| < draft-ietf-raw-architecture-00.txt | draft-ietf-raw-architecture-01.txt > | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RAW P. Thubert, Ed. | RAW P. Thubert, Ed. | |||
| Internet-Draft Cisco Systems | Internet-Draft Cisco Systems | |||
| Intended status: Informational G.Z. Papadopoulos | Intended status: Informational G.Z. Papadopoulos | |||
| Expires: 10 January 2022 IMT Atlantique | Expires: 29 January 2022 IMT Atlantique | |||
| L. Berger | L. Berger | |||
| LabN Consulting, L.L.C. | LabN Consulting, L.L.C. | |||
| 9 July 2021 | 28 July 2021 | |||
| Reliable and Available Wireless Architecture/Framework | Reliable and Available Wireless Architecture/Framework | |||
| draft-ietf-raw-architecture-00 | draft-ietf-raw-architecture-01 | |||
| Abstract | Abstract | |||
| Reliable and Available Wireless (RAW) provides for high reliability | Reliable and Available Wireless (RAW) provides for high reliability | |||
| and availability for IP connectivity over a wireless medium. The | and availability for IP connectivity over a wireless medium. The | |||
| wireless medium presents significant challenges to achieve | wireless medium presents significant challenges to achieve | |||
| deterministic properties such as low packet error rate, bounded | deterministic properties such as low packet error rate, bounded | |||
| consecutive losses, and bounded latency. This document defines the | consecutive losses, and bounded latency. This document defines the | |||
| RAW Architecture. It builds on the DetNet Architecture and discusses | RAW Architecture following an OODA loop that involves OAM, PCE, PSE | |||
| specific challenges and technology considerations needed to deliver | and PAREO functions. It builds on the DetNet Architecture and | |||
| DetNet service utilizing scheduled wireless segments and other media, | discusses specific challenges and technology considerations needed to | |||
| e.g., frequency/time-sharing physical media resources with stochastic | deliver DetNet service utilizing scheduled wireless segments and | |||
| traffic. | other media, e.g., frequency/time-sharing physical media resources | |||
| with stochastic traffic. | ||||
| Status of This Memo | Status of This Memo | |||
| This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the | This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the | |||
| provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. | provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. | |||
| Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering | Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering | |||
| Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute | Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute | |||
| working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- | working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- | |||
| Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. | Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. | |||
| Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months | Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months | |||
| and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any | and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any | |||
| time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference | time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference | |||
| material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." | material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." | |||
| This Internet-Draft will expire on 10 January 2022. | This Internet-Draft will expire on 29 January 2022. | |||
| Copyright Notice | Copyright Notice | |||
| Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the | Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the | |||
| document authors. All rights reserved. | document authors. All rights reserved. | |||
| This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal | This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal | |||
| Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/ | Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/ | |||
| license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. | license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. | |||
| Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights | Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights | |||
| and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components | and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components | |||
| extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text | extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text | |||
| as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are | as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are | |||
| provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. | provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. | |||
| Table of Contents | Table of Contents | |||
| 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 | 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 | |||
| 2. The RAW problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 | 2. The RAW problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 | |||
| 2.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 | 2.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 | |||
| 2.2. Reliability and Availability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 | 2.2. Reliability and Availability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 | |||
| 2.2.1. High Availability Engineering Principles . . . . . . 8 | 2.2.1. High Availability Engineering Principles . . . . . . 8 | |||
| 2.2.2. Applying Reliability Concepts to Networking . . . . . 10 | 2.2.2. Applying Reliability Concepts to Networking . . . . . 11 | |||
| 2.2.3. Reliability in the Context of RAW . . . . . . . . . . 11 | 2.2.3. Reliability in the Context of RAW . . . . . . . . . . 11 | |||
| 2.3. Use Cases and Requirements Served . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 | 2.3. Use Cases and Requirements Served . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 | |||
| 2.3.1. Radio Access Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 | 2.3.1. Radio Access Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 | |||
| 2.3.2. End-to-End Protection in a Wireless Mesh . . . . . . 13 | 2.3.2. End-to-End Protection in a Wireless Mesh . . . . . . 14 | |||
| 2.4. Related Work at The IETF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 | 2.4. Related Work at The IETF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 | |||
| 3. The RAW Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 | 3. The RAW Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 | |||
| 3.1. Scope and Prerequisites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 | 3.1. Scope and Prerequisites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 | |||
| 3.2. Routing Time Scale vs. Forwarding Time Scale . . . . . . 16 | 3.2. Routing Time Scale vs. Forwarding Time Scale . . . . . . 16 | |||
| 3.3. Wireless Tracks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 | 3.3. Wireless Tracks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 | |||
| 3.4. PAREO Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 | 3.4. Flow Identification vs. Path Identification . . . . . . . 19 | |||
| 3.4.1. Packet Replication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 | 3.5. Source-Routed vs. Distributed Forwarding Decision . . . . 21 | |||
| 3.4.2. Packet Elimination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 | 3.6. Encapsulation and Decapsulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 | |||
| 3.4.3. Promiscuous Overhearing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 | 4. The RAW Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 | |||
| 3.4.4. Constructive Interference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 | 4.1. The RAW Conceptual Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 | |||
| 4. The RAW Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 | 4.2. The OODA Loop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 | |||
| 4.1. The RAW Conceptual Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 | 4.3. Observe: The RAW OAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 | |||
| 4.2. The Path Selection Engine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 | 4.3.1. DetNet OAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 | |||
| 4.3. RAW OAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 | 4.3.2. RAW Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 | |||
| 4.3.1. DetNet OAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 | ||||
| 4.3.2. RAW Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 | ||||
| 4.3.3. Observed Metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 | 4.3.3. Observed Metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 | |||
| 4.4. Flow Identification vs. Path Identification . . . . . . . 27 | 4.4. Orient: The Path Computation Engine . . . . . . . . . . . 28 | |||
| 4.5. Source-Routed vs. Distributed Forwarding Decision . . . . 30 | 4.5. Decide: The Path Selection Engine . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 | |||
| 4.6. Encapsulation and Decapsulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 | 4.6. Act: The PAREO Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 | |||
| 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 | 4.6.1. Packet Replication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 | |||
| 5.1. Forced Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 | 4.6.2. Packet Elimination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 | |||
| 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 | 4.6.3. Promiscuous Overhearing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 | |||
| 7. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 | 4.6.4. Constructive Interference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 | |||
| 8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 | 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 | |||
| 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 | 5.1. Forced Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 | |||
| 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 | 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 | |||
| 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 | 7. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 | |||
| Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 | 8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 | |||
| 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 | ||||
