Network Working Group Z. Li Internet-Draft S. Peng Intended status: Standards Track Huawei Technologies Expires: August 26, 2021 C. Li C. Xie China Telecom D. Voyer Bell Canada X. Li Tsinghua University P. Liu China Mobile C. Cao China Unicom K. Ebisawa Toyota Motor Corporation February 22, 2021 Application-aware IPv6 Networking (APN6) Encapsulation draft-li-6man-app-aware-ipv6-network-03 Abstract Application-aware IPv6 Networking (APN6) framework makes use of IPv6 encapsulation in order to convey the application-aware information along with the data packet to the network so to facilitate the service deployment and SLA guarantee. This document defines the encodings of the application characteristic information, for the APN6 framework, that can be exchanged between an application or a network edge device such as CPE (Customer-Premises Equipment) and the network infrastructure through the use of IPv6 extension headers. Requirements Language 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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. 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 Li, et al. Expires August 26, 2021 [Page 1] Internet-Draft APN6 Encapsulation February 2021 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 August 26, 2021. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Terminologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Demanding Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3.1. Online Gaming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.2. Video streaming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5. APN6 Framework and Key Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6. Application-aware Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6.1. Application-aware ID Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6.2. Service-Para Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 7. Locations for placing the Application-aware Options . . . . . 13 7.1. Hop-by-Hop Options Header (HBH) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 7.2. Destination Options Header (DOH) . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 7.3. Segment Routing Header (SRH) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 7.3.1. SRH TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 7.3.2. SID Arguments Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 7.3.3. SRH TAG field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Li, et al. Expires August 26, 2021 [Page 2] Internet-Draft APN6 Encapsulation February 2021 10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 1. Introduction A multitude of applications are carried over the network, which have varying needs for network bandwidth, latency, jitter, and packet loss, etc. Some applications such as online gaming and live video streaming have very demanding network requirements thereof require special treatments in the network. However, in current networks, the network and applications are decoupled, that is, the network is not aware of the applications' requirements in a finer granularity. Therefore, it is difficult to provide truly fine-granular traffic operations for the applications and guarantee their SLA requirements. Such guarantee would also be provided by adopting the hierarchical orchestration and the interactions between the orchestrator and multiple controllers, but it would take a very long time by going through the control and management elements. Moreover, the interfaces between those elements require standardizations. This document proposes encapsulations for the Application-aware IPv6 Networking (APN6) framework, which makes use of IPv6 encapsulations (i.e. Hop-by-Hop Options Header (HBH), Destination Options Header (DOH), Segment Routing Header(SRH)) to convey the application-aware information including the application-aware identifications and network performance requirements along with the packet to the network to facilitate the service deployment and SLA guarantee. The application-aware options (i.e. Application-aware ID Option and Service-Para Option) are defined, which can be used in the IPv6 encapsulations, including the above listed different IPv6 extension headers, for this purpose. 2. Terminologies APN: Application-aware Networking APN6: Application-aware IPv6 Networking, i.e. the data plane of APN is IPv6 DPI: Deep Packet Inspection 3. Demanding Applications This section shows the various demanding requirements of some applications. The traffic of these applications needs to be differentiated from other types of traffic and applied with special treatments in the network, that is, the network needs to be able to Li, et al. Expires August 26, 2021 [Page 3] Internet-Draft APN6 Encapsulation February 2021 provide fine-granular traffic operations and acceleration to these demanding applications. 3.1. Online Gaming Good network performance is normally a prerequisite for satisfactory game play, especially for the online gaming. Shooting or racing online gaming is normally based on quick action and needs to update the game status in real time by continuously sending and receiving updates to/from the game server and/or other players. The online gaming is very sensitive to the network latency. [I-D.zhang-apn-acceleration-usecase] describes the game acceleration scenarios using APN. In these scenarios, APN can identify the specific requirements of particular gaming applications, steer the flows to the game processors close to the users, and provide SLA guaranteed network services such as low latency and high reliability. 