idnits 2.17.1
draft-ietf-detnet-use-cases-09.txt:
Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see
https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info):
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
No issues found here.
Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
No issues found here.
Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
** The document seems to lack an IANA Considerations section. (See Section
2.2 of https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist for how to handle the case
when there are no actions for IANA.)
Miscellaneous warnings:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
== The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not
match the current year
-- The document date (March 21, 2016) is 2956 days in the past. Is this
intentional?
Checking references for intended status: Informational
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
== Unused Reference: 'ACE' is defined on line 2635, but no explicit
reference was found in the text
== Unused Reference: 'CCAMP' is defined on line 2643, but no explicit
reference was found in the text
== Unused Reference: 'CPRI-transp' is defined on line 2662, but no explicit
reference was found in the text
== Unused Reference: 'DICE' is defined on line 2671, but no explicit
reference was found in the text
== Unused Reference: 'EA12' is defined on line 2674, but no explicit
reference was found in the text
== Unused Reference: 'HART' is defined on line 2691, but no explicit
reference was found in the text
== Unused Reference: 'I-D.ietf-6tisch-terminology' is defined on line 2720,
but no explicit reference was found in the text
== Unused Reference: 'I-D.ietf-ipv6-multilink-subnets' is defined on line
2726, but no explicit reference was found in the text
== Unused Reference: 'I-D.ietf-roll-rpl-industrial-applicability' is
defined on line 2737, but no explicit reference was found in the text
== Unused Reference: 'I-D.thubert-6lowpan-backbone-router' is defined on
line 2759, but no explicit reference was found in the text
== Unused Reference: 'IEC61850-90-12' is defined on line 2769, but no
explicit reference was found in the text
== Unused Reference: 'IEEE8021TSN' is defined on line 2832, but no explicit
reference was found in the text
== Unused Reference: 'IETFDetNet' is defined on line 2838, but no explicit
reference was found in the text
== Unused Reference: 'LTE-Latency' is defined on line 2862, but no explicit
reference was found in the text
== Unused Reference: 'RFC2119' is defined on line 2900, but no explicit
reference was found in the text
== Unused Reference: 'RFC2460' is defined on line 2905, but no explicit
reference was found in the text
== Unused Reference: 'RFC2474' is defined on line 2909, but no explicit
reference was found in the text
== Unused Reference: 'RFC3209' is defined on line 2920, but no explicit
reference was found in the text
== Unused Reference: 'RFC3393' is defined on line 2925, but no explicit
reference was found in the text
== Unused Reference: 'RFC3444' is defined on line 2930, but no explicit
reference was found in the text
== Unused Reference: 'RFC3972' is defined on line 2935, but no explicit
reference was found in the text
== Unused Reference: 'RFC4291' is defined on line 2944, but no explicit
reference was found in the text
== Unused Reference: 'RFC4903' is defined on line 2953, but no explicit
reference was found in the text
== Unused Reference: 'RFC4919' is defined on line 2957, but no explicit
reference was found in the text
== Unused Reference: 'RFC6282' is defined on line 2974, but no explicit
reference was found in the text
== Unused Reference: 'RFC6775' is defined on line 2992, but no explicit
reference was found in the text
== Unused Reference: 'TEAS' is defined on line 3019, but no explicit
reference was found in the text
== Unused Reference: 'UHD-video' is defined on line 3050, but no explicit
reference was found in the text
== Outdated reference: A later version (-08) exists of
draft-finn-detnet-architecture-03
== Outdated reference: A later version (-05) exists of
draft-finn-detnet-problem-statement-04
== Outdated reference: A later version (-30) exists of
draft-ietf-6tisch-architecture-09
== Outdated reference: A later version (-10) exists of
draft-ietf-6tisch-terminology-06
== Outdated reference: A later version (-15) exists of
draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time-06
-- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 2460
(Obsoleted by RFC 8200)
Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 34 warnings (==), 2 comments (--).
Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about
the items above.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 Internet Engineering Task Force E. Grossman, Ed.
3 Internet-Draft DOLBY
4 Intended status: Informational C. Gunther
5 Expires: September 22, 2016 HARMAN
6 P. Thubert
7 P. Wetterwald
8 CISCO
9 J. Raymond
10 HYDRO-QUEBEC
11 J. Korhonen
12 BROADCOM
13 Y. Kaneko
14 Toshiba
15 S. Das
16 Applied Communication Sciences
17 Y. Zha
18 HUAWEI
19 B. Varga
20 J. Farkas
21 Ericsson
22 F. Goetz
23 J. Schmitt
24 Siemens
25 March 21, 2016
27 Deterministic Networking Use Cases
28 draft-ietf-detnet-use-cases-09
30 Abstract
32 This draft documents requirements in several diverse industries to
33 establish multi-hop paths for characterized flows with deterministic
34 properties. In this context deterministic implies that streams can
35 be established which provide guaranteed bandwidth and latency which
36 can be established from either a Layer 2 or Layer 3 (IP) interface,
37 and which can co-exist on an IP network with best-effort traffic.
39 Additional requirements include optional redundant paths, very high
40 reliability paths, time synchronization, and clock distribution.
41 Industries considered include wireless for industrial applications,
42 professional audio, electrical utilities, building automation
43 systems, radio/mobile access networks, automotive, and gaming.
45 For each case, this document will identify the application, identify
46 representative solutions used today, and what new uses an IETF DetNet
47 solution may enable.
49 Status of This Memo
51 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
52 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
54 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
55 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
56 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
57 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
59 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
60 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
61 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
62 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
64 This Internet-Draft will expire on September 22, 2016.
66 Copyright Notice
68 Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
69 document authors. All rights reserved.
71 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
72 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
73 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
74 publication of this document. Please review these documents
75 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
76 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
77 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
78 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
79 described in the Simplified BSD License.