| 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 | ||||
| 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 | ||||
| Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 | ||||
| 1. Introduction | 1. Introduction | |||
| Deterministic Networking is an attempt to emulate the properties of a | Deterministic Networking is an attempt to emulate the properties of a | |||
| serial link over a switched fabric, by providing a bounded latency | serial link over a switched fabric, by providing a bounded latency | |||
| and eliminating congestion loss, even when co-existing with best- | and eliminating congestion loss, even when co-existing with best- | |||
| effort traffic. It is getting traction in various industries | effort traffic. It is getting traction in various industries | |||
| including professional A/V, manufacturing, online gaming, and | including professional A/V, manufacturing, online gaming, and | |||
| smartgrid automation, enabling cost and performance optimizations | smartgrid automation, enabling cost and performance optimizations | |||
| (e.g., vs. loads of P2P cables). | (e.g., vs. loads of P2P cables). | |||
| skipping to change at page 4, line 31 ¶ | skipping to change at page 4, line 31 ¶ | |||
| RAW provides DetNet elements that are specialized for short range | RAW provides DetNet elements that are specialized for short range | |||
| radios. From this inheritance, RAW stays agnostic to the radio layer | radios. From this inheritance, RAW stays agnostic to the radio layer | |||
| underneath though the capability to schedule transmissions is | underneath though the capability to schedule transmissions is | |||
| assumed. How the PHY is programmed to do so, and whether the radio | assumed. How the PHY is programmed to do so, and whether the radio | |||
| is single-hop or meshed, are unknown at the IP layer and not part of | is single-hop or meshed, are unknown at the IP layer and not part of | |||
| the RAW abstraction. | the RAW abstraction. | |||
| The "Deterministic Networking Architecture" [RFC8655] is composed of | The "Deterministic Networking Architecture" [RFC8655] is composed of | |||
| three planes: the Application (User) Plane, the Controller Plane, and | three planes: the Application (User) Plane, the Controller Plane, and | |||
| the Network Plane. The RAW Architecture extends the DetNet Network | the Network Plane. The RAW Architecture extends the DetNet Network | |||
| Plane, to accomodate one or multiple hops of homogeneous or | Plane, to accommodate one or multiple hops of homogeneous or | |||
| heterogeneous wireless technologies, e.g. a Wi-Fi6 Mesh or parallel | heterogeneous wireless technologies, e.g. a Wi-Fi6 Mesh or parallel | |||
| CBRS access links federated by a 5G backhaul. | CBRS access links federated by a 5G backhaul. | |||
| The establishment of a path is not in-scope for RAW. It may be the | The establishment of a path is not in-scope for RAW. It may be the | |||
| product of a centralized Controller Plane as described for DetNet. | product of a centralized Controller Plane as described for DetNet. | |||
| As opposed to wired networks, the action of installing a path over a | As opposed to wired networks, the action of installing a path over a | |||
| set of wireless links may be very slow relative to the speed at which | set of wireless links may be very slow relative to the speed at which | |||
| the radio conditions vary, and it makes sense in the wireless case to | the radio conditions vary, and it makes sense in the wireless case to | |||
| provide redundant forwarding solutions along a complex path and to | provide redundant forwarding solutions along a complex path and to | |||
| leave it to the Network Plane to select which of those forwarding | leave it to the Network Plane to select which of those forwarding | |||
| skipping to change at page 5, line 5 ¶ | skipping to change at page 5, line 5 ¶ | |||
| conditions. | conditions. | |||
| RAW distinguishes the longer time scale at which routes are computed | RAW distinguishes the longer time scale at which routes are computed | |||
| from the the shorter forwarding time scale where per-packet decisions | from the the shorter forwarding time scale where per-packet decisions | |||
| are made. RAW operates within the Network Plane at the forwarding | are made. RAW operates within the Network Plane at the forwarding | |||
| time scale on one DetNet flow over a complex path called a Track. | time scale on one DetNet flow over a complex path called a Track. | |||
| The Track is preestablished and installed by means outside of the | The Track is preestablished and installed by means outside of the | |||
| scope of RAW; it may be strict or loose depending on whether each or | scope of RAW; it may be strict or loose depending on whether each or | |||
| just a subset of the hops are observed and controlled by RAW. | just a subset of the hops are observed and controlled by RAW. | |||
| The RAW Architecture covers Network Plane protocol elements such as | The RAW Architecture is structured as an OODA Loop (Observe, Orient, | |||
| Operations, Administration and Maintenance (OAM) to observe some or | Decide, Act). It involves: | |||
| all hops along a Track as well as the end-to-end packet delivery, and | ||||
| in-band control to optimize the use of redundancy to achieve the | 1. Network Plane measurement protocols for Operations, | |||
| required SLA with minimal use of constrained resources. | Administration and Maintenance (OAM) to Observe some or all hops | |||
| along a Track as well as the end-to-end packet delivery | ||||
| 2. Controller plane elements to reports the links statistics to a | ||||
| Path computation Element (PCE) in a centralized controller that | ||||
| computes and installs the Tracks and provides meta data to Orient | ||||
| the routing decision | ||||
| 3. A Runtime distributed Path Selection Engine (PSE) thar Decides | ||||
| which subTrack to use for the next packet(s) that are routed | ||||
| along the Track | ||||
| 4. Packet (hybrid) ARQ, Replication, Elimination and Ordering | ||||
| Dataplane actions that operate at the DetNet Service Layer to | ||||
| increase the reliability of the end-to-end transmission. The RAW | ||||
| architecture also covers in-situ signalling when the decision is | ||||
| Acted by a node that down the Track from the PSE. | ||||
| The overall OODA Loop optimizes the use of redundancy to achieve the | ||||
| required reliability and availability Service Level Agreement (SLA) | ||||
| while minimizing the use of constrained resources such as spectrum | ||||
| and battery. | ||||
| 2. The RAW problem | 2. The RAW problem | |||
| 2.1. Terminology | 2.1. Terminology | |||
| RAW reuses terminology defined for DetNet in the "Deterministic | RAW reuses terminology defined for DetNet in the "Deterministic | |||
| Networking Architecture" [RFC8655], e.g., PREOF for Packet | Networking Architecture" [RFC8655], e.g., PREOF for Packet | |||
| Replication, Elimination and Ordering Functions. | Replication, Elimination and Ordering Functions. | |||
| RAW also reuses terminology defined for 6TiSCH in [6TiSCH-ARCHI] such | RAW also reuses terminology defined for 6TiSCH in [6TiSCH-ARCHI] such | |||
| as the term Track. A Track as a complex path with associated PAREO | as the term Track. A Track as a complex path with associated PAREO | |||
| operations. The concept is abstract to the underlaying technology | operations. The concept is abstract to the underlaying technology | |||
| and applies to any fully or partially wireless mesh, including, e.g., | and applies to any fully or partially wireless mesh, including, e.g., | |||
| a Wi-Fi mesh. RAW specifies strict and loose Tracks depending on | a Wi-Fi mesh. RAW specifies strict and loose Tracks depending on | |||
| whether the path is fully controlled by RAW or traverses an opaque | whether the path is fully controlled by RAW or traverses an opaque | |||
| network where RAW cannot observe and control the individual hops. | network where RAW cannot observe and control the individual hops. | |||
| RAW uses the following terminology: | RAW uses the following terminology: | |||
| OODA: Observe, Orient, Decide, Act. The OODA Loop is a conceptual | ||||
| cyclic model developed by USAF Colonel John Boyd, and that is | ||||
| applicable in multiple domains where agility can provide benefits | ||||
| against brute force. | ||||
| PAREO: Packet (hybrid) ARQ, Replication, Elimination and Ordering. | PAREO: Packet (hybrid) ARQ, Replication, Elimination and Ordering. | |||
| PAREO is a superset Of DetNet's PREOF that includes radio-specific | PAREO is a superset Of DetNet's PREOF that includes radio-specific | |||
| techniques such as short range broadcast, MUMIMO, constructive | techniques such as short range broadcast, MUMIMO, constructive | |||
| interference and overhearing, which can be leveraged separately or | interference and overhearing, which can be leveraged separately or | |||
| combined to increase the reliability. | combined to increase the reliability. | |||
| Flow: A collection of consecutive packets that must be placed on the | Flow: A collection of consecutive packets that must be placed on the | |||
| same Track to receive an equivalent treatment from Ingress to | same Track to receive an equivalent treatment from Ingress to | |||
| Egress within the Track. Multiple flows may be transported along | Egress within the Track. Multiple flows may be transported along | |||
| the same Track. The subTrack that is selected for the flow may | the same Track. The subTrack that is selected for the flow may | |||
| skipping to change at page 7, line 12 ¶ | skipping to change at page 7, line 39 ¶ | |||
| a QoS and/or PAREO treatment that is different from that of the | a QoS and/or PAREO treatment that is different from that of the | |||
| packets of the data flows that are injected in the Track, or both. | packets of the data flows that are injected in the Track, or both. | |||
| Limited OAM: An active OAM packet is a Limited OAM packet when it | Limited OAM: An active OAM packet is a Limited OAM packet when it | |||
| observes the RAW operation over a node, a segment, or a subTrack | observes the RAW operation over a node, a segment, or a subTrack | |||
| of the Track, though not from Ingress to Egress. It is injected | of the Track, though not from Ingress to Egress. It is injected | |||
| in the datapath and extracted from the datapath around the | in the datapath and extracted from the datapath around the | |||
| particular function or subnetwork (e.g., around a relay providing | particular function or subnetwork (e.g., around a relay providing | |||