3.2. Video streaming The network latency, jitter, bandwidth, and packet loss are the key factors for the video streaming. Live video streaming has even more strict requirements. High quality video source require more bandwidth in order to stream properly. Real time streaming services also require real time content delivery from the web server to the end user ideally via carefully planned explicit TE paths. The online gaming often involves live video streaming. [I-D.liu-apn-edge-usecase] describes the various application scenarios in edge computing to which the APN can be beneficial, including augmented reality, cloud gaming and remote control, which empowers the video business, users interaction business and user- device interaction business. In those scenarios, APN can identify the specific requirements of edge computing applications on the network, process close to the users, provide SLA guaranteed network services such as low latency and high reliability. 4. Problem Statement A number of IETF activities that have been or are being conducted, e.g. DiffServ, primarily intend to evolve the IP architecture to support new service definitions which allow preferential or differentiated treatment to be applied to certain types of traffic. The challenge when using traditional ways to guarantee SLA is that the packets are not able to carry enough information to express differentiated service requirements of various applications. The network devices mainly rely on the 5-tuple of the packets which cannot accurately identify applications and provide fine-grained Li, et al. Expires August 26, 2021 [Page 4] Internet-Draft APN6 Encapsulation February 2021 service treatments accordingly. If more information is needed, it has to refer to DPI which will introduce more cost in the network and impose security challenges. In the era of SDN the orchestrator is introduced for the orchestration of applications and the network. The SDN controller can be aware of the service requirements of the applications on the network through the interface interworking with the orchestrator. The service requirements is used by the controller for traffic management. However, the method raises the following problems: 1) The whole loop is long and time-consuming which is not suitable for the real-time adjustment for applications; 2) Too many interfaces are involved in the loop which proposes more challenges of standardization and inter-operability, and it is difficult to be standardized for easy interworking. 5. APN6 Framework and Key Components Application-aware Networking (APN) Framework is introduced in [I-D.li-apn-framework] in more details. When the data plane of APN is IPv6, it is APN6. Both frameworks share the same diagram, as shown in Figure 1. Client Server +-----+ +-----+ |App x|-\ /->|App x| +-----+ | +-----+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+ | +-----+ \->|App- | |App-aware|-A-|App-aware|-A-|App-aware|-/ User side |aware|--|process |-B-|process |-B-|process | /->|Edge | |Head-End |-C-|Mid-Point|-C-|End-Point|-\ +-----+ | +-----+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+ | +-----+ |App y|-/ \->|App y| +-----+ ---------- Uplink ----------> +-----+ Figure 1 APN6 Framework and Key Components The key components of the APN6 framework include Service-aware App, App-aware Edge Device, App-aware-process Head-End, App-aware-process Mid-Point, and App-aware-process End-Point, which are introduced as follows. 1. Service-aware App: The IPv6 enabled application that runs in the host obtains application characteristic information and encapsulate the packet with an IPv6 header that can, optionally, include an extension header with the application characteristic information. The application characteristic information (i.e. application-aware information) includes the following information: Li, et al. Expires August 26, 2021 [Page 5] Internet-Draft APN6 Encapsulation February 2021 o Application-aware identification information: identifies the application (group), the user (group), and their SLA requirements, indicating that all packets belonging to the same flow will be given the same treatment by the network. o Service requirements information: specifying at least one of the following parameters: bandwidth, delay, delay variation, packet loss ratio, security, etc. If the application characteristic information is carried in the IPv6 packet, this information is used by the App-aware-process Head-End to determine the path between the App-aware-process Head-End and the App-aware-process End-Point for forwarding the packet to its destination, that is, to steer the packet into a given policy which satisfies the application's requirements. If it is an SRv6 network and the SRv6 head-end receives the IPv6 packets carrying the application characteristic information, the SRv6 head-end will steer the traffic into an SRv6 policy/path that can satisfy its SLA requirements [I-D.ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming]. If the path cannot be found, the setup of a new path will be triggered. In APN6, if the application characteristic information is directly added by the application and carried in the IPv6 packet sent by the host, it is called "Application-side Solution". 