81 Table of Contents
83 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
84 2. Pro Audio and Video . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
85 2.1. Use Case Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
86 2.1.1. Uninterrupted Stream Playback . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
87 2.1.2. Synchronized Stream Playback . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
88 2.1.3. Sound Reinforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
89 2.1.4. Deterministic Time to Establish Streaming . . . . . . 7
90 2.1.5. Secure Transmission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
91 2.1.5.1. Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
92 2.1.5.2. Digital Rights Management (DRM) . . . . . . . . . 8
93 2.2. Pro Audio Today . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
94 2.3. Pro Audio Future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
95 2.3.1. Layer 3 Interconnecting Layer 2 Islands . . . . . . . 9
96 2.3.2. High Reliability Stream Paths . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
97 2.3.3. Link Aggregation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
98 2.3.4. Integration of Reserved Streams into IT Networks . . 10
99 2.3.5. Use of Unused Reservations by Best-Effort Traffic . . 10
100 2.3.6. Traffic Segregation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
101 2.3.6.1. Packet Forwarding Rules, VLANs and Subnets . . . 11
102 2.3.6.2. Multicast Addressing (IPv4 and IPv6) . . . . . . 11
103 2.3.7. Latency Optimization by a Central Controller . . . . 11
104 2.3.8. Reduced Device Cost Due To Reduced Buffer Memory . . 12
105 2.4. Pro Audio Asks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
106 3. Electrical Utilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
107 3.1. Use Case Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
108 3.1.1. Transmission Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
109 3.1.1.1. Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
110 3.1.1.2. Intra-Substation Process Bus Communications . . . 18
111 3.1.1.3. Wide Area Monitoring and Control Systems . . . . 19
112 3.1.1.4. IEC 61850 WAN engineering guidelines requirement
113 classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
114 3.1.2. Generation Use Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
115 3.1.3. Distribution use case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
116 3.1.3.1. Fault Location Isolation and Service Restoration
117 (FLISR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
118 3.2. Electrical Utilities Today . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
119 3.2.1. Security Current Practices and Limitations . . . . . 23
120 3.3. Electrical Utilities Future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
121 3.3.1. Migration to Packet-Switched Network . . . . . . . . 25
122 3.3.2. Telecommunications Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
123 3.3.2.1. General Telecommunications Requirements . . . . . 26
124 3.3.2.2. Specific Network topologies of Smart Grid
125 Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
126 3.3.2.3. Precision Time Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
127 3.3.3. Security Trends in Utility Networks . . . . . . . . . 29
128 3.4. Electrical Utilities Asks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
129 4. Building Automation Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
130 4.1. Use Case Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
131 4.2. Building Automation Systems Today . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
132 4.2.1. BAS Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
133 4.2.2. BAS Deployment Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
134 4.2.3. Use Cases for Field Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
135 4.2.3.1. Environmental Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
136 4.2.3.2. Fire Detection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
137 4.2.3.3. Feedback Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
138 4.2.4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
139 4.3. BAS Future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
140 4.4. BAS Asks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
141 5. Wireless for Industrial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
142 5.1. Use Case Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
143 5.1.1. Network Convergence using 6TiSCH . . . . . . . . . . 38
144 5.1.2. Common Protocol Development for 6TiSCH . . . . . . . 38
146 5.2. Wireless Industrial Today . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
147 5.3. Wireless Industrial Future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
148 5.3.1. Unified Wireless Network and Management . . . . . . . 39
149 5.3.1.1. PCE and 6TiSCH ARQ Retries . . . . . . . . . . . 41
150 5.3.2. Schedule Management by a PCE . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
151 5.3.2.1. PCE Commands and 6TiSCH CoAP Requests . . . . . . 42
152 5.3.2.2. 6TiSCH IP Interface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
153 5.3.3. 6TiSCH Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . 43
154 5.4. Wireless Industrial Asks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
155 6. Cellular Radio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
156 6.1. Use Case Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
157 6.1.1. Network Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
158 6.1.2. Delay Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
159 6.1.3. Time Synchronization Constraints . . . . . . . . . . 46
160 6.1.4. Transport Loss Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
161 6.1.5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
162 6.2. Cellular Radio Networks Today . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
163 6.2.1. Fronthaul . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
164 6.2.2. Midhaul and Backhaul . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
165 6.3. Cellular Radio Networks Future . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
166 6.4. Cellular Radio Networks Asks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
167 7. Industrial M2M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
168 7.1. Use Case Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
169 7.2. Industrial M2M Communication Today . . . . . . . . . . . 53
170 7.2.1. Transport Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
171 7.2.2. Stream Creation and Destruction . . . . . . . . . . . 54
172 7.3. Industrial M2M Future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
173 7.4. Industrial M2M Asks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
174 8. Internet-based Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
175 8.1. Use Case Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
176 8.1.1. Media Content Delivery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
177 8.1.2. Online Gaming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
178 8.1.3. Virtual Reality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
179 8.2. Internet-Based Applications Today . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
180 8.3. Internet-Based Applications Future . . . . . . . . . . . 55
181 8.4. Internet-Based Applications Asks . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
182 9. Use Case Common Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
183 10. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
184 10.1. Pro Audio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
185 10.2. Utility Telecom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
186 10.3. Building Automation Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
187 10.4. Wireless for Industrial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
188 10.5. Cellular Radio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
189 10.6. Industrial M2M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
190 10.7. Internet Applications and CoMP . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
191 11. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
192 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
194 1. Introduction
196 This draft presents use cases from diverse industries which have in
197 common a need for deterministic streams, but which also differ
198 notably in their network topologies and specific desired behavior.
199 Together, they provide broad industry context for DetNet and a
200 yardstick against which proposed DetNet designs can be measured (to
201 what extent does a proposed design satisfy these various use cases?)
203 For DetNet, use cases explicitly do not define requirements; The
204 DetNet WG will consider the use cases, decide which elements are in
205 scope for DetNet, and the results will be incorporated into future
206 drafts. Similarly, the DetNet use case draft explicitly does not
207 suggest any specific design, architecture or protocols, which will be
208 topics of future drafts.
210 We present for each use case the answers to the following questions:
212 o What is the use case?
214 o How is it addressed today?
216 o How would you like it to be addressed in the future?
218 o What do you want the IETF to deliver?
220 The level of detail in each use case should be sufficient to express
221 the relevant elements of the use case, but not more.
223 At the end we consider the use cases collectively, and examine the
224 most significant goals they have in common.
226 2. Pro Audio and Video
228 2.1. Use Case Description
230 The professional audio and video industry ("ProAV") includes:
232 o Music and film content creation
234 o Broadcast
236 o Cinema
238 o Live sound
240 o Public address, media and emergency systems at large venues
241 (airports, stadiums, churches, theme parks).
243 These industries have already transitioned audio and video signals
244 from analog to digital. However, the digital interconnect systems
245 remain primarily point-to-point with a single (or small number of)
246 signals per link, interconnected with purpose-built hardware.
248 These industries are now transitioning to packet-based infrastructure
249 to reduce cost, increase routing flexibility, and integrate with
250 existing IT infrastructure.
252 Today ProAV applications have no way to establish deterministic
253 streams from a standards-based Layer 3 (IP) interface, which is a
254 fundamental limitation to the use cases described here. Today
255 deterministic streams can be created within standards-based layer 2
256 LANs (e.g. using IEEE 802.1 AVB) however these are not routable via
257 IP and thus are not effective for distribution over wider areas (for
258 example broadcast events that span wide geographical areas).
260 It would be highly desirable if such streams could be routed over the
261 open Internet, however solutions with more limited scope (e.g.
262 enterprise networks) would still provide a substantial improvement.
264 The following sections describe specific ProAV use cases.
266 2.1.1. Uninterrupted Stream Playback
268 Transmitting audio and video streams for live playback is unlike
269 common file transfer because uninterrupted stream playback in the
270 presence of network errors cannot be achieved by re-trying the
271 transmission; by the time the missing or corrupt packet has been
272 identified it is too late to execute a re-try operation. Buffering
273 can be used to provide enough delay to allow time for one or more
274 retries, however this is not an effective solution in applications
275 where large delays (latencies) are not acceptable (as discussed
276 below).
