on the path.  The values of (MinLatency-E2E_F) and
   (MaxLatency-E2E_F) are also assumed to be known at the first node on
   the path.  In addition to the normal DetNet encapsulation, such as
   DetNet control word, service label, and forwarding labels in case of
   MPLS, this document assumes that fields containing upper and lower
   bounds of remaining end-to-end latency, called R_L and R_U, are
   available.  A node is assumed to measure a residence time, which is
   defined as the time a packet resides in the node.  To be more
   precise, the residence time is the time duration between the time
   that the last bit of a packet comes in and the time that the last bit
   of the packet leaves the node.

   When a packet arrives at the first node on the path, the node
   performs the queuing operation as described in Section 5.1 based on
   N_L and N_U values assigned to the first node.  When the packet
   departs from the first node, R_L and R_U fields are set by
   subtracting its residence time from (MinLatency-E2E_F) and
   (MaxLatency-E2E_F), respectively.

   Each node except the first and last nodes on the path performs the
   queuing operation as described in Section 5.1 based on N_L and N_U
   values assigned to the node, and updates R_L and R_U fields by
   subtracting its residence time from received R_L and R_U values.  If
   the resulting value of R_L is negative, then the R_L field is updated
   with zero.

   The last node also performs the queuing operation as described in
   Section 5.1, but uses R_L and R_U received from its previous node
   instead of N_L and N_U values assigned to the last node.  If R_U is
   greater than N_U of the last node, N_U is used.






Ryoo                    Expires 1 September 2024                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft             On-time Forwarding              February 2024


5.1.  Queuing Operation

   When a packet arrives at time t, a minimum departure time, which is
   defined as t plus N_L minus del_min, and a maximum departure time,
   which is defined as t plus N_U minus del_max, are calculated.
   del_min and del_max are defined as the minimum and maximum times it
   takes from the time a packet leaves the queue until it completely
   leaves the node.  del_min or del_max can be calculated with the size
   of the packet, port speed and minimum or maximum output delay,
   respectively.  In addition, a nominal departure time, which is
   defined as the midpoint between the minimum departure time and
   maximum departure time, is calculated.  The difference between (N_U -
   del_max) and (N_L - del_min) is called forwarding budget.  Figure 2
   shows the relationship among the minimum, nominal, and maximum
   departure times.



     |<----------------- (N_U - del_max) --------------->|
     |<- (N_L - del_min) ->|<---- forwarding budget ---->|
     |                     |                             |
   --*---------------------*--------------*--------------*--> time
     t                  minimum        nominal        maximum
                        departure      departure      departure
                        time           time           time


       Figure 2: Relationship among the minimum, nominal, and maximum
                              departure times

   After calculating the minimum, nominal, and maximum departure times
   and performing necessary actions for packet forwarding, the packet is
   placed in the PIFO queue, where packets are arranged in the ascending
   order of their nominal departure times.  When the minimum departure
   time of the packet in the head of queue (HoQ) has reached or passed
   current time, the packet is dequeued.

   An example of the queuing operation is shown in Figure 3.  Let us
   consider three incoming packets belonging to three different flows.
   The values of N_L and N_U are set to 1ms and 3 ms for the first flow,
   0.34ms and 2ms for the second flow, and 0.3ms and 0.5ms for the third
   flow, respectively.  To simplify the example, we assume del_min and
   del_max are zero.

   *  Assume that the first packet, P1, arrives at 0.2ms.  Then, the
      minimum, nominal, and maximum departure times of P1 are calculated
      as 1.2ms, 2.2ms, and 3.2ms, respectively.  P1 is placed at the HoQ
      and cannot leave the queue before 1.2ms.



Ryoo                    Expires 1 September 2024                [Page 6]

Internet-Draft             On-time Forwarding              February 2024


   *  When the second packet, P2, arrives at 0.4ms, the minimum,
      nominal, and maximum times of P2 are determined as 0.74ms, 1.57ms,
      and 2.4ms.  Since the nominal departure time of P2 is smaller than
      that of P1, P2 is placed at the HoQ and is scheduled to leave the
      queue at 0.74ms.