2. App-aware Edge Device: This network device receives packets from IPv6 enabled applications and obtains the application characteristic information. If the application is not Service-aware App, the application characteristic information can be obtained by packet inspection, derived from service information such as double VLAN tagging QinQ (C-VLAN and S-VLAN), or added according to the local policies, which is out of the scope of this document. The App-aware Edge Device adds the application characteristic information into the packet on behalf of the application. The packets carrying the application characteristic information will be sent to the App-aware- process Head-End, and the application characteristic information will be used to determine the path between the App-aware-process Head-End and the App-aware-process End-Point for forwarding the packets. In APN6, if the application characteristic information is not directly added by the IPv6 enabled application but inferred at the App-aware Edge Device, it is called "Network-side Solution". 3. App-aware-process Head-End: This network device receives packets and obtains the application characteristic information. A set of paths, tunnels or SR/SRv6 policy, exist between the App-aware-process Head-End and the App-aware-process End-Point. The App-aware-process Head-End maintains a mapping between the application characteristic Li, et al. Expires August 26, 2021 [Page 6] Internet-Draft APN6 Encapsulation February 2021 information and the paths between the App-aware-process Head-End and the App-aware-process End-Point. The App-aware-process Head-End determines the path between the App-aware-process Head-End and the App-aware-process End-Point according to the application characteristic information carried in the packet and the corresponding mapping, which satisfies the service requirements of the application. If there is no such mapping path found, the App- aware-process Head-End can set up a path towards the App-aware- process End-Point, and the mapping will be stored. The App-aware- process Head-End forwards the packets along the path. The application information conveyed by the IPv6 packet can also be copied into the outer IPv6 packet for further application-aware process. 4. App-aware-process Mid-Point: The Mid-Point provides the application-aware path service according to the path set up by the App-aware-process Head-End which satisfies the service requirements conveyed by the IPv6 packet. The Mid-Point may also adjust the resource locally in order to guarantee the service requirements depending on a specific policy and the application-aware information conveyed by the IPv6/SRv6 packet. Policy definitions and mechanisms are out of the scope of this document. 5. App-aware-process End-Point: The process of the specific service path will end at the End-Point. The service requirements information can be removed at the End-Point together with the outer IPv6 encapsulation or go on to be conveyed with the IPv6 packets if the Application-side Solution is used. In this way, the network is aware of the applications and their requirements. According to the application characteristic information carried in the IPv6 packets the network is able to adjust its resources fast in order to satisfy the service requirement of applications. The flow-driven method also reduces the challenges of inter-operability and long control loop. 6. Application-aware Options In order to support the Application-aware IPv6 networking, two application-aware options are defined: o Application-aware ID Option o Service-Para Option Li, et al. Expires August 26, 2021 [Page 7] Internet-Draft APN6 Encapsulation February 2021 6.1. Application-aware ID Option The Application-aware ID option indicates the information of application (group), the user (group), and their SLA and service requirements, as illustrated in the following figure: 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Opt Type | Opt Data Len | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | + Application-aware ID + | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 3. Application-aware ID Option Opt Type: Type value is TBD1. 8-bit unsigned integer. Identifier of the type of this Application-aware ID Option. Opt Data Len: 8-bit unsigned integer. Length of the Option Data field of this option, that is, length of the Application-aware ID, recommended to be 16 octets. Option Data: Option-Type-specific data. It carries Application-aware ID. The Application-aware ID has one of the following suggested structures: -- Structure I: Any combination of SLA level (e.g. Gold, Silver, Bronze), APP ID, and/or user ID, and/or flow ID. The length of each field is variable, as shown in the following diagram: +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | SLA Level | APP ID | User ID | Flow ID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 4. Application-aware ID Structure I SLA Level: The level of SLA requirement such as Gold, Silver, Bronze. In some cases, color (e.g. red, green) can be used to indicate the SLA level. APP ID: The identifier of the application (group) of the traffic. User ID: The user of the application (group) of