278 Streams with guaranteed bandwidth can eliminate congestion on the
279 network as a cause of transmission errors that would lead to playback
280 interruption. Use of redundant paths can further mitigate
281 transmission errors to provide greater stream reliability.
283 2.1.2. Synchronized Stream Playback
285 Latency in this context is the time between when a signal is
286 initially sent over a stream and when it is received. A common
287 example in ProAV is time-synchronizing audio and video when they take
288 separate paths through the playback system. In this case the latency
289 of both the audio and video streams must be bounded and consistent if
290 the sound is to remain matched to the movement in the video. A
291 common tolerance for audio/video sync is one NTSC video frame (about
292 33ms) and to maintain the audience perception of correct lip sync the
293 latency needs to be consistent within some reasonable tolerance, for
294 example 10%.
296 A common architecture for synchronizing multiple streams that have
297 different paths through the network (and thus potentially different
298 latencies) is to enable measurement of the latency of each path, and
299 have the data sinks (for example speakers) delay (buffer) all packets
300 on all but the slowest path. Each packet of each stream is assigned
301 a presentation time which is based on the longest required delay.
302 This implies that all sinks must maintain a common time reference of
303 sufficient accuracy, which can be achieved by any of various
304 techniques.
306 This type of architecture is commonly implemented using a central
307 controller that determines path delays and arbitrates buffering
308 delays.
310 2.1.3. Sound Reinforcement
312 Consider the latency (delay) from when a person speaks into a
313 microphone to when their voice emerges from the speaker. If this
314 delay is longer than about 10-15 milliseconds it is noticeable and
315 can make a sound reinforcement system unusable (see slide 6 of
316 [SRP_LATENCY]). (If you have ever tried to speak in the presence of
317 a delayed echo of your voice you may know this experience).
319 Note that the 15ms latency bound includes all parts of the signal
320 path, not just the network, so the network latency must be
321 significantly less than 15ms.
323 In some cases local performers must perform in synchrony with a
324 remote broadcast. In such cases the latencies of the broadcast
325 stream and the local performer must be adjusted to match each other,
326 with a worst case of one video frame (33ms for NTSC video).
328 In cases where audio phase is a consideration, for example beam-
329 forming using multiple speakers, latency requirements can be in the
330 10 microsecond range (1 audio sample at 96kHz).
332 2.1.4. Deterministic Time to Establish Streaming
334 Some audio systems installed in public environments (airports,
335 hospitals) have unique requirements with regards to health, safety
336 and fire concerns. One such requirement is a maximum of 3 seconds
337 for a system to respond to an emergency detection and begin sending
338 appropriate warning signals and alarms without human intervention.
340 For this requirement to be met, the system must support a bounded and
341 acceptable time from a notification signal to specific stream
342 establishment. For further details see [ISO7240-16].
344 Similar requirements apply when the system is restarted after a power
345 cycle, cable re-connection, or system reconfiguration.
347 In many cases such re-establishment of streaming state must be
348 achieved by the peer devices themselves, i.e. without a central
349 controller (since such a controller may only be present during
350 initial network configuration).
352 Video systems introduce related requirements, for example when
353 transitioning from one camera feed (video stream) to another (see
354 [STUDIO_IP] and [ESPN_DC2]).
356 2.1.5. Secure Transmission
358 2.1.5.1. Safety
360 Professional audio systems can include amplifiers that are capable of
361 generating hundreds or thousands of watts of audio power which if
362 used incorrectly can cause hearing damage to those in the vicinity.
363 Apart from the usual care required by the systems operators to
364 prevent such incidents, the network traffic that controls these
365 devices must be secured (as with any sensitive application traffic).
367 2.1.5.2. Digital Rights Management (DRM)
369 Digital Rights Management (DRM) is very important to the audio and
370 video industries. Any time protected content is introduced into a
371 network there are DRM concerns that must be maintained (see
372 [CONTENT_PROTECTION]). Many aspects of DRM are outside the scope of
373 network technology, however there are cases when a secure link
374 supporting authentication and encryption is required by content
375 owners to carry their audio or video content when it is outside their
376 own secure environment (for example see [DCI]).
378 As an example, two techniques are Digital Transmission Content
379 Protection (DTCP) and High-Bandwidth Digital Content Protection
380 (HDCP). HDCP content is not approved for retransmission within any
381 other type of DRM, while DTCP may be retransmitted under HDCP.
382 Therefore if the source of a stream is outside of the network and it
383 uses HDCP protection it is only allowed to be placed on the network
384 with that same HDCP protection.
386 2.2. Pro Audio Today
388 Some proprietary systems have been created which enable deterministic
389 streams at Layer 3 however they are "engineered networks" which
390 require careful configuration to operate, often require that the
391 system be over-provisioned, and it is implied that all devices on the
392 network voluntarily play by the rules of that network. To enable
393 these industries to successfully transition to an interoperable
394 multi-vendor packet-based infrastructure requires effective open
395 standards, and we believe that establishing relevant IETF standards
396 is a crucial factor.
398 2.3. Pro Audio Future
400 2.3.1. Layer 3 Interconnecting Layer 2 Islands
402 It would be valuable to enable IP to connect multiple Layer 2 LANs.
404 As an example, ESPN recently constructed a state-of-the-art 194,000
405 sq ft, $125 million broadcast studio called DC2. The DC2 network is
406 capable of handling 46 Tbps of throughput with 60,000 simultaneous
407 signals. Inside the facility are 1,100 miles of fiber feeding four
408 audio control rooms (see [ESPN_DC2] ).
410 In designing DC2 they replaced as much point-to-point technology as
411 they could with packet-based technology. They constructed seven
412 individual studios using layer 2 LANS (using IEEE 802.1 AVB) that
413 were entirely effective at routing audio within the LANs. However to
414 interconnect these layer 2 LAN islands together they ended up using
415 dedicated paths in a custom SDN (Software Defined Networking) router
416 because there is no standards-based routing solution available.
418 2.3.2. High Reliability Stream Paths
420 On-air and other live media streams are often backed up with
421 redundant links that seamlessly act to deliver the content when the
422 primary link fails for any reason. In point-to-point systems this is
423 provided by an additional point-to-point link; the analogous
424 requirement in a packet-based system is to provide an alternate path
425 through the network such that no individual link can bring down the
426 system.
428 2.3.3. Link Aggregation
430 For transmitting streams that require more bandwidth than a single
431 link in the target network can support, link aggregation is a
432 technique for combining (aggregating) the bandwidth available on
433 multiple physical links to create a single logical link of the
434 required bandwidth. However, if aggregation is to be used, the
435 network controller (or equivalent) must be able to determine the
436 maximum latency of any path through the aggregate link.