| a service layer replication point) that is being tested. | a service layer replication point) that is being tested. | |||
| Reverse OAM: A Reverse OAM packet is an Out-of-Band OAM packet that | Upstream OAM: An upstream OAM packet is an Out-of-Band OAM packet | |||
| traverses the Track from egress to ingress on the reverse | that traverses the Track from egress to ingress on the reverse | |||
| direction, to capture and report OAM measurements upstream. The | direction, to capture and report OAM measurements upstream. The | |||
| collection may capture all information along the whole Track, or | collection may capture all information along the whole Track, or | |||
| it may only learn select data across all, or only a particular | it may only learn select data across all, or only a particular | |||
| subTrack, or Segment of a Track. | subTrack, or Segment of a Track. | |||
| [DetNet-OAM] provides additional terminology related to OAM in the | [DetNet-OAM] provides additional terminology related to OAM in the | |||
| context of DetNet and by extension of RAW, whereas [RFC7799] defines | context of DetNet and by extension of RAW, whereas [RFC7799] defines | |||
| the Active, Passive, and Hybrid OAM methods. | the Active, Passive, and Hybrid OAM methods. | |||
| In the context of the RAW work, Reliability and Availability are | In the context of the RAW work, Reliability and Availability are | |||
| skipping to change at page 12, line 22 ¶ | skipping to change at page 12, line 50 ¶ | |||
| long period of time. | long period of time. | |||
| Transmission losses are typically not independent, and their nature | Transmission losses are typically not independent, and their nature | |||
| and duration are unpredictable; as long as a physical object (e.g., a | and duration are unpredictable; as long as a physical object (e.g., a | |||
| metallic trolley between peers) that affects the transmission is not | metallic trolley between peers) that affects the transmission is not | |||
| removed, or as long as the interferer (e.g., a radar) keeps | removed, or as long as the interferer (e.g., a radar) keeps | |||
| transmitting, a continuous stream of packets will be affected. | transmitting, a continuous stream of packets will be affected. | |||
| The key technique to combat those unpredictable losses is diversity. | The key technique to combat those unpredictable losses is diversity. | |||
| Different forms of diversity are necessary to combat different causes | Different forms of diversity are necessary to combat different causes | |||
| of loss and the use of diversity must be maximised to optimize the | of loss and the use of diversity must be maximized to optimize the | |||
| PDR. | PDR. | |||
| A single packet may be sent at different times (time diversity) over | A single packet may be sent at different times (time diversity) over | |||
| diverse paths (spatial diversity) that rely on diverse radio channels | diverse paths (spatial diversity) that rely on diverse radio channels | |||
| (frequency diversity) and diverse PHY technologies, e.g., narrowband | (frequency diversity) and diverse PHY technologies, e.g., narrowband | |||
| vs. spread spectrum, or diverse codes. Using time diversity will | vs. spread spectrum, or diverse codes. Using time diversity will | |||
| defeat short-term interferences; spatial diversity combats very local | defeat short-term interferences; spatial diversity combats very local | |||
| causes such as multipath fading; narrowband and spread spectrum are | causes such as multipath fading; narrowband and spread spectrum are | |||
| relatively innocuous to one another and can be used for diversity in | relatively innocuous to one another and can be used for diversity in | |||
| the presence of the other. | the presence of the other. | |||
| skipping to change at page 18, line 9 ¶ | skipping to change at page 18, line 44 ¶ | |||
| A Complex Track provides multiple N-ECMP forwarding solutions. The | A Complex Track provides multiple N-ECMP forwarding solutions. The | |||
| Complex Track enables to support multi-path redundant forwarding by | Complex Track enables to support multi-path redundant forwarding by | |||
| employing PRE functions [RFC8655] and the ingress and within the | employing PRE functions [RFC8655] and the ingress and within the | |||
| Track. For example, a Complex Track may branch off and rejoin over | Track. For example, a Complex Track may branch off and rejoin over | |||
| non-congruent segments. | non-congruent segments. | |||
| In the context of RAW, some links or segments in the Track may be | In the context of RAW, some links or segments in the Track may be | |||
| reversible, meaning that they can be used in either direction. In | reversible, meaning that they can be used in either direction. In | |||
| that case, an indication in the packet signals the direction of the | that case, an indication in the packet signals the direction of the | |||
| reversible links or segments that the packet traverses and thus | reversible links or segments that the packet traverses and thus | |||
| places a constraint that prevents loops from occuring. An indidual | places a constraint that prevents loops from occurring. An | |||
| packet follows a destination-oriented directed acyclic graph (DODAG) | individual packet follows a destination-oriented directed acyclic | |||
| towards a destination Node inside the Complex Track. | graph (DODAG) towards a destination Node inside the Complex Track. | |||
| 3.4. PAREO Functions | ||||
| RAW may control whether and how to use packet replication and | ||||
| elimination (PRE), Automatic Repeat reQuest (ARQ), Hybrid ARQ (HARQ) | ||||
| that includes Forward Error Correction (FEC) and coding, and other | ||||
| wireless-specific techniques such as overhearing and constructive | ||||
| interferences, in order to increase the reliabiility and availability | ||||
| of the end-to-end transmission. | ||||
| Collectively, those function are called PAREO for Packet (hybrid) | ||||
| ARQ, Replication, Elimination and Ordering. By tuning dynamically | ||||
| the use of PAREO functions, RAW avoids the waste of critical | ||||
| resources such as spectrum and energy while providing that the | ||||
| guaranteed SLA, e.g., by adding redundancy only when a spike of loss | ||||
| is observed. | ||||
| In a nutshell, PAREO establishes several paths in a network to | ||||
| provide redundancy and parallel transmissions to bound the end-to-end | ||||
| delay to traverse the network. Optionally, promiscuous listening | ||||
| between paths is possible, such that the Nodes on one path may | ||||
| overhear transmissions along the other path. Considering the | ||||
| scenario shown in Figure 4, many different paths are possible for to | ||||
| traverse the network from ingress to egress. A simple way to benefit | ||||
| from this topology could be to use the two independent paths via | ||||
| Nodes A, C, E and via B, D, F. But more complex paths are possible | ||||
| by interleaving transmissions from the lower level of the path to the | ||||
| upper level. | ||||
| (A) -- (C) -- (E) | ||||
| / \ | ||||
| Ingress = | | | = Egress | ||||
| \ / | ||||
| (B) -- (D) -- (F) | ||||
| Figure 4: A Ladder Shape with Two Parallel Paths | ||||
| PAREO may also take advantage of the shared properties of the | 3.4. Flow Identification vs. Path Identification | |||
| wireless medium to compensate for the potential loss that is incurred | ||||
| with radio transmissions. | ||||
| For instance, when the source sends to Node A, Node B may listen | Section 4.7 of the DetNet Architecture [RFC8655] ties the app-flow | |||
| promiscuously and get a second chance to receive the frame without an | identification which is an application-layer concept with the network | |||
| additional transmission. Note that B would not have to listen if it | path identification that depends on the networking technology by | |||
| already received that particular frame at an earlier timeslot in a | "exporting of flow identification", e.g., to a MPLS label. | |||
| dedicated transmission towards B. | ||||
| The PAREO model can be implemented in both centralized and | With RAW, this exporting operation is injective but not bijective. | |||
| distributed scheduling approaches. In the centralized approach, a | e.g., a flow is fully placed within one RAW Track, but not all | |||
| Path Computation Element (PCE) scheduler calculates a Track and | packets along that Track are necessarily part of the same flow. For | |||
| schedules the communication. In the distributed approach, the Track | instance, out-of-band OAM packets must circulate in the exact same | |||
| is computed within the network, and signaled in the packets, e.g., | fashion as the flows that they observe. It results that the flow | |||
| using BIER-TE, Segment Routing, or a Source Routing Header. | identification that maps to an application layer flowat the network | |||
| layer must be separate from the path identification that is used to | ||||
| forward a packet. | ||||
| 3.4.1. Packet Replication | Section 3.4 of the DetNet data-plane framework [DetNet-DP] indicates | |||
| that for a DetNet IP Data Plane, a flow is identified by an IPv6 | ||||
| 6-tuple. With RAW, that 6-tuple is not what indicates the Track, in | ||||
| other words, the flow ID is not the Track ID. | ||||
| By employing a Packet Replication procedure, a Node forwards a copy | For instance, the 6TiSCH Architecture [6TiSCH-ARCHI] uses a | |||
| of each data packet to more than one successor. To do so, each Node | combination of the address of the Egress End System and an instance | |||
| (i.e., Ingress and intermediate Node) sends the data packet multiple | identifier in a Hop-by-hop option to indicate a Track. This way, if | |||
| times as separate unicast transmissions. For instance, in Figure 5, | a packet "escapes" the Track, it will reach the Track Egress point | |||
| the Ingress Node is transmitting the packet to both successors, nodes | through normal routing and be treated at the service layer through, | |||
| A and B, at two different times. | say, elimination and reordering. | |||
| ===> (A) => (C) => (E) === | The RAW service includes forwarding over a subset of the Links that | |||
| // \\// \\// \\ | form the Track (a subTrack). Packets from the same or a different | |||
| Ingress //\\ //\\ Egress | flow that are routed through the same Track will not necessarily | |||
| \\ // \\ // \\ // | traverse the same Links. The PSE selects a subTrack for a packet | |||
| ===> (B) => (D) => (F) === | based on the links that are preferred and those that should be | |||