the traffic. Li, et al. Expires August 26, 2021 [Page 8] Internet-Draft APN6 Encapsulation February 2021 Flow ID: The particular flow of the application traffic. -- Structure II: Any combination of SLA level (e.g. Gold, Silver, Bronze), APP ID, and/or user ID, and/or flow ID plus the arguments which indicating the service requirements (e.g. upper boundary of the latency: 10ms), as shown in the following diagram: +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | SLA Level| APP ID | User ID | Flow ID | Arguments | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 5. Application-aware ID Structure II -- Structure III: An SRv6 SID, with its arguments as the information specified in Structure I or II, as shown in the following diagram: +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Locator Address | Function ID | Arguments | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 6. Application-aware ID Structure III Section 7 introduces several locations that the Application-aware ID option can be encapsulated in the IPv6 packet, e.g., Hop-by-Hop Options Header and Destination Options Header, depending upon the scenarios and implementation requirements. 6.2. Service-Para Option The Service-Para Option is a variable-length option carrying multiple service requirement parameters. Each service requirement parameter is put into the corresponding Service-Para Sub-TLV, as shown in Figure 7. This Option can be put into the IPv6 Hop-by-Hop Options Header, Destination Options Header, and SRH TLV. Li, et al. Expires August 26, 2021 [Page 9] Internet-Draft APN6 Encapsulation February 2021 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Opt Type | Opt Data Len | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | . . . Service-Para Sub-TLVs (Variable) . . . | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 7. Service-Para Option Opt Type: Type value is TBD2. 8-bit unsigned integer. Identifier of the type of this Service-Para Option. Opt Data Len: 8-bit unsigned integer. Length of the Option Data field of this option, that is, length of the Service-Para Sub-TLVs. Option Data: Option-Type-specific data. It carries Service-Para Sub- TLVs. Variable-length field. The corresponding Service-Para Sub-TLVs are shown in the following figures, respectively. 1. Bandwidth Sub-TLV This Bandwidth sub-TLV indicates the bandwidth requirement of applications. The format of this sub-TLV is shown in the following diagram: 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 | Class Type | RESERVED | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Bandwidth | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 8. Bandwidth Sub-TLV where: Type: TBD3, the type of the Bandwidth Sub-TLV. Li, et al. Expires August 26, 2021 [Page 10] Internet-Draft APN6 Encapsulation February 2021 Length: 6 octets, the length of the data field of the Bandwidth Sub- TLV. Class Type: The Bandwidth Type. RESERVED: This field is reserved for future use. It MUST be set to 0 when sent and MUST be ignored when received. Bandwidth: This field carries the bandwidth requirement in Mbps along the path. 2. Delay Sub-TLV This Delay Sub-TLV indicates the delay requirement. The format of this sub-TLV is shown in the following diagram: 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 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | RESERVED | Delay | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 9. Delay Sub-TLV where: Type: TBD4, the type of the Delay Sub-TLV. Length: 4 octets, the length of the data field of the Delay Sub-TLV. RESERVED: This field is reserved for future use. It MUST be set to 0 when sent and MUST be ignored when received. Delay: This 24-bit field carries the delay requirements in microseconds, encoded as an integer value. When set to the maximum value 16,777,215 (16.777215 sec), then the delay is at least that value and may be larger. This value is the highest delay that can be tolerated. 3. Delay Variation Sub-TLV This Delay Variation Sub-TLV indicates the delay variation requirement. The format of this sub-TLV is shown in the following diagram: Li, et al. Expires August 26, 2021 [Page 11] Internet-Draft APN6 Encapsulation February 2021 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 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | RESERVED | Delay Variation | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 10. Delay Variation Sub-TLV where: Type: TBD5, the type of the Delay Variation Sub-TLV. Length: 4 octets, the length of the data field of the Delay Variation Sub-TLV. RESERVED: This field is reserved for future use. It MUST be set to 0 when sent and MUST be ignored when received. Delay Variation: This 24-bit field carries the delay variation requirements in microseconds, encoded as an integer value. 4. Packet Loss Ratio Sub-TLV This Packet Loss Ratio Sub-TLV indicates the packet loss ratio requirement. The format of this sub-TLV is shown in the following diagram: 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 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | RESERVED | Packet Loss Ratio | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 11. Packet Loss Ratio Sub-TLV where: Type: TBD6, the type of the Packet Loss Ratio Sub-TLV. Length: 4 octets, the length of the data field of the Packet Loss Ratio Sub-TLV. RESERVED: This field is reserved for future use. It MUST be set to 0 when sent and MUST be ignored when received. Li, et al. Expires August 26, 2021 [Page 12] Internet-Draft APN6 Encapsulation February 2021 Packet Loss Ratio: This 24-bit field carries packet loss ratio requirement in packets per second. This value is the highest packet- loss ratio that can be tolerated. 