438 2.3.4. Integration of Reserved Streams into IT Networks
440 A commonly cited goal of moving to a packet based media
441 infrastructure is that costs can be reduced by using off the shelf,
442 commodity network hardware. In addition, economy of scale can be
443 realized by combining media infrastructure with IT infrastructure.
444 In keeping with these goals, stream reservation technology should be
445 compatible with existing protocols, and not compromise use of the
446 network for best effort (non-time-sensitive) traffic.
448 2.3.5. Use of Unused Reservations by Best-Effort Traffic
450 In cases where stream bandwidth is reserved but not currently used
451 (or is under-utilized) that bandwidth must be available to best-
452 effort (i.e. non-time-sensitive) traffic. For example a single
453 stream may be nailed up (reserved) for specific media content that
454 needs to be presented at different times of the day, ensuring timely
455 delivery of that content, yet in between those times the full
456 bandwidth of the network can be utilized for best-effort tasks such
457 as file transfers.
459 This also addresses a concern of IT network administrators that are
460 considering adding reserved bandwidth traffic to their networks that
461 ("users will reserve large quantities of bandwidth and then never un-
462 reserve it even though they are not using it, and soon the network
463 will have no bandwidth left").
465 2.3.6. Traffic Segregation
467 Sink devices may be low cost devices with limited processing power.
468 In order to not overwhelm the CPUs in these devices it is important
469 to limit the amount of traffic that these devices must process.
471 As an example, consider the use of individual seat speakers in a
472 cinema. These speakers are typically required to be cost reduced
473 since the quantities in a single theater can reach hundreds of seats.
474 Discovery protocols alone in a one thousand seat theater can generate
475 enough broadcast traffic to overwhelm a low powered CPU. Thus an
476 installation like this will benefit greatly from some type of traffic
477 segregation that can define groups of seats to reduce traffic within
478 each group. All seats in the theater must still be able to
479 communicate with a central controller.
481 There are many techniques that can be used to support this
482 requirement including (but not limited to) the following examples.
484 2.3.6.1. Packet Forwarding Rules, VLANs and Subnets
486 Packet forwarding rules can be used to eliminate some extraneous
487 streaming traffic from reaching potentially low powered sink devices,
488 however there may be other types of broadcast traffic that should be
489 eliminated using other means for example VLANs or IP subnets.
491 2.3.6.2. Multicast Addressing (IPv4 and IPv6)
493 Multicast addressing is commonly used to keep bandwidth utilization
494 of shared links to a minimum.
496 Because of the MAC Address forwarding nature of Layer 2 bridges it is
497 important that a multicast MAC address is only associated with one
498 stream. This will prevent reservations from forwarding packets from
499 one stream down a path that has no interested sinks simply because
500 there is another stream on that same path that shares the same
501 multicast MAC address.
503 Since each multicast MAC Address can represent 32 different IPv4
504 multicast addresses there must be a process put in place to make sure
505 this does not occur. Requiring use of IPv6 address can achieve this,
506 however due to their continued prevalence, solutions that are
507 effective for IPv4 installations are also required.
509 2.3.7. Latency Optimization by a Central Controller
511 A central network controller might also perform optimizations based
512 on the individual path delays, for example sinks that are closer to
513 the source can inform the controller that they can accept greater
514 latency since they will be buffering packets to match presentation
515 times of farther away sinks. The controller might then move a stream
516 reservation on a short path to a longer path in order to free up
517 bandwidth for other critical streams on that short path. See slides
518 3-5 of [SRP_LATENCY].
520 Additional optimization can be achieved in cases where sinks have
521 differing latency requirements, for example in a live outdoor concert
522 the speaker sinks have stricter latency requirements than the
523 recording hardware sinks. See slide 7 of [SRP_LATENCY].
525 2.3.8. Reduced Device Cost Due To Reduced Buffer Memory
527 Device cost can be reduced in a system with guaranteed reservations
528 with a small bounded latency due to the reduced requirements for
529 buffering (i.e. memory) on sink devices. For example, a theme park
530 might broadcast a live event across the globe via a layer 3 protocol;
531 in such cases the size of the buffers required is proportional to the
532 latency bounds and jitter caused by delivery, which depends on the
533 worst case segment of the end-to-end network path. For example on
534 todays open internet the latency is typically unacceptable for audio
535 and video streaming without many seconds of buffering. In such
536 scenarios a single gateway device at the local network that receives
537 the feed from the remote site would provide the expensive buffering
538 required to mask the latency and jitter issues associated with long
539 distance delivery. Sink devices in the local location would have no
540 additional buffering requirements, and thus no additional costs,
541 beyond those required for delivery of local content. The sink device
542 would be receiving the identical packets as those sent by the source
543 and would be unaware that there were any latency or jitter issues
544 along the path.
546 2.4. Pro Audio Asks
548 o Layer 3 routing on top of AVB (and/or other high QoS networks)
550 o Content delivery with bounded, lowest possible latency
552 o IntServ and DiffServ integration with AVB (where practical)
554 o Single network for A/V and IT traffic
556 o Standards-based, interoperable, multi-vendor
558 o IT department friendly
560 o Enterprise-wide networks (e.g. size of San Francisco but not the
561 whole Internet (yet...))
563 3. Electrical Utilities
565 3.1. Use Case Description
567 Many systems that an electrical utility deploys today rely on high
568 availability and deterministic behavior of the underlying networks.
569 Here we present use cases in Transmission, Generation and
570 Distribution, including key timing and reliability metrics. We also
571 discuss security issues and industry trends which affect the
572 architecture of next generation utility networks
574 3.1.1. Transmission Use Cases
576 3.1.1.1. Protection
578 Protection means not only the protection of human operators but also
579 the protection of the electrical equipment and the preservation of
580 the stability and frequency of the grid. If a fault occurs in the
581 transmission or distribution of electricity then severe damage can
582 occur to human operators, electrical equipment and the grid itself,
583 leading to blackouts.
585 Communication links in conjunction with protection relays are used to
586 selectively isolate faults on high voltage lines, transformers,
587 reactors and other important electrical equipment. The role of the
588 teleprotection system is to selectively disconnect a faulty part by
589 transferring command signals within the shortest possible time.
591 3.1.1.1.1. Key Criteria
593 The key criteria for measuring teleprotection performance are command
594 transmission time, dependability and security. These criteria are
595 defined by the IEC standard 60834 as follows:
597 o Transmission time (Speed): The time between the moment where state
598 changes at the transmitter input and the moment of the
599 corresponding change at the receiver output, including propagation
600 delay. Overall operating time for a teleprotection system
601 includes the time for initiating the command at the transmitting
602 end, the propagation delay over the network (including equipments)
603 and the selection and decision time at the receiving end,
604 including any additional delay due to a noisy environment.