| avoided at this time. | ||||
| Figure 5: Packet Replication | Each packet is forwarded within the subTrack that provides the best | |||
| adequation with the SLA of the flow and the energy and bandwidth | ||||
| constraints of the network. | ||||
| An example schedule is shown in Table 1. This way, the transmission | Flow 1 (6-tuple) ----+ | |||
| leverages with the time and spatial forms of diversity. | | | |||
| Flow 2 (6-tuple) ---+ | | ||||
| | | | ||||
| OAM -----------+ | | | ||||
| | | | | ||||
| | | | | ||||
| | | | | | | ||||
| | v v v | | ||||
| | | | ||||
| +---------+---------+ | ||||
| | | ||||
| | | ||||
| Track i (Ingress IP Address, RPLinstanceId) | ||||
| | | ||||
| | | ||||
| | | ||||
| +---------+-----+--....-------+ | ||||
| | | | | ||||
| | | | | ||||
| subTrack 1 subTrack 2 subTrack n | ||||
| | | | | ||||
| | | | | ||||
| V V V | ||||
| +-----------------------------------+ | ||||
| | | | ||||
| | Destination | | ||||
| | | | ||||
| +-----------------------------------+ | ||||
| +=========+======+======+======+======+======+======+======+ | Figure 4: Flow Injection | |||
| | Channel | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | | ||||
| +=========+======+======+======+======+======+======+======+ | ||||
| | 0 | S->A | S->B | B->C | B->D | C->F | E->R | F->R | | ||||
| +---------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+ | ||||
| | 1 | | A->C | A->D | C->E | D->E | D->F | | | ||||
| +---------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+ | ||||
| Table 1: Packet Replication: Sample schedule | With 6TiSCH, packets are tagged with the same (destination address, | |||
| instance ID) will experience the same RAW service regardless of the | ||||
| IPv6 6-tuple that indicates the flow. The forwarding does not depend | ||||
| on whether the packets transport application flows or OAM. In the | ||||
| generic case, the Track or the subTrack can be signaled in the packet | ||||
| through other means, e.g., encoded in the suffix of the destination | ||||
| address as a Segment Routing Service Instruction [SR-ARCHI], or | ||||
| leveraging Bit Index Explicit Replication [BIER] Traffic Engineering | ||||
| [BIER-TE]. | ||||
| 3.4.2. Packet Elimination | 3.5. Source-Routed vs. Distributed Forwarding Decision | |||
| The replication operation increases the traffic load in the network, | Within a large routed topology, the route-over mesh operation builds | |||
| due to packet duplications. This may occur at several stages inside | a particular complex Track with one source and one or more | |||
| the Track, and to avoid an explosion of the number of copies, a | destinations; within the Track, packets may follow different paths | |||
| Packet Elimination procedure must be applied as well. To this aim, | and may be subject to RAW forwarding operations that include | |||
| once a Node receives the first copy of a data packet, it discards the | replication, elimination, retries, overhearing and reordering. | |||
| subsequent copies. | ||||
| The logical functions of Replication and Elimination may be | The RAW forwarding decisions include the selection of points of | |||
| collocated in an intermediate Node, the Node first eliminating the | replication and elimination, how many retries can take place, and a | |||
| redundant copies and then sending the packet exactly once to each of | limit of validity for the packet beyond which the packet should be | |||
| the selected successors. | destroyed rather than forwarded uselessly further down the Track. | |||
| 3.4.3. Promiscuous Overhearing | The decision to apply the RAW techniques must be done quickly, and | |||
| depends on a very recent and precise knowledge of the forwarding | ||||
| conditions within the complex Track. There is a need for an | ||||
| observation method to provide the RAW Data Plane with the specific | ||||
| knowledge of the state of the Track for the type of flow of interest | ||||
| (e.g., for a QoS level of interest). To observe the whole Track in | ||||
| quasi real time, RAW considers existing tools such as L2-triggers, | ||||
| DLEP, BFD and leverages in-band and out-of-band OAM to capture and | ||||
| report that information to the PSE. | ||||
| Considering that the wireless medium is broadcast by nature, any | One possible way of making the RAW forwarding decisions within a | |||
| neighbor of a transmitter may overhear a transmission. By employing | Track is to position a unique PSE at the Ingress and express its | |||
| the Promiscuous Overhearing operation, the next hops have additional | decision in-band in the packet, which requires the explicit signaling | |||
| opportunities to capture the data packets. In Figure 6, when Node A | of the subTrack within the Track. In that case, the RAW forwarding | |||
| is transmitting to its DP (Node C), the AP (Node D) and its sibling | operation along the Track is encoded by the source, e.g., by | |||
| (Node B) may decode this data packet as well. As a result, by | indicating the subTrack in the Segment Routing (SRv6) Service | |||
| employing corellated paths, a Node may have multiple opportunities to | Instruction, or by leveraging BIER-TE such as done with [BIER-PREF]. | |||
| receive a given data packet. | ||||
| ===> (A) ====> (C) ====> (E) ==== | The alternate way is to operate the PSE in each forwarding Node, | |||
| // ^ | \\ \\ | which makes the RAW forwarding decisions for a packet on its own, | |||
| Ingress | | \\ Egress | based on its knowledge of the expectation (timeliness and | |||
| \\ | v \\ // | reliability) for that packet and a recent observation of the rest of | |||
| ===> (B) ====> (D) ====> (F) ==== | the way across the possible paths based on OAM. Information about | |||
| the desired service should be placed in the packet and matched with | ||||
| the forwarding Node's capabilities and policies. | ||||
| Figure 6: Unicast with Overhearing | In either case, a per-track/subTrack state is installed in all the | |||
| intermediate Nodes to recognize the packets that are following a | ||||
| Track and determine the forwarding operation to be applied. | ||||
| 3.4.4. Constructive Interference | 3.6. Encapsulation and Decapsulation | |||
| Constructive Interference can be seen as the reverse of Promiscuous | In the generic case where the Track Ingress Node is not the source of | |||
| Overhearing, and refers to the case where two senders transmit the | the Packet, the Ingress Node needs to encapsulate IP-in-IP to ensure | |||
| exact same signal in a fashion that the emitted symbols add up at the | that the Destination IP Address is that of the Egress Node and that | |||
| receiver and permit a reception that would not be possible with a | the necessary Headers (Routing Header, Segment Routing Header and/or | |||
| single sender at the same PHY mode and the same power level. | Hop-By-Hop Header) can be added to the packet to signal the Track or | |||
| the subTrack, conforming [IPv6] that discourages the insertion of a | ||||
| Header on the fly. | ||||
| Constructive Interference was proposed on 5G, Wi-Fi7 and even tested | In the specific case where the Ingress Node is the source of the | |||
| on IEEE Std 802.14.5. The hard piece is to synchronize the senders | packet, the encapsulation can be avoided, provided that the source | |||
| to the point that the signals are emitted at slightly different time | adds the necessary headers and that the destination is set to the | |||
| to offset the difference of propagation delay that corresponds to the | Egress Node. Forwarding to a final destination beyond the Egress | |||
| difference of distance of the transmitters to the receiver at the | Node is possible, e.g., with a Segment Routing Header that signals | |||
| speed of light to the point that the symbols are superposed long | the rest of the way. In that case a Hop-by-Hop Header is not | |||
| enough to be recognizable. | recommmended since its validity is within the Track only. | |||
| 4. The RAW Architecture | 4. The RAW Architecture | |||
| 4.1. The RAW Conceptual Model | 4.1. The RAW Conceptual Model | |||
| RAW inherits the conceptual model described in section 4 of the | RAW inherits the conceptual model described in section 4 of the | |||
| DetNet Architecture [RFC8655]. RAW extends the DetNet service layer | DetNet Architecture [RFC8655]. RAW extends the DetNet service layer | |||
| to provide additional agility against transmission loss. | to provide additional agility against transmission loss. | |||
| A RAW Network Plane may be strict or loose, depending on whether RAW | A RAW Network Plane may be strict or loose, depending on whether RAW | |||
| skipping to change at page 22, line 22 ¶ | skipping to change at page 23, line 25 ¶ | |||
| z-- Node z-- Node z-- Node z-- Node --z | z-- Node z-- Node z-- Node z-- Node --z | |||
| Ingress --z / / z-- Egress | Ingress --z / / z-- Egress | |||
| End \ \ .. . End | End \ \ .. . End | |||
| Node ---z / / .. .. . z-- Node | Node ---z / / .. .. . z-- Node | |||
| z-- RAW --z RAW ( non-RAW ) -- RAW --z | z-- RAW --z RAW ( non-RAW ) -- RAW --z | |||
| Node z-- Node --- ( Nodes ) Node | Node z-- Node --- ( Nodes ) Node | |||
| ... . | ... . | |||
| --z wireless wired | --z wireless wired | |||
| z-- link --- link | z-- link --- link | |||
| Figure 7: RAW Nodes | Figure 5: RAW Nodes | |||
| The Link-Layer metrics are reported to the PCE in a time-aggregated, | The Link-Layer metrics are reported to the PCE in a time-aggregated, | |||
| e.g., statistical fashion. Example Link-Layer metrics include | e.g., statistical fashion. Example Link-Layer metrics include | |||
| typical Link bandwidth (the medium speed depends dynamically on the | typical Link bandwidth (the medium speed depends dynamically on the | |||
| PHY mode and the number of users sharing the spectrum) and average | PHY mode and the number of users sharing the spectrum) and average | |||
| and mean squared deviation of availability and reliability figures | and mean squared deviation of availability and reliability figures | |||
| such as Packet Delivery Ratio (PDR) over long periods of time. | such as Packet Delivery Ratio (PDR) over long periods of time. | |||
| Based on those metrics, the PCE installs the Track with enough | Based on those metrics, the PCE installs the Track with enough | |||
| redundant forwarding solutions to ensure that the Network Plane can | redundant forwarding solutions to ensure that the Network Plane can | |||
| skipping to change at page 23, line 5 ¶ | skipping to change at page 24, line 9 ¶ | |||
| segments, either interleaved inside the Track, or all the way to the | segments, either interleaved inside the Track, or all the way to the | |||