   *  The third packet, P3, is assumed to arrives at 0.6ms and its
      minimum, nominal, and maximum departure times are calculated as
      0.9ms, 1.0ms, and 1.1ms, respectively.  Since the nominal
      departure time of P3 is smaller than that of P2, P3 is placed at
      the HoQ and is followed by P2 and P1.

   *  At 0.9ms, P3 leaves the queue as its minimum departure time is
      0.9ms.  Following P3, P2 immediately leaves the queue as its
      minimum departure time (0.74ms) has passed.

   *  At 1.2ms, P1 is dequeued as its minimum departure time is 1.2ms.



   Packets  P1     P2     P3
   arrived  |      |      |
            v      v      v
       -----*------*------*------------------------------->
            0.2ms  0.4ms  0.6ms                        time

   Packets  |  |   |  |   |  |      |  |      |  |
   in queue |  |   |  |   |P1|      |  |      |  |
            |  |   |P1|   |P2|      |  |      |  |
    HoQ --> |P1|   |P2|   |P3|      |P1|      |  |
            +--+   +--+   +--+      +--+      +--+

                                    0.9ms     1.2ms     time
       -----------------------------*---------*----------->
                                    ||        |
   Packets                          vv        v
   dequeued                        P3 P2      P1


               Figure 3: Example of queuing using PIFO queue











Ryoo                    Expires 1 September 2024                [Page 7]

Internet-Draft             On-time Forwarding              February 2024


   In this queuing operation, if packets with nominal departure times
   smaller than the nominal departure time of the HoQ packet continue to
   arrive, the packet with a small forwarding budget may exceed its
   maximum departure time.  Therefore, the forwarding budget MUST be set
   to be larger than the time required to transmit any preceding packets
   of all the flows at the speed of the output port.  This requirement
   of the forwarding budget needs to be confirmed through admission
   control in the controller plane when the flow is set up.

6.  Controller Plane Operation

   A controller collects network topology, PIFO queue resource, and
   various delay-related information such as port speed, link length,
   maximum and minimum processing and output delays of nodes, and
   maximum and minimum packet sizes of the flow, etc.

   If a new DetNet flow is requested, the controller selects a path that
   satisfies the following conditions:

   1.  The E2E_F of the path MUST NOT exceed the MaxLatency required for
       the flow.

   2.  The sum of the available buffer resources of all nodes on the
       path MUST be large enough to provide a delay greater than E2E_VL
       minus minimum end-to-end variable non-queuing delay.

   3.  The available buffer resource of each node on the path MUST be
       large enough to provide a delay equal to N_U minus minimum node
       variable non-queuing delay.

   4.  The forwarding budget of each node MUST be larger than the time
       required to transmit any preceding packets of all the flows at
       the speed of the output port.

   The first condition can be easily checked with the fixed delay values
   collected by the controller.

   The second condition can be checked based on information about the
   traffic specification (T-SPEC) of the flow, the delay-related
   information, and the available buffer resource of each node on the
   path.

   In the second condition, the minimum end-to-end variable non-queuing
   delay is defined as the sum of lower bounds of variable delays except
   queuing delays occurring in nodes and links on the path, and the
   controller is assumed to be able to calculate from the information
   collected from the network.  Likewise, in the third condition, the
   minimum node variable non-queuing delay is defined as the sum of



Ryoo                    Expires 1 September 2024                [Page 8]

Internet-Draft             On-time Forwarding              February 2024


   lower bounds of variable delays except a queuing delay in a node, and
   the controller is assumed to be able to calculate from the
   information collected from the node.

   In order to check the third and fourth conditions, N_L and N_U for
   each node need to be determined.  There can be various ways to
   determine the values of N_L and N_U.  In the following, we describe
   how both N_U and N_L can be obtained as one of the possible ways.