606 o Dependability: The ability to issue and receive valid commands in
607 the presence of interference and/or noise, by minimizing the
608 probability of missing command (PMC). Dependability targets are
609 typically set for a specific bit error rate (BER) level.
611 o Security: The ability to prevent false tripping due to a noisy
612 environment, by minimizing the probability of unwanted commands
613 (PUC). Security targets are also set for a specific bit error
614 rate (BER) level.
616 Additional elements of the the teleprotection system that impact its
617 performance include:
619 o Network bandwidth
621 o Failure recovery capacity (aka resiliency)
623 3.1.1.1.2. Fault Detection and Clearance Timing
625 Most power line equipment can tolerate short circuits or faults for
626 up to approximately five power cycles before sustaining irreversible
627 damage or affecting other segments in the network. This translates
628 to total fault clearance time of 100ms. As a safety precaution,
629 however, actual operation time of protection systems is limited to
630 70- 80 percent of this period, including fault recognition time,
631 command transmission time and line breaker switching time.
633 Some system components, such as large electromechanical switches,
634 require particularly long time to operate and take up the majority of
635 the total clearance time, leaving only a 10ms window for the
636 telecommunications part of the protection scheme, independent of the
637 distance to travel. Given the sensitivity of the issue, new networks
638 impose requirements that are even more stringent: IEC standard 61850
639 limits the transfer time for protection messages to 1/4 - 1/2 cycle
640 or 4 - 8ms (for 60Hz lines) for the most critical messages.
642 3.1.1.1.3. Symmetric Channel Delay
644 Teleprotection channels which are differential must be synchronous,
645 which means that any delays on the transmit and receive paths must
646 match each other. Teleprotection systems ideally support zero
647 asymmetric delay; typical legacy relays can tolerate delay
648 discrepancies of up to 750us.
650 Some tools available for lowering delay variation below this
651 threshold are:
653 o For legacy systems using Time Division Multiplexing (TDM), jitter
654 buffers at the multiplexers on each end of the line can be used to
655 offset delay variation by queuing sent and received packets. The
656 length of the queues must balance the need to regulate the rate of
657 transmission with the need to limit overall delay, as larger
658 buffers result in increased latency.
660 o For jitter-prone IP packet networks, traffic management tools can
661 ensure that the teleprotection signals receive the highest
662 transmission priority to minimize jitter.
664 o Standard packet-based synchronization technologies, such as
665 1588-2008 Precision Time Protocol (PTP) and Synchronous Ethernet
666 (Sync-E), can help keep networks stable by maintaining a highly
667 accurate clock source on the various network devices.
669 3.1.1.1.4. Teleprotection Network Requirements (IEC 61850)
671 The following table captures the main network metrics as based on the
672 IEC 61850 standard.
674 +-----------------------------+-------------------------------------+
675 | Teleprotection Requirement | Attribute |
676 +-----------------------------+-------------------------------------+
677 | One way maximum delay | 4-10 ms |
678 | Asymetric delay required | Yes |
679 | Maximum jitter | less than 250 us (750 us for legacy |
680 | | IED) |
681 | Topology | Point to point, point to Multi- |
682 | | point |
683 | Availability | 99.9999 |
684 | precise timing required | Yes |
685 | Recovery time on node | less than 50ms - hitless |
686 | failure | |
687 | performance management | Yes, Mandatory |
688 | Redundancy | Yes |
689 | Packet loss | 0.1% to 1% |
690 +-----------------------------+-------------------------------------+
692 Table 1: Teleprotection network requirements
694 3.1.1.1.5. Inter-Trip Protection scheme
696 "Inter-tripping" is the signal-controlled tripping of a circuit
697 breaker to complete the isolation of a circuit or piece of apparatus
698 in concert with the tripping of other circuit breakers.
700 +--------------------------------+----------------------------------+
701 | Inter-Trip protection | Attribute |
702 | Requirement | |
703 +--------------------------------+----------------------------------+
704 | One way maximum delay | 5 ms |
705 | Asymetric delay required | No |
706 | Maximum jitter | Not critical |
707 | Topology | Point to point, point to Multi- |
708 | | point |
709 | Bandwidth | 64 Kbps |
710 | Availability | 99.9999 |
711 | precise timing required | Yes |
712 | Recovery time on node failure | less than 50ms - hitless |
713 | performance management | Yes, Mandatory |
714 | Redundancy | Yes |
715 | Packet loss | 0.1% |
716 +--------------------------------+----------------------------------+
718 Table 2: Inter-Trip protection network requirements
720 3.1.1.1.6. Current Differential Protection Scheme
722 Current differential protection is commonly used for line protection,
723 and is typical for protecting parallel circuits. At both end of the
724 lines the current is measured by the differential relays, and both
725 relays will trip the circuit breaker if the current going into the
726 line does not equal the current going out of the line. This type of
727 protection scheme assumes some form of communications being present
728 between the relays at both end of the line, to allow both relays to
729 compare measured current values. Line differential protection
730 schemes assume a very low telecommunications delay between both
731 relays, often as low as 5ms. Moreover, as those systems are often
732 not time-synchronized, they also assume symmetric telecommunications
733 paths with constant delay, which allows comparing current measurement
734 values taken at the exact same time.
736 +----------------------------------+--------------------------------+
737 | Current Differential protection | Attribute |
738 | Requirement | |
739 +----------------------------------+--------------------------------+
740 | One way maximum delay | 5 ms |
741 | Asymetric delay Required | Yes |
742 | Maximum jitter | less than 250 us (750us for |
743 | | legacy IED) |
744 | Topology | Point to point, point to |
745 | | Multi-point |
746 | Bandwidth | 64 Kbps |
747 | Availability | 99.9999 |
748 | precise timing required | Yes |
749 | Recovery time on node failure | less than 50ms - hitless |
750 | performance management | Yes, Mandatory |
751 | Redundancy | Yes |
752 | Packet loss | 0.1% |
753 +----------------------------------+--------------------------------+
755 Table 3: Current Differential Protection metrics
757 3.1.1.1.7. Distance Protection Scheme
759 Distance (Impedance Relay) protection scheme is based on voltage and
760 current measurements. The network metrics are similar (but not
761 identical to) Current Differential protection.
763 +-------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
764 | Distance protection | Attribute |
765 | Requirement | |
766 +-------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
767 | One way maximum delay | 5 ms |
768 | Asymetric delay Required | No |
769 | Maximum jitter | Not critical |
770 | Topology | Point to point, point to Multi- |
771 | | point |
772 | Bandwidth | 64 Kbps |
773 | Availability | 99.9999 |
774 | precise timing required | Yes |
775 | Recovery time on node failure | less than 50ms - hitless |
776 | performance management | Yes, Mandatory |
777 | Redundancy | Yes |
778 | Packet loss | 0.1% |
779 +-------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
781 Table 4: Distance Protection requirements
783 3.1.1.1.8. Inter-Substation Protection Signaling
785 This use case describes the exchange of Sampled Value and/or GOOSE
786 (Generic Object Oriented Substation Events) message between
787 Intelligent Electronic Devices (IED) in two substations for
788 protection and tripping coordination. The two IEDs are in a master-
789 slave mode.