| Egress End Node (e.g., a server in the Internet). RAW observes the | Egress End Node (e.g., a server in the Internet). RAW observes the | |||
| Lower-Layer Links between RAW nodes (typically, radio links) and the | Lower-Layer Links between RAW nodes (typically, radio links) and the | |||
| end-to-end Network Layer operation to decide at all times which of | end-to-end Network Layer operation to decide at all times which of | |||
| the PAREO diversity schemes is actioned by which RAW Nodes. | the PAREO diversity schemes is actioned by which RAW Nodes. | |||
| Once a Track is established, per-segment and end-to-end reliability | Once a Track is established, per-segment and end-to-end reliability | |||
| and availability statistics are periodically reported to the PCE to | and availability statistics are periodically reported to the PCE to | |||
| assure that the SLA can be met or have it recompute the Track if not. | assure that the SLA can be met or have it recompute the Track if not. | |||
| 4.2. The Path Selection Engine | 4.2. The OODA Loop | |||
| RAW separates the path computation time scale at which a complex path | The RAW Architecture is structured as an OODA Loop (Observe, Orient, | |||
| is recomputed from the path selection time scale at which the | Decide, Act). It involves: | |||
| forwarding decision is taken for one or a few packets (more in | ||||
| Section 3.2). RAW operates at the path selection time scale. The | ||||
| RAW problem is to decide, within the redundant solutions that are | ||||
| proposed by the PCE, which will be used for each packet to provide a | ||||
| Reliable and Available service while minimizing the waste of | ||||
| constrained resources. | ||||
| To that effect, RAW defines the Path Selection Engine (PSE) that is | 1. Network Plane measurement protocols for Operations, | |||
| the counter-part of the PCE to perform rapid local adjustments of the | Administration and Maintenance (OAM) to Observe some or all hops | |||
| forwarding tables within the diversity that the PCE has selected for | along a Track as well as the end-to-end packet delivery, more in | |||
| the Track. The PSE enables to exploit the richer forwarding | Section 4.3; | |||
| capabilities with PAREO and scheduled transmissions at a faster time | ||||
| scale over the smaller domain that is the Track, in either a loose or | ||||
| a strict fashion. | ||||
| Compared to the PCE, the PSE operates on metrics that evolve faster, | 2. Controller plane elements to reports the links statistics to a | |||
| but that needs to be advertised at a fast rate but only locally, | Path computation Element (PCE) in a centralized controller that | |||
| within the Track. The forwarding decision may also change rapidly, | computes and installs the Tracks and provides meta data to Orient | |||
| but wiht a scope that is also contained within the Track, with no | the routing decision, more in Section 4.4; | |||
| visibility to the other Tracks and flows in the network. This is as | ||||
| opposed to the PCE that needs to observe the whole network, and | ||||
| optimize all the Tracks globally, which can only be done at a slow | ||||
| pace and using long-term statistical metrics, as presented in | ||||
| Table 2. | ||||
| +===============+========================+===================+ | 3. A Runtime distributed Path Selection Engine (PSE) thar Decides | |||
| | | PCE (Not in Scope) | PSE (In Scope) | | which subTrack to use for the next packet(s) that are routed | |||
| +===============+========================+===================+ | along the Track, more in Section 4.5; | |||
| | Operation | Centralized | Source-Routed or | | ||||
| | | | Distributed | | ||||
| +---------------+------------------------+-------------------+ | ||||
| | Communication | Slow, expensive | Fast, local | | ||||
| +---------------+------------------------+-------------------+ | ||||
| | Time Scale | hours and above | seconds and below | | ||||
| +---------------+------------------------+-------------------+ | ||||
| | Network Size | Large, many Tracks to | Small, within one | | ||||
| | | optimize globally | Track | | ||||
| +---------------+------------------------+-------------------+ | ||||
| | Considered | Averaged, Statistical, | Instant values / | | ||||
| | Metrics | Shade of grey | boolean condition | | ||||
| +---------------+------------------------+-------------------+ | ||||
| Table 2: PCE vs. PSE | 4. Packet (hybrid) ARQ, Replication, Elimination and Ordering | |||
| Dataplane actions that operate at the DetNet Service Layer to | ||||
| increase the reliability o fthe end-to-end transmission. The RAW | ||||
| architecture also covers in-situ signalling when the decision is | ||||
| Acted by a node that down the Track from the PSE, more in | ||||
| Section 4.6. | ||||
| The PSE sits in the DetNet Service sub-Layer of Edge and Relay Nodes. | +-------> Orient (PCE) --------+ | |||
| On the one hand, it operates on the packet flow, learning the Track | | link stats, | | |||
| and path selection information from the packet, possibly making local | | pre-trained model | | |||
| decision and retagging the packet to indicate so. On the other hand, | | ... | | |||
| the PSE interacts with the lower layers and with its peers to obtain | | | | |||
| up-to-date information about its radio links and the quality of the | | v | |||
| overall Track, respectively, as illustrated in Figure 8. | Observe (OAM) Decide (PSE) | |||
| ^ | | ||||
| | | | ||||
| | | | ||||
| +-------- Act (PAREO) <--------+ | ||||
| At DetNet | ||||
| Service sublayer | ||||
| | | Figure 6: The RAW OODA Loop | |||
| packet | going | ||||
| down the | stack | ||||
| +==========v==========+=====================+=====================+ | ||||
| | (iOAM + iCTRL) | (L2 Triggers, DLEP) | (oOAM) | | ||||
| +==========v==========+=====================+=====================+ | ||||
| | Learn from Learn from | | ||||
| | packet tagging Maintain end-to-end | | ||||
| +----------v----------+ Forwarding OAM packets | | ||||
| | Forwarding decision < State +---------^-----------| | ||||
| +----------v----------+ | Enrich or | | ||||
| + Retag Packet | Learn abstracted > Regenerate | | ||||
| | and Forward | metrics about Links | OAM packets | | ||||
| +..........v..........+..........^..........+.........^.v.........+ | ||||
| | Lower layers | | ||||
| +..........v.....................^....................^.v.........+ | ||||
| frame | sent Frame | L2 Ack oOAM | | packet | ||||
| over | wireless In | In | | and out | ||||
| v | | v | ||||
| Figure 8: PSE | The overall OODA Loop optimizes the use of redundancy to achieve the | |||
| required reliability and availability Service Level Agreement (SLA) | ||||
| while minimizing the use of constrained resources such as spectrum | ||||
| and battery. | ||||
| 4.3. RAW OAM | 4.3. Observe: The RAW OAM | |||
| RAW In-situ OAM operation in the Network Plane may observe either a | RAW In-situ OAM operation in the Network Plane may observe either a | |||
| full Track or subTracks that are being used at this time. Active RAW | full Track or subTracks that are being used at this time. Active RAW | |||
| OAM may be needed to observe the unused segments and evaluate the | OAM may be needed to observe the unused segments and evaluate the | |||
| desirability of a rerouting decision. Finally, the RAW Service Layer | desirability of a rerouting decision. Finally, the RAW Service Layer | |||
| Assurance may observe the individual PAREO operation of a relay node | Assurance may observe the individual PAREO operation of a relay node | |||
| to ensure that it is conforming; this might require injecting an OAM | to ensure that it is conforming; this might require injecting an OAM | |||
| packet at an upstream point inside the Track and extracting that | packet at an upstream point inside the Track and extracting that | |||
| packet at another point downstream before it reaches the egress. | packet at another point downstream before it reaches the egress. | |||
| skipping to change at page 25, line 19 ¶ | skipping to change at page 25, line 39 ¶ | |||
| |Ingress|- . ..... |Egress| | |Ingress|- . ..... |Egress| | |||
| | End |------ RAN 2 -- . Internet ....---| End | | | End |------ RAN 2 -- . Internet ....---| End | | |||
| |System |- .. ..... |System| | |System |- .. ..... |System| | |||
| +-------+ \ . ...... +------+ | +-------+ \ . ...... +------+ | |||
| \ ... ... ..... | \ ... ... ..... | |||
| RAN n -------- ... ..... | RAN n -------- ... ..... | |||
| <------------------> <--------------------> | <------------------> <--------------------> | |||
| Observed by OAM Opaque to OAM | Observed by OAM Opaque to OAM | |||
| Figure 9: Observed Links in Radio Access Protection | Figure 7: Observed Links in Radio Access Protection | |||
| In the case of a End-to-End Protection in a Wireless Mesh, the Track | In the case of a End-to-End Protection in a Wireless Mesh, the Track | |||
| is strict and congruent with the path so all links are observed. | is strict and congruent with the path so all links are observed. | |||
| Conversely, in the case of Radio Access Protection, the Track is | Conversely, in the case of Radio Access Protection, the Track is | |||
| Loose and in that case only the first hop is observed; the rest of | Loose and in that case only the first hop is observed; the rest of | |||
| the path is abstracted and considered infinitely reliable. | the path is abstracted and considered infinitely reliable. | |||
| In the case of the Radio Access Protection, only the first hop is | In the case of the Radio Access Protection, only the first hop is | |||
| protected; the loss of a packet that was sent over one of the | protected; the loss of a packet that was sent over one of the | |||
| possible first hops is attributed to that first hop, even if a | possible first hops is attributed to that first hop, even if a | |||
| skipping to change at page 27, line 27 ¶ | skipping to change at page 27, line 43 ¶ | |||
| medium itself. In other words, the captured information does not | medium itself. In other words, the captured information does not | |||
| only relate to the experience of one packet as is the case for IOAM, | only relate to the experience of one packet as is the case for IOAM, | |||
| but also to the medium itself. This makes an approach like HTS more | but also to the medium itself. This makes an approach like HTS more | |||
| suitable as it can trigger the capture of multiple measurements over | suitable as it can trigger the capture of multiple measurements over | |||
| a short period of time. On the other hand, the PSE needs a | a short period of time. On the other hand, the PSE needs a | |||