   Considering the fact that the last node is the node that can take
   final actions to ensure the E2E_VL and E2E_VU for packets requiring
   on-time delivery, the value of N_U of the last node MUST be
   determined first.  It is RECOMMENDED to set the value of N_U of the
   last node as large as possible as long as the buffer resource of the
   last node allows for the flow.  Then, the remaining value after
   subtracting N_U of the last node from E2E_VL is divided into all
   other nodes.  The value divided into each node is used as N_L for the
   node.  The N_L of the last node is set to the time required to
   transmit any preceding packets of all the flows at the speed of the
   output port of the last node.

   The value of N_U of each node except the last node is determined by
   dividing the remaining value after subtracting N_L of the last node
   from E2E_VU into all nodes except the last node on the path.

   If the available buffer resource of each node on the path can support
   the value of N_U minus minimum node variable non-queuing delay, the
   third condition is satisfied.  The fourth condition can be checked
   with N_U and N_L.

   Once a path satisfying the aforementioned conditions is selected, the
   values of N_L and N_U are set to all nodes, and each node performs
   the operation described in Section 5 in the data plane.  And, the
   buffer resources associated with N_U become unavailable for flows
   requested later.

7.  Capability Analysis

   The data and controller plane operations described in this document
   have the following characteristics for the requirements described in
   [I-D.ietf-detnet-scaling-requirements].  The item numbers below
   correspond to the numbers of the technical requirements in Section 3
   of [I-D.ietf-detnet-scaling-requirements].








Ryoo                    Expires 1 September 2024                [Page 9]

Internet-Draft             On-time Forwarding              February 2024


   1.  The solution described in this document does not require time
       synchronization.  However, the solution measures the residence
       time and passes the remaining end-to-end latency values to the
       next node.  As a specific delay value seen by all nodes must be
       the same amount, frequency synchronization is necessary.

   2.  The large single-hop propagation delay is supported.  The
       solution describe in this document does not impose any limits on
       the amount of propagation delay.

   3.  Accommodation of the higher link speed is supported.  It is
       considered possible to implement a PIFO queue supporting speeds
       of 100 Gbps or more.

   4.  The solution described in this document is scalable to the large
       number of flows as it does not require to maintain flow states in
       a node.

   5.  The solution described in this document is robust against node
       and link failures and topology changes, as the PREOF function can
       be applied.

   6.  Since the solution described in this document provides on-time
       forwarding while complying with the forwarding budget at all
       nodes, flow fluctuation inherently does not occur.

   7.  Since each node operates independently and the operation of the
       controller does not require any greater burden than existing
       typical network control, there are no scalability issues
       regarding the number of hops.

8.  IANA Considerations

   This document makes no request of IANA.

   Note to RFC Editor: this section may be removed on publication as an
   RFC.

9.  Security Considerations

   TBD

10.  References

10.1.  Normative References






Ryoo                    Expires 1 September 2024               [Page 10]

Internet-Draft             On-time Forwarding              February 2024


   [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>.

   [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>.

   [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>.

   [RFC9320]  Finn, N., Le Boudec, J.-Y., Mohammadpour, E., Zhang, J.,
              and B. Varga, "Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Bounded
              Latency", RFC 9320, DOI 10.17487/RFC9320, November 2022,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9320>.

10.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.ietf-detnet-scaling-requirements]
              Liu, P., Li, Y., Eckert, T. T., Xiong, Q., Ryoo, J.,
              zhushiyin, and X. Geng, "Requirements for Scaling
              Deterministic Networks", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
              draft-ietf-detnet-scaling-requirements-05, 20 November
              2023, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-
              detnet-scaling-requirements-05>.

Author's Address

   Yeoncheol Ryoo
   ETRI
   Email: dbduscjf@etri.re.kr

















Ryoo                    Expires 1 September 2024               [Page 11]