791 The Current Transformer or Voltage Transformer (CT/VT) in one
792 substation sends the sampled analog voltage or current value to the
793 Merging Unit (MU) over hard wire. The MU sends the time-synchronized
794 61850-9-2 sampled values to the slave IED. The slave IED forwards
795 the information to the Master IED in the other substation. The
796 master IED makes the determination (for example based on sampled
797 value differentials) to send a trip command to the originating IED.
798 Once the slave IED/Relay receives the GOOSE trip for breaker
799 tripping, it opens the breaker. It then sends a confirmation message
800 back to the master. All data exchanges between IEDs are either
801 through Sampled Value and/or GOOSE messages.
803 +----------------------------------+--------------------------------+
804 | Inter-Substation protection | Attribute |
805 | Requirement | |
806 +----------------------------------+--------------------------------+
807 | One way maximum delay | 5 ms |
808 | Asymetric delay Required | No |
809 | Maximum jitter | Not critical |
810 | Topology | Point to point, point to |
811 | | Multi-point |
812 | Bandwidth | 64 Kbps |
813 | Availability | 99.9999 |
814 | precise timing required | Yes |
815 | Recovery time on node failure | less than 50ms - hitless |
816 | performance management | Yes, Mandatory |
817 | Redundancy | Yes |
818 | Packet loss | 1% |
819 +----------------------------------+--------------------------------+
821 Table 5: Inter-Substation Protection requirements
823 3.1.1.2. Intra-Substation Process Bus Communications
825 This use case describes the data flow from the CT/VT to the IEDs in
826 the substation via the MU. The CT/VT in the substation send the
827 sampled value (analog voltage or current) to the MU over hard wire.
828 The MU sends the time-synchronized 61850-9-2 sampled values to the
829 IEDs in the substation in GOOSE message format. The GPS Master Clock
830 can send 1PPS or IRIG-B format to the MU through a serial port or
831 IEEE 1588 protocol via a network. Process bus communication using
832 61850 simplifies connectivity within the substation and removes the
833 requirement for multiple serial connections and removes the slow
834 serial bus architectures that are typically used. This also ensures
835 increased flexibility and increased speed with the use of multicast
836 messaging between multiple devices.
838 +----------------------------------+--------------------------------+
839 | Intra-Substation protection | Attribute |
840 | Requirement | |
841 +----------------------------------+--------------------------------+
842 | One way maximum delay | 5 ms |
843 | Asymetric delay Required | No |
844 | Maximum jitter | Not critical |
845 | Topology | Point to point, point to |
846 | | Multi-point |
847 | Bandwidth | 64 Kbps |
848 | Availability | 99.9999 |
849 | precise timing required | Yes |
850 | Recovery time on Node failure | less than 50ms - hitless |
851 | performance management | Yes, Mandatory |
852 | Redundancy | Yes - No |
853 | Packet loss | 0.1% |
854 +----------------------------------+--------------------------------+
856 Table 6: Intra-Substation Protection requirements
858 3.1.1.3. Wide Area Monitoring and Control Systems
860 The application of synchrophasor measurement data from Phasor
861 Measurement Units (PMU) to Wide Area Monitoring and Control Systems
862 promises to provide important new capabilities for improving system
863 stability. Access to PMU data enables more timely situational
864 awareness over larger portions of the grid than what has been
865 possible historically with normal SCADA (Supervisory Control and Data
866 Acquisition) data. Handling the volume and real-time nature of
867 synchrophasor data presents unique challenges for existing
868 application architectures. Wide Area management System (WAMS) makes
869 it possible for the condition of the bulk power system to be observed
870 and understood in real-time so that protective, preventative, or
871 corrective action can be taken. Because of the very high sampling
872 rate of measurements and the strict requirement for time
873 synchronization of the samples, WAMS has stringent telecommunications
874 requirements in an IP network that are captured in the following
875 table:
877 +----------------------+--------------------------------------------+
878 | WAMS Requirement | Attribute |
879 +----------------------+--------------------------------------------+
880 | One way maximum | 50 ms |
881 | delay | |
882 | Asymetric delay | No |
883 | Required | |
884 | Maximum jitter | Not critical |
885 | Topology | Point to point, point to Multi-point, |
886 | | Multi-point to Multi-point |
887 | Bandwidth | 100 Kbps |
888 | Availability | 99.9999 |
889 | precise timing | Yes |
890 | required | |
891 | Recovery time on | less than 50ms - hitless |
892 | Node failure | |
893 | performance | Yes, Mandatory |
894 | management | |
895 | Redundancy | Yes |
896 | Packet loss | 1% |
897 +----------------------+--------------------------------------------+
899 Table 7: WAMS Special Communication Requirements
901 3.1.1.4. IEC 61850 WAN engineering guidelines requirement
902 classification
904 The IEC (International Electrotechnical Commission) has recently
905 published a Technical Report which offers guidelines on how to define
906 and deploy Wide Area Networks for the interconnections of electric
907 substations, generation plants and SCADA operation centers. The IEC
908 61850-90-12 is providing a classification of WAN communication
909 requirements into 4 classes. Table 8 summarizes these requirements:
911 +----------------+------------+------------+------------+-----------+
912 | WAN | Class WA | Class WB | Class WC | Class WD |
913 | Requirement | | | | |
914 +----------------+------------+------------+------------+-----------+
915 | Application | EHV (Extra | HV (High | MV (Medium | General |
916 | field | High | Voltage) | Voltage) | purpose |
917 | | Voltage) | | | |
918 | Latency | 5 ms | 10 ms | 100 ms | > 100 ms |
919 | Jitter | 10 us | 100 us | 1 ms | 10 ms |
920 | Latency | 100 us | 1 ms | 10 ms | 100 ms |
921 | Asymetry | | | | |
922 | Time Accuracy | 1 us | 10 us | 100 us | 10 to 100 |
923 | | | | | ms |
924 | Bit Error rate | 10-7 to | 10-5 to | 10-3 | |
925 | | 10-6 | 10-4 | | |
926 | Unavailability | 10-7 to | 10-5 to | 10-3 | |
927 | | 10-6 | 10-4 | | |
928 | Recovery delay | Zero | 50 ms | 5 s | 50 s |
929 | Cyber security | extremely | High | Medium | Medium |
930 | | high | | | |
931 +----------------+------------+------------+------------+-----------+
933 Table 8: 61850-90-12 Communication Requirements; Courtesy of IEC
935 3.1.2. Generation Use Case
937 The electrical power generation frequency should be maintained within
938 a very narrow band. Deviations from the acceptable frequency range
939 are detected and the required signals are sent to the power plants
940 for frequency regulation.