| continuous measurement stream where a single trigger is followed by a | continuous measurement stream where a single trigger is followed by a | |||
| periodic follow up capture. | periodic follow up capture. | |||
| In other words, the best suited OAM method to enable the PSE make | In other words, the best suited OAM method to enable the PSE make | |||
| accurate PAREO forwarding decisions is a periodic variation of the | accurate PAREO forwarding decisions is a periodic variation of the | |||
| two-steps method flowing along the reverse Track, as a Reverse OAM | two-steps method flowing along the reverse Track, as an upstream OAM | |||
| technique. [RAW-OAM] provides more information on the RAW OAM | technique. [RAW-OAM] provides more information on the RAW OAM | |||
| problem and solution approaches. | problem and solution approaches. | |||
| 4.3.3. Observed Metrics | 4.3.3. Observed Metrics | |||
| The Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP) [RFC8175] from [MANET] can | The Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP) [RFC8175] from [MANET] can | |||
| be leveraged at each hop to derive generic radio metrics (e.g., based | be leveraged at each hop to derive generic radio metrics (e.g., based | |||
| on LQI, RSSI, queueing delays and ETX) on individual hops. | on LQI, RSSI, queueing delays and ETX) on individual hops. | |||
| Those lower-layer metrics are aggregated along a multihop segment | Those lower-layer metrics are aggregated along a multihop segment | |||
| into abstract layer 3 information that reflect the instant | into abstract layer 3 information that reflect the instant | |||
| reliability and latency of the observed path. | reliability and latency of the observed path. | |||
| 4.4. Flow Identification vs. Path Identification | 4.4. Orient: The Path Computation Engine | |||
| Section 4.7 of the DetNet Architecture [RFC8655] ties the app-flow | RAW separates the path computation time scale at which a complex path | |||
| identification which is an appliation layer concept with the network | is recomputed from the path selection time scale at which the | |||
| path identification that depends on the networking technology by | forwarding decision is taken for one or a few packets (see in | |||
| "exporting of flow identification", e.g., to a MPLS label. | Section 3.2). | |||
| With RAW, this exporting operation is injective but not bijective. | The path computation is out of scope, but RAW expects that the | |||
| e.g., a flow is fully placed within one RAW Track, but not all | Controller plane protocol that installs the Track also provides | |||
| packets along that Track are necessarily part of the same flow. For | related knowledge in the form of meta data about the links, segments | |||
| instance, out-of-band OAM packets must circulate in the exact same | and possible subTracks. That meta data can be a pre-digested | |||
| fashion as the flows that they observe. It results that the flow | statistical model, and may include prediction of future flaps and | |||
| identification that maps to to app-flow at the network layer must be | packet loss, as well as recommended actions when that happens. | |||
| separate from the path identification that is used to forward a | ||||
| packet. | ||||
| Section 3.4 of the DetNet data-plane framework [DetNet-DP] indicates | The meta data may include: | |||
| that for a DetNet IP Data Plane, a flow is identified by an IPv6 | ||||
| 6-tuple. With RAW, that 6-tuple is not what indicates the Track, in | ||||
| other words, the flow ID is not the Track ID. | ||||
| For instance, the 6TiSCH Architecture [6TiSCH-ARCHI] uses a | * Pre-Determined subTracks to match predictable error profiles | |||
| combination of the address of the Egress End System and an instance | ||||
| identifier in a Hop-by-hop option to indicate a Track. This way, if | ||||
| a packet "escapes" the Track, it will reach the Track Egress point | ||||
| through normal routing and be treated at the service layer through, | ||||
| say, elimination and reordering. | ||||
| The RAW service includes forwarding over a subset of the Links that | * Pre-Trained models | |||
| form the Track (a subTrack). Packets from the same or a different | ||||
| flow that are routed through the same Track will not necessarily | ||||
| traverse the same Links. The PSE selects a subTrack for a packet | ||||
| based on the links that are preferred and those that should be | ||||
| avoided at this time. | ||||
| Each packet is forwarded within the subTrack that provides the best | * Link Quality Statistics and their projected evolution | |||
| adequation with the SLA of the flow and the energy and bandwidth | ||||
| constraints of the network. | ||||
| Flow 1 (6-tuple) ----+ | The Track is installed with measurable objectives that are computed | |||
| | | by the PCE to achieve the RAW SLA. The objectives can be expressed | |||
| Flow 2 (6-tuple) ---+ | | as any of maximum number of packet lost in a row, bounded latency, | |||
| | | | maximal jitter, maximum nmuber of interleaved out of order packets, | |||
| OAM -----------+ | | | average number of copies received at the elimination point, and | |||
| | | | | maximal delay between the first and the last received copy of the | |||
| | | | | same packet. | |||
| | | | | | | ||||
| | v v v | | ||||
| | | | ||||
| +---------+---------+ | ||||
| | | ||||
| | | ||||
| Track i (Ingress IP Address, RPLinstanceId) | ||||
| | | ||||
| | | ||||
| | | ||||
| +---------+-----+--....-------+ | ||||
| | | | | ||||
| | | | | ||||
| subTrack 1 subTrack 2 subTrack n | ||||
| | | | | ||||
| | | | | ||||
| V V V | ||||
| +-----------------------------------+ | ||||
| | | | ||||
| | Destination | | ||||
| | | | ||||
| +-----------------------------------+ | ||||
| Figure 10: Flow Injection | 4.5. Decide: The Path Selection Engine | |||
| With 6TiSCH, packets are tagged with the same (destination address, | The RAW OODA Loop operates at the path selection time scale to | |||
| instance ID) will experience the same RAW service regardless of the | provide agility vs. the brute force approach of flooding the whole | |||
| IPv6 6-tuple that indicates the flow. The forwarding does not depend | Track. The OODA Loop controls, within the redundant solutions that | |||
| on whether the packets transport application flows or OAM. In the | are proposed by the PCE, which will be used for each packet to | |||
| generic case, the Track or the subTrack can be signaled in the packet | provide a Reliable and Available service while minimizing the waste | |||
| through other means, e.g., encoded in the suffix of the destination | of constrained resources. | |||
| address as a Segment Routing Service Instruction [SR-ARCHI], or | ||||
| leveraging Bit Index Explicit Replication [BIER] Traffic Engineering | ||||
| [BIER-TE]. | ||||
| 4.5. Source-Routed vs. Distributed Forwarding Decision | To that effect, RAW defines the Path Selection Engine (PSE) that is | |||
| the counterpart of the PCE to perform rapid local adjustments of the | ||||
| forwarding tables within the diversity that the PCE has selected for | ||||
| the Track. The PSE enables to exploit the richer forwarding | ||||
| capabilities with PAREO and scheduled transmissions at a faster time | ||||
| scale over the smaller domain that is the Track, in either a loose or | ||||
| a strict fashion. | ||||
| Within a large routed topology, the route-over mesh operation builds | Compared to the PCE, the PSE operates on metrics that evolve faster, | |||
| a particular complex Track with one source and one or more | but that needs to be advertised at a fast rate but only locally, | |||
| destinations; within the Track, packets may follow different paths | within the Track. The forwarding decision may also change rapidly, | |||
| and may be subject to RAW forwarding operations that include | but with a scope that is also contained within the Track, with no | |||
| replication, elimination, retries, overhearing and reordering. | visibility to the other Tracks and flows in the network. This is as | |||
| opposed to the PCE that needs to observe the whole network, and | ||||
| optimize all the Tracks globally, which can only be done at a slow | ||||
| pace and using long-term statistical metrics, as presented in | ||||
| Table 1. | ||||
| The RAW forwarding decisions include the selection of points of | +===============+========================+===================+ | |||
| replication and elimination, how many retries can take place, and a | | | PCE (Not in Scope) | PSE (In Scope) | | |||
| limit of validity for the packet beyond which the packet should be | +===============+========================+===================+ | |||
| destroyed rather than forwarded uselessly further down the Track. | | Operation | Centralized | Source-Routed or | | |||
| | | | Distributed | | ||||
| +---------------+------------------------+-------------------+ | ||||
| | Communication | Slow, expensive | Fast, local | | ||||
| +---------------+------------------------+-------------------+ | ||||
| | Time Scale | hours and above | seconds and below | | ||||
| +---------------+------------------------+-------------------+ | ||||
| | Network Size | Large, many Tracks to | Small, within one | | ||||
| | | optimize globally | Track | | ||||
| +---------------+------------------------+-------------------+ | ||||
| | Considered | Averaged, Statistical, | Instant values / | | ||||
| | Metrics | Shade of grey | boolean condition | | ||||
| +---------------+------------------------+-------------------+ | ||||
| The decision to apply the RAW techniques must be done quickly, and | Table 1: PCE vs. PSE | |||
| depends on a very recent and precise knowledge of the forwarding | ||||
| conditions within the complex Track. There is a need for an | ||||
| observation method to provide the RAW Data Plane with the specific | ||||
| knowledge of the state of the Track for the type of flow of interest | ||||
| (e.g., for a QoS level of interest). To observe the whole Track in | ||||
| quasi real time, RAW considers existing tools such as L2-triggers, | ||||
| DLEP, BFD and leverages in-band and out-of-band OAM to capture and | ||||
| report that information to the PSE. | ||||
| One possible way of making the RAW forwarding decisions within a | The PSE sits in the DetNet Service sub-Layer of Edge and Relay Nodes. | |||
| Track is to position a unique PSE at the Ingress and express its | On the one hand, it operates on the packet flow, learning the Track | |||
| decision in-band in the packet, which requires the explicit signaling | and path selection information from the packet, possibly making local | |||