7. Locations for placing the Application-aware Options The Application-aware options can be placed in several locations in the IPv6 packet header depend upon the scenarios and implementation requirements. 7.1. Hop-by-Hop Options Header (HBH) The application-aware options can be carried in the Hop-by-Hop Options Header as new options. By using the HBH Options Header, the information carried can be read by every node along the path. However, the current processing of the HBH Options Header goes to the slow path, which will decrease the forwarding performance. A new enhanced HBH Options Header is proposed in [I-D.li-6man-hbh-fwd-hdr] in order to address the current limitations. 7.2. Destination Options Header (DOH) The application-aware options can be carried in the Destination Options Header as new options. 7.3. Segment Routing Header (SRH) The Application-aware options can be placed in the segment routing header (SRH), e.g., in the SRH TLV, the SID Arguments field, or the TAG field. 7.3.1. SRH TLV The Application-aware options can be placed in the SRH TLV. 7.3.2. SID Arguments Field The Application-aware ID option can be put in the SID Arguments field, which can be read by each node indicated by the SID in the SID list. 7.3.3. SRH TAG field The Application-aware ID option can be put in the TAG field, which can be read by each node that processes the SRH. Li, et al. Expires August 26, 2021 [Page 13] Internet-Draft APN6 Encapsulation February 2021 8. IANA Considerations IANA maintains the registry for the Options and Sub-TLVs. Service-Para Option will require one new type code per sub-TLV defined in this document: Type | Description ------------------------------------------------------------- TBD1 | Application-aware ID Option TBD2 | Service-Para Option TBD3 | Bandwidth Sub-TLV TBD4 | Delay Sub-TLV TBD5 | Delay Variation Sub-TLV TBD6 | Packet Loss Ratio Sub-TLV 9. Security Considerations The Security Considerations described in [I-D.li-apn-problem-statement-usecases] and [I-D.peng-apn-security-privacy-consideration] can be referred to. 10. References 10.1. 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, . [RFC8200] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200, DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017, . 10.2. Informative References Li, et al. Expires August 26, 2021 [Page 14] Internet-Draft APN6 Encapsulation February 2021 [I-D.ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming] Filsfils, C., Camarillo, P., Leddy, J., Voyer, D., Matsushima, S., and Z. Li, "SRv6 Network Programming", draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-28 (work in progress), December 2020. [I-D.li-6man-hbh-fwd-hdr] Li, Z. and S. Peng, "Hop-by-Hop Forwarding Options Header", draft-li-6man-hbh-fwd-hdr-00 (work in progress), July 2020. [I-D.li-apn-framework] Li, Z., Peng, S., Voyer, D., Li, C., Geng, L., Cao, C., Ebisawa, K., Previdi, S., and J. Guichard, "Application- aware Networking (APN) Framework", draft-li-apn- framework-01 (work in progress), September 2020. [I-D.li-apn-problem-statement-usecases] Li, Z., Peng, S., Voyer, D., Xie, C., Liu, P., Qin, Z., Ebisawa, K., Previdi, S., and J. Guichard, "Problem Statement and Use Cases of Application-aware Networking (APN)", draft-li-apn-problem-statement-usecases-01 (work in progress), September 2020. [I-D.liu-apn-edge-usecase] Liu, P., Du, Z., Peng, S., and Z. Li, "Use cases of Application-aware Networking (APN) in Edge Computing", draft-liu-apn-edge-usecase-02 (work in progress), January 2021. [I-D.peng-apn-security-privacy-consideration] Peng, S., Li, Z., Voyer, D., Li, C., Liu, P., and C. Cao, "APN Security and Privacy Considerations", draft-peng-apn- security-privacy-consideration-00 (work in progress), September 2020. [I-D.zhang-apn-acceleration-usecase] Zhang, S., Cao, C., Peng, S., and Z. Li, "Use cases of Application-aware Networking (APN) in Game Acceleration", draft-zhang-apn-acceleration-usecase-01 (work in progress), December 2020. [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, . Li, et al. Expires August 26, 2021 [Page 15] Internet-Draft APN6 Encapsulation February 2021 Authors' Addresses Zhenbin Li Huawei Technologies Beijing 100095 China Email: lizhenbin@huawei.com Shuping Peng Huawei Technologies Beijing 100095 China Email: pengshuping@huawei.com Cong Li China Telecom Beijing 102209 China Phone: +86-10-50902556 Email: licong@chinatelecom.cn Chongfeng Xie China Telecom Beijing 102209 China Phone: +86-10-50902116 Email: xiechf@chinatelecom.cn Daniel Voyer Bell Canada Canada Email: daniel.voyer@bell.ca Xing Li Tsinghua University China Email: xing@cernet.edu.cn Li, et al. Expires August 26, 2021 [Page 16] Internet-Draft APN6 Encapsulation February 2021 Peng Liu China Mobile China Email: liupengyjy@chinamobile.com Chang Cao China Unicom China Email: liuc131@chinaunicom.cn Kentaro Ebisawa Toyota Motor Corporation Japan Email: ebisawa@toyota-tokyo.tech Li, et al. Expires August 26, 2021 [Page 17]