942 Automatic generation control (AGC) is a system for adjusting the
943 power output of generators at different power plants, in response to
944 changes in the load.
946 +---------------------------------------------------+---------------+
947 | FCAG (Frequency Control Automatic Generation) | Attribute |
948 | Requirement | |
949 +---------------------------------------------------+---------------+
950 | One way maximum delay | 500 ms |
951 | Asymetric delay Required | No |
952 | Maximum jitter | Not critical |
953 | Topology | Point to |
954 | | point |
955 | Bandwidth | 20 Kbps |
956 | Availability | 99.999 |
957 | precise timing required | Yes |
958 | Recovery time on Node failure | N/A |
959 | performance management | Yes, |
960 | | Mandatory |
961 | Redundancy | Yes |
962 | Packet loss | 1% |
963 +---------------------------------------------------+---------------+
965 Table 9: FCAG Communication Requirements
967 3.1.3. Distribution use case
969 3.1.3.1. Fault Location Isolation and Service Restoration (FLISR)
971 Fault Location, Isolation, and Service Restoration (FLISR) refers to
972 the ability to automatically locate the fault, isolate the fault, and
973 restore service in the distribution network. This will likely be the
974 first widespread application of distributed intelligence in the grid.
976 Static power switch status (open/closed) in the network dictates the
977 power flow to secondary substations. Reconfiguring the network in
978 the event of a fault is typically done manually on site to energize/
979 de-energize alternate paths. Automating the operation of substation
980 switchgear allows the flow of power to be altered automatically under
981 fault conditions.
983 FLISR can be managed centrally from a Distribution Management System
984 (DMS) or executed locally through distributed control via intelligent
985 switches and fault sensors.
987 +----------------------+--------------------------------------------+
988 | FLISR Requirement | Attribute |
989 +----------------------+--------------------------------------------+
990 | One way maximum | 80 ms |
991 | delay | |
992 | Asymetric delay | No |
993 | Required | |
994 | Maximum jitter | 40 ms |
995 | Topology | Point to point, point to Multi-point, |
996 | | Multi-point to Multi-point |
997 | Bandwidth | 64 Kbps |
998 | Availability | 99.9999 |
999 | precise timing | Yes |
1000 | required | |
1001 | Recovery time on | Depends on customer impact |
1002 | Node failure | |
1003 | performance | Yes, Mandatory |
1004 | management | |
1005 | Redundancy | Yes |
1006 | Packet loss | 0.1% |
1007 +----------------------+--------------------------------------------+
1009 Table 10: FLISR Communication Requirements
1011 3.2. Electrical Utilities Today
1013 Many utilities still rely on complex environments formed of multiple
1014 application-specific proprietary networks, including TDM networks.
1016 In this kind of environment there is no mixing of OT and IT
1017 applications on the same network, and information is siloed between
1018 operational areas.
1020 Specific calibration of the full chain is required, which is costly.
1022 This kind of environment prevents utility operations from realizing
1023 the operational efficiency benefits, visibility, and functional
1024 integration of operational information across grid applications and
1025 data networks.
1027 In addition, there are many security-related issues as discussed in
1028 the following section.
1030 3.2.1. Security Current Practices and Limitations
1032 Grid monitoring and control devices are already targets for cyber
1033 attacks, and legacy telecommunications protocols have many intrinsic
1034 network-related vulnerabilities. For example, DNP3, Modbus,
1035 PROFIBUS/PROFINET, and other protocols are designed around a common
1036 paradigm of request and respond. Each protocol is designed for a
1037 master device such as an HMI (Human Machine Interface) system to send
1038 commands to subordinate slave devices to retrieve data (reading
1039 inputs) or control (writing to outputs). Because many of these
1040 protocols lack authentication, encryption, or other basic security
1041 measures, they are prone to network-based attacks, allowing a
1042 malicious actor or attacker to utilize the request-and-respond system
1043 as a mechanism for command-and-control like functionality. Specific
1044 security concerns common to most industrial control, including
1045 utility telecommunication protocols include the following:
1047 o Network or transport errors (e.g. malformed packets or excessive
1048 latency) can cause protocol failure.
1050 o Protocol commands may be available that are capable of forcing
1051 slave devices into inoperable states, including powering-off
1052 devices, forcing them into a listen-only state, disabling
1053 alarming.
1055 o Protocol commands may be available that are capable of restarting
1056 communications and otherwise interrupting processes.
1058 o Protocol commands may be available that are capable of clearing,
1059 erasing, or resetting diagnostic information such as counters and
1060 diagnostic registers.
1062 o Protocol commands may be available that are capable of requesting
1063 sensitive information about the controllers, their configurations,
1064 or other need-to-know information.
1066 o Most protocols are application layer protocols transported over
1067 TCP; therefore it is easy to transport commands over non-standard
1068 ports or inject commands into authorized traffic flows.
1070 o Protocol commands may be available that are capable of
1071 broadcasting messages to many devices at once (i.e. a potential
1072 DoS).
1074 o Protocol commands may be available to query the device network to
1075 obtain defined points and their values (i.e. a configuration
1076 scan).
1078 o Protocol commands may be available that will list all available
1079 function codes (i.e. a function scan).
1081 These inherent vulnerabilities, along with increasing connectivity
1082 between IT an OT networks, make network-based attacks very feasible.
1084 Simple injection of malicious protocol commands provides control over
1085 the target process. Altering legitimate protocol traffic can also
1086 alter information about a process and disrupt the legitimate controls
1087 that are in place over that process. A man-in-the-middle attack
1088 could provide both control over a process and misrepresentation of
1089 data back to operator consoles.
1091 3.3. Electrical Utilities Future
1093 The business and technology trends that are sweeping the utility
1094 industry will drastically transform the utility business from the way
1095 it has been for many decades. At the core of many of these changes
1096 is a drive to modernize the electrical grid with an integrated
1097 telecommunications infrastructure. However, interoperability
1098 concerns, legacy networks, disparate tools, and stringent security
1099 requirements all add complexity to the grid transformation. Given
1100 the range and diversity of the requirements that should be addressed
1101 by the next generation telecommunications infrastructure, utilities
1102 need to adopt a holistic architectural approach to integrate the
1103 electrical grid with digital telecommunications across the entire
1104 power delivery chain.
1106 The key to modernizing grid telecommunications is to provide a
1107 common, adaptable, multi-service network infrastructure for the
1108 entire utility organization. Such a network serves as the platform
1109 for current capabilities while enabling future expansion of the
1110 network to accommodate new applications and services.