| of the subTrack within the Track. In that case, the RAW forwarding | decision and retagging the packet to indicate so. On the other hand, | |||
| operation along the Track is encoded by the source, e.g., by | the PSE interacts with the lower layers and with its peers to obtain | |||
| indicating the subTrack in the Segment Routing (SRv6) Service | up-to-date information about its radio links and the quality of the | |||
| Instruction, or by leveraging BIER-TE such as done with [BIER-PREF]. | overall Track, respectively, as illustrated in Figure 8. | |||
| The alternate way is to operate the PSE in each forwarding Node, | | | |||
| which makes the RAW forwarding decisions for a packet on its own, | packet | going | |||
| based on its knowledge of the expectation (timeliness and | down the | stack | |||
| reliability) for that packet and a recent observation of the rest of | +==========v==========+=====================+=====================+ | |||
| the way across the possible paths based on OAM. Information about | | (iOAM + iCTRL) | (L2 Triggers, DLEP) | (oOAM) | | |||
| the desired service should be placed in the packet and matched with | +==========v==========+=====================+=====================+ | |||
| the forwarding Node's capabilities and policies. | | Learn from Learn from | | |||
| | packet tagging Maintain end-to-end | | ||||
| +----------v----------+ Forwarding OAM packets | | ||||
| | Forwarding decision < State +---------^-----------| | ||||
| +----------v----------+ | Enrich or | | ||||
| + Retag Packet | Learn abstracted > Regenerate | | ||||
| | and Forward | metrics about Links | OAM packets | | ||||
| +..........v..........+..........^..........+.........^.v.........+ | ||||
| | Lower layers | | ||||
| +..........v.....................^....................^.v.........+ | ||||
| frame | sent Frame | L2 Ack oOAM | | packet | ||||
| over | wireless In | In | | and out | ||||
| v | | v | ||||
| In either case, a per-track/subTrack state is installed in all the | Figure 8: PSE | |||
| intermediate Nodes to recognize the packets that are following a | ||||
| Track and determine the forwarding operation to be applied. | ||||
| 4.6. Encapsulation and Decapsulation | 4.6. Act: The PAREO Functions | |||
| In the generic case where the Track Ingress Node is not the source of | RAW may control whether and how to use packet replication and | |||
| the Packet, the Ingress Node needs to encapsulate IP-in-IP to ensure | elimination (PRE), Automatic Repeat reQuest (ARQ), Hybrid ARQ (HARQ) | |||
| that the Destination IP Address is that of the Egress Node and that | that includes Forward Error Correction (FEC) and coding, and other | |||
| the necessary Headers (Routing Header, Segment Routing Header and/or | wireless-specific techniques such as overhearing and constructive | |||
| Hop-By-Hop Header) can be added to the packet to signal the Track or | interferences, in order to increase the reliabiility and availability | |||
| the subTrack, conforming [IPv6] that discourages the insertion of a | of the end-to-end transmission. | |||
| Header on the fly. | ||||
| In the specific case where the Ingress Node is the source of the | Collectively, those function are called PAREO for Packet (hybrid) | |||
| packet, the encapsulation can be avoided, provided that the source | ARQ, Replication, Elimination and Ordering. By tuning dynamically | |||
| adds the necessary headers and that the destination is set to the | the use of PAREO functions, RAW avoids the waste of critical | |||
| Egress Node. Forwarding to a final destination beyond the Egress | resources such as spectrum and energy while providing that the | |||
| Node is possible, e.g., with a Segment Routing Header that signals | guaranteed SLA, e.g., by adding redundancy only when a spike of loss | |||
| the rest of the way. In that case a Hop-by-Hop Header is not | is observed. | |||
| recommmended since its validity is within the Track only. | ||||
| In a nutshell, PAREO establishes several paths in a network to | ||||
| provide redundancy and parallel transmissions to bound the end-to-end | ||||
| delay to traverse the network. Optionally, promiscuous listening | ||||
| between paths is possible, such that the Nodes on one path may | ||||
| overhear transmissions along the other path. Considering the | ||||
| scenario shown in Figure 9, many different paths are possible for to | ||||
| traverse the network from ingress to egress. A simple way to benefit | ||||
| from this topology could be to use the two independent paths via | ||||
| Nodes A, C, E and via B, D, F. But more complex paths are possible | ||||
| by interleaving transmissions from the lower level of the path to the | ||||
| upper level. | ||||
| (A) -- (C) -- (E) | ||||
| / \ | ||||
| Ingress = | | | = Egress | ||||
| \ / | ||||
| (B) -- (D) -- (F) | ||||
| Figure 9: A Ladder Shape with Two Parallel Paths | ||||
| PAREO may also take advantage of the shared properties of the | ||||
| wireless medium to compensate for the potential loss that is incurred | ||||
| with radio transmissions. | ||||
| For instance, when the source sends to Node A, Node B may listen | ||||
| promiscuously and get a second chance to receive the frame without an | ||||
| additional transmission. Note that B would not have to listen if it | ||||
| already received that particular frame at an earlier timeslot in a | ||||
| dedicated transmission towards B. | ||||
| The PAREO model can be implemented in both centralized and | ||||
| distributed scheduling approaches. In the centralized approach, a | ||||
| Path Computation Element (PCE) scheduler calculates a Track and | ||||
| schedules the communication. In the distributed approach, the Track | ||||
| is computed within the network, and signaled in the packets, e.g., | ||||
| using BIER-TE, Segment Routing, or a Source Routing Header. | ||||
| 4.6.1. Packet Replication | ||||
| By employing a Packet Replication procedure, a Node forwards a copy | ||||
| of each data packet to more than one successor. To do so, each Node | ||||
| (i.e., Ingress and intermediate Node) sends the data packet multiple | ||||
| times as separate unicast transmissions. For instance, in Figure 10, | ||||
| the Ingress Node is transmitting the packet to both successors, nodes | ||||
| A and B, at two different times. | ||||
| ===> (A) => (C) => (E) === | ||||
| // \\// \\// \\ | ||||
| Ingress //\\ //\\ Egress | ||||
| \\ // \\ // \\ // | ||||
| ===> (B) => (D) => (F) === | ||||
| Figure 10: Packet Replication | ||||
| An example schedule is shown in Table 2. This way, the transmission | ||||
| leverages with the time and spatial forms of diversity. | ||||
| +=========+======+======+======+======+======+======+======+ | ||||
| | Channel | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | | ||||
| +=========+======+======+======+======+======+======+======+ | ||||
| | 0 | S->A | S->B | B->C | B->D | C->F | E->R | F->R | | ||||
| +---------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+ | ||||
| | 1 | | A->C | A->D | C->E | D->E | D->F | | | ||||
| +---------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+ | ||||
| Table 2: Packet Replication: Sample schedule | ||||
| 4.6.2. Packet Elimination | ||||
| The replication operation increases the traffic load in the network, | ||||
| due to packet duplications. This may occur at several stages inside | ||||
| the Track, and to avoid an explosion of the number of copies, a | ||||
| Packet Elimination procedure must be applied as well. To this aim, | ||||
| once a Node receives the first copy of a data packet, it discards the | ||||
| subsequent copies. | ||||
| The logical functions of Replication and Elimination may be | ||||
| collocated in an intermediate Node, the Node first eliminating the | ||||
| redundant copies and then sending the packet exactly once to each of | ||||
| the selected successors. | ||||
| 4.6.3. Promiscuous Overhearing | ||||
| Considering that the wireless medium is broadcast by nature, any | ||||
| neighbor of a transmitter may overhear a transmission. By employing | ||||
| the Promiscuous Overhearing operation, the next hops have additional | ||||
| opportunities to capture the data packets. In Figure 11, when Node A | ||||
| is transmitting to its DP (Node C), the AP (Node D) and its sibling | ||||
| (Node B) may decode this data packet as well. As a result, by | ||||
| employing corellated paths, a Node may have multiple opportunities to | ||||
| receive a given data packet. | ||||
| ===> (A) ====> (C) ====> (E) ==== | ||||
| // ^ | \\ \\ | ||||
| Ingress | | \\ Egress | ||||
| \\ | v \\ // | ||||
| ===> (B) ====> (D) ====> (F) ==== | ||||
| Figure 11: Unicast with Overhearing | ||||
| 4.6.4. Constructive Interference | ||||
| Constructive Interference can be seen as the reverse of Promiscuous | ||||
| Overhearing, and refers to the case where two senders transmit the | ||||
| exact same signal in a fashion that the emitted symbols add up at the | ||||
| receiver and permit a reception that would not be possible with a | ||||
| single sender at the same PHY mode and the same power level. | ||||
| Constructive Interference was proposed on 5G, Wi-Fi7 and even tested | ||||
| on IEEE Std 802.14.5. The hard piece is to synchronize the senders | ||||
| to the point that the signals are emitted at slightly different time | ||||
| to offset the difference of propagation delay that corresponds to the | ||||
| difference of distance of the transmitters to the receiver at the | ||||
| speed of light to the point that the symbols are superposed long | ||||
| enough to be recognizable. | ||||
| 5. Security Considerations | 5. Security Considerations | |||
| RAW uses all forms of diversity including radio technology and | RAW uses all forms of diversity including radio technology and | |||
| physical path to increase the reliability and availability in the | physical path to increase the reliability and availability in the | |||
| face of unpredictable conditions. While this is not done | face of unpredictable conditions. While this is not done | |||
| specifically to defeat an attacker, the amount of diversity used in | specifically to defeat an attacker, the amount of diversity used in | |||
| RAW makes an attack harder to achieve. | RAW makes an attack harder to achieve. | |||
| 5.1. Forced Access | 5.1. Forced Access | |||
| skipping to change at page 32, line 31 ¶ | skipping to change at page 34, line 37 ¶ | |||
| [6TiSCH-ARCHI] | [6TiSCH-ARCHI] | |||
| Thubert, P., Ed., "An Architecture for IPv6 over the Time- | Thubert, P., Ed., "An Architecture for IPv6 over the Time- | |||
| Slotted Channel Hopping Mode of IEEE 802.15.4 (6TiSCH)", | Slotted Channel Hopping Mode of IEEE 802.15.4 (6TiSCH)", | |||
| RFC 9030, DOI 10.17487/RFC9030, May 2021, | RFC 9030, DOI 10.17487/RFC9030, May 2021, | |||
| <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9030>. | <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9030>. | |||
| [RAW-TECHNOS] | [RAW-TECHNOS] | |||
| Thubert, P., Cavalcanti, D., Vilajosana, X., Schmitt, C., | Thubert, P., Cavalcanti, D., Vilajosana, X., Schmitt, C., | |||
| and J. Farkas, "Reliable and Available Wireless | and J. Farkas, "Reliable and Available Wireless | |||
| Technologies", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft- | Technologies", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft- | |||
| ietf-raw-technologies-01, 19 February 2021, | ietf-raw-technologies-02, 7 June 2021, | |||
| <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-raw- | <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-raw- | |||
| technologies-01>. | technologies-02>. | |||
| [RAW-USE-CASES] | [RAW-USE-CASES] | |||
| Papadopoulos, G. Z., Thubert, P., Theoleyre, F., and C. J. | Papadopoulos, G. Z., Thubert, P., Theoleyre, F., and C. J. | |||
| Bernardos, "RAW use cases", Work in Progress, Internet- | Bernardos, "RAW use cases", Work in Progress, Internet- | |||
| Draft, draft-ietf-raw-use-cases-01, 21 February 2021, | Draft, draft-ietf-raw-use-cases-02, 12 July 2021, | |||
| <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-raw-use- | <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-raw-use- | |||
| cases-01>. | cases-02>. | |||
| [RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J.-P., and J. Ash, "A Path | [RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J.-P., and J. Ash, "A Path | |||
| Computation Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655, | Computation Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655, | |||
| DOI 10.17487/RFC4655, August 2006, | DOI 10.17487/RFC4655, August 2006, | |||
| <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4655>. | <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4655>. | |||
| [BFD] Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection | [BFD] Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection | |||
| (BFD)", RFC 5880, DOI 10.17487/RFC5880, June 2010, | (BFD)", RFC 5880, DOI 10.17487/RFC5880, June 2010, | |||
| <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5880>. | <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5880>. | |||
| skipping to change at page 35, line 17 ¶ | skipping to change at page 37, line 29 ¶ | |||
| detnet-ip-oam-02>. | detnet-ip-oam-02>. | |||
| [RAW-5G] Farkas, J., Dudda, T., Shapin, A., and S. Sandberg, "5G - | [RAW-5G] Farkas, J., Dudda, T., Shapin, A., and S. Sandberg, "5G - | |||
| Ultra-Reliable Wireless Technology with Low Latency", Work | Ultra-Reliable Wireless Technology with Low Latency", Work | |||
| in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-farkas-raw-5g-00, 1 | in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-farkas-raw-5g-00, 1 | |||
| April 2020, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft- | April 2020, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft- | |||
| farkas-raw-5g-00>. | farkas-raw-5g-00>. | |||
| [BIER-TE] Eckert, T., Cauchie, G., and M. Menth, "Tree Engineering | [BIER-TE] Eckert, T., Cauchie, G., and M. Menth, "Tree Engineering | |||
| for Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER-TE)", Work in | for Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER-TE)", Work in | |||
| Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-bier-te-arch-09, 30 | Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-bier-te-arch-10, 9 | |||
| October 2020, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/ | July 2021, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft- | |||
| draft-ietf-bier-te-arch-09>. | ietf-bier-te-arch-10>. | |||
| [IPoWIRELESS] | [IPoWIRELESS] | |||
| Thubert, P., "IPv6 Neighbor Discovery on Wireless | Thubert, P., "IPv6 Neighbor Discovery on Wireless | |||
| Networks", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft- | Networks", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft- | |||
| thubert-6man-ipv6-over-wireless-09, 17 May 2021, | thubert-6man-ipv6-over-wireless-09, 17 May 2021, | |||
| <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-thubert-6man- | <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-thubert-6man- | |||
| ipv6-over-wireless-09>. | ipv6-over-wireless-09>. | |||
| [RAW-OAM] Theoleyre, F., Papadopoulos, G. Z., Mirsky, G., and C. J. | [RAW-OAM] Theoleyre, F., Papadopoulos, G. Z., Mirsky, G., and C. J. | |||
| Bernardos, "Operations, Administration and Maintenance | Bernardos, "Operations, Administration and Maintenance | |||
| (OAM) features for RAW", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, | (OAM) features for RAW", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, | |||
| draft-ietf-raw-oam-support-02, 3 June 2021, | draft-ietf-raw-oam-support-02, 3 June 2021, | |||
| <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-raw-oam- | <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-raw-oam- | |||
| support-02>. | support-02>. | |||
| [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-direct-export] | [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-direct-export] | |||
| Song, H., Gafni, B., Zhou, T., Li, Z., Brockners, F., | Song, H., Gafni, B., Zhou, T., Li, Z., Brockners, F., | |||
| Bhandari, S., Sivakolundu, R., and T. Mizrahi, "In-situ | Bhandari, S., Sivakolundu, R., and T. Mizrahi, "In-situ | |||
| OAM Direct Exporting", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, | OAM Direct Exporting", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, | |||
| draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-direct-export-03, 17 February 2021, | draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-direct-export-05, 12 July 2021, | |||
| <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-ippm- | <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-ippm- | |||
| ioam-direct-export-03>. | ioam-direct-export-05>. | |||
| [DetNet-OAM] | [DetNet-OAM] | |||
| Mirsky, G., Theoleyre, F., Papadopoulos, G. Z., and C. J. | Mirsky, G., Theoleyre, F., Papadopoulos, G. Z., and C. J. | |||
| Bernardos, "Framework of Operations, Administration and | Bernardos, "Framework of Operations, Administration and | |||
| Maintenance (OAM) for Deterministic Networking (DetNet)", | Maintenance (OAM) for Deterministic Networking (DetNet)", | |||
| Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-detnet-oam- | Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-detnet-oam- | |||
| framework-01, 19 May 2021, | framework-03, 6 July 2021, | |||
| <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-detnet- | <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-detnet- | |||
| oam-framework-01>. | oam-framework-03>. | |||
| [I-D.mirsky-ippm-hybrid-two-step] | [I-D.mirsky-ippm-hybrid-two-step] | |||
| Mirsky, G., Lingqiang, W., Zhui, G., and H. Song, "Hybrid | Mirsky, G., Lingqiang, W., Zhui, G., and H. Song, "Hybrid | |||
| Two-Step Performance Measurement Method", Work in | Two-Step Performance Measurement Method", Work in | |||
| Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-mirsky-ippm-hybrid-two- | Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-mirsky-ippm-hybrid-two- | |||
| step-09, 30 March 2021, | step-11, 8 July 2021, | |||
| <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-mirsky-ippm- | <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-mirsky-ippm- | |||
| hybrid-two-step-09>. | hybrid-two-step-11>. | |||
| [I-D.mirsky-ippm-epm] | [I-D.mirsky-ippm-epm] | |||
| Mirsky, G., Min, X., and L. Han, "Error Performance | Mirsky, G., Min, X., and L. Han, "Error Performance | |||
| Measurement in Packet-switched Networks", Work in | Measurement in Packet-switched Networks", Work in | |||
| Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-mirsky-ippm-epm-03, 26 | Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-mirsky-ippm-epm-03, 26 | |||
| March 2021, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft- | March 2021, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft- | |||
| mirsky-ippm-epm-03>. | mirsky-ippm-epm-03>. | |||
| [I-D.mirsky-bfd-mpls-demand] | [I-D.mirsky-bfd-mpls-demand] | |||
| Mirsky, G., "BFD in Demand Mode over Point-to-Point MPLS | Mirsky, G., "BFD in Demand Mode over Point-to-Point MPLS | |||
| LSP", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-mirsky-bfd- | LSP", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-mirsky-bfd- | |||
| mpls-demand-09, 30 March 2021, | mpls-demand-09, 30 March 2021, | |||
| <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-mirsky-bfd- | <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-mirsky-bfd- | |||
| mpls-demand-09>. | mpls-demand-09>. | |||
| [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data] | [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data] | |||
| Brockners, F., Bhandari, S., and T. Mizrahi, "Data Fields | Brockners, F., Bhandari, S., and T. Mizrahi, "Data Fields | |||
| for In-situ OAM", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft- | for In-situ OAM", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft- | |||
| ietf-ippm-ioam-data-12, 21 February 2021, | ietf-ippm-ioam-data-14, 24 June 2021, | |||
| <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-ippm- | <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-ippm- | |||
| ioam-data-12>. | ioam-data-14>. | |||
| [NASA] Adams, T., "RELIABILITY: Definition & Quantitative | [NASA] Adams, T., "RELIABILITY: Definition & Quantitative | |||
| Illustration", <https://kscddms.ksc.nasa.gov/Reliability/ | Illustration", <https://kscddms.ksc.nasa.gov/Reliability/ | |||
| Documents/150814-3bWhatIsReliability.pdf>. | Documents/150814-3bWhatIsReliability.pdf>. | |||
| [MANET] IETF, "Mobile Ad hoc Networking", | [MANET] IETF, "Mobile Ad hoc Networking", | |||
| <https://dataTracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-manet/>. | <https://dataTracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-manet/>. | |||
| [detnet] IETF, "Deterministic Networking", | [detnet] IETF, "Deterministic Networking", | |||
| <https://dataTracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-detnet/>. | <https://dataTracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-detnet/>. | |||
| End of changes. 84 change blocks. | ||||
| 372 lines changed or deleted | 476 lines changed or added | |||
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/ | ||||