1112 To meet this diverse set of requirements, both today and in the
1113 future, the next generation utility telecommunnications network will
1114 be based on open-standards-based IP architecture. An end-to-end IP
1115 architecture takes advantage of nearly three decades of IP technology
1116 development, facilitating interoperability across disparate networks
1117 and devices, as it has been already demonstrated in many mission-
1118 critical and highly secure networks.
1120 IPv6 is seen as a future telecommunications technology for the Smart
1121 Grid; the IEC (International Electrotechnical Commission) and
1122 different National Committees have mandated a specific adhoc group
1123 (AHG8) to define the migration strategy to IPv6 for all the IEC TC57
1124 power automation standards.
1126 3.3.1. Migration to Packet-Switched Network
1128 Throughout the world, utilities are increasingly planning for a
1129 future based on smart grid applications requiring advanced
1130 telecommunications systems. Many of these applications utilize
1131 packet connectivity for communicating information and control signals
1132 across the utility's Wide Area Network (WAN), made possible by
1133 technologies such as multiprotocol label switching (MPLS). The data
1134 that traverses the utility WAN includes:
1136 o Grid monitoring, control, and protection data
1138 o Non-control grid data (e.g. asset data for condition-based
1139 monitoring)
1141 o Physical safety and security data (e.g. voice and video)
1143 o Remote worker access to corporate applications (voice, maps,
1144 schematics, etc.)
1146 o Field area network backhaul for smart metering, and distribution
1147 grid management
1149 o Enterprise traffic (email, collaboration tools, business
1150 applications)
1152 WANs support this wide variety of traffic to and from substations,
1153 the transmission and distribution grid, generation sites, between
1154 control centers, and between work locations and data centers. To
1155 maintain this rapidly expanding set of applications, many utilities
1156 are taking steps to evolve present time-division multiplexing (TDM)
1157 based and frame relay infrastructures to packet systems. Packet-
1158 based networks are designed to provide greater functionalities and
1159 higher levels of service for applications, while continuing to
1160 deliver reliability and deterministic (real-time) traffic support.
1162 3.3.2. Telecommunications Trends
1164 These general telecommunications topics are in addition to the use
1165 cases that have been addressed so far. These include both current
1166 and future telecommunications related topics that should be factored
1167 into the network architecture and design.
1169 3.3.2.1. General Telecommunications Requirements
1171 o IP Connectivity everywhere
1173 o Monitoring services everywhere and from different remote centers
1175 o Move services to a virtual data center
1177 o Unify access to applications / information from the corporate
1178 network
1180 o Unify services
1182 o Unified Communications Solutions
1184 o Mix of fiber and microwave technologies - obsolescence of SONET/
1185 SDH or TDM
1187 o Standardize grid telecommunications protocol to opened standard to
1188 ensure interoperability
1190 o Reliable Telecommunications for Transmission and Distribution
1191 Substations
1193 o IEEE 1588 time synchronization Client / Server Capabilities
1195 o Integration of Multicast Design
1197 o QoS Requirements Mapping
1199 o Enable Future Network Expansion
1201 o Substation Network Resilience
1203 o Fast Convergence Design
1205 o Scalable Headend Design
1207 o Define Service Level Agreements (SLA) and Enable SLA Monitoring
1209 o Integration of 3G/4G Technologies and future technologies
1211 o Ethernet Connectivity for Station Bus Architecture
1213 o Ethernet Connectivity for Process Bus Architecture
1215 o Protection, teleprotection and PMU (Phaser Measurement Unit) on IP
1217 3.3.2.2. Specific Network topologies of Smart Grid Applications
1219 Utilities often have very large private telecommunications networks.
1220 It covers an entire territory / country. The main purpose of the
1221 network, until now, has been to support transmission network
1222 monitoring, control, and automation, remote control of generation
1223 sites, and providing FCAPS (Fault, Configuration, Accounting,
1224 Performance, Security) services from centralized network operation
1225 centers.
1227 Going forward, one network will support operation and maintenance of
1228 electrical networks (generation, transmission, and distribution),
1229 voice and data services for ten of thousands of employees and for
1230 exchange with neighboring interconnections, and administrative
1231 services. To meet those requirements, utility may deploy several
1232 physical networks leveraging different technologies across the
1233 country: an optical network and a microwave network for instance.
1234 Each protection and automatism system between two points has two
1235 telecommunications circuits, one on each network. Path diversity
1236 between two substations is key. Regardless of the event type
1237 (hurricane, ice storm, etc.), one path shall stay available so the
1238 system can still operate.
1240 In the optical network, signals are transmitted over more than tens
1241 of thousands of circuits using fiber optic links, microwave and
1242 telephone cables. This network is the nervous system of the
1243 utility's power transmission operations. The optical network
1244 represents ten of thousands of km of cable deployed along the power
1245 lines, with individual runs as long as 280 km.
1247 3.3.2.3. Precision Time Protocol
1249 Some utilities do not use GPS clocks in generation substations. One
1250 of the main reasons is that some of the generation plants are 30 to
1251 50 meters deep under ground and the GPS signal can be weak and
1252 unreliable. Instead, atomic clocks are used. Clocks are
1253 synchronized amongst each other. Rubidium clocks provide clock and
1254 1ms timestamps for IRIG-B.
1256 Some companies plan to transition to the Precision Time Protocol
1257 (PTP, [IEEE1588]), distributing the synchronization signal over the
1258 IP/MPLS network. PTP provides a mechanism for synchronizing the
1259 clocks of participating nodes to a high degree of accuracy and
1260 precision.
1262 PTP operates based on the following assumptions:
1264 It is assumed that the network eliminates cyclic forwarding of PTP
1265 messages within each communication path (e.g. by using a spanning
1266 tree protocol).
1268 PTP is tolerant of an occasional missed message, duplicated
1269 message, or message that arrived out of order. However, PTP
1270 assumes that such impairments are relatively rare.
1272 PTP was designed assuming a multicast communication model, however
1273 PTP also supports a unicast communication model as long as the
1274 behavior of the protocol is preserved.
1276 Like all message-based time transfer protocols, PTP time accuracy
1277 is degraded by delay asymmetry in the paths taken by event
1278 messages. Asymmetry is not detectable by PTP, however, if such
1279 delays are known a priori, PTP can correct for asymmetry.
1281 IEC 61850 will recommend the use of the IEEE PTP 1588 Utility Profile
1282 (as defined in [IEC62439-3:2012] Annex B) which offers the support of
1283 redundant attachment of clocks to Parallel Redundancy Protcol (PRP)
1284 and High-availability Seamless Redundancy (HSR) networks.
1286 3.3.3. Security Trends in Utility Networks
1288 Although advanced telecommunications networks can assist in
1289 transforming the energy industry by playing a critical role in
1290 maintaining high levels of reliability, performance, and
1291 manageability, they also introduce the need for an integrated
1292 security infrastructure. Many of the technologies being deployed to
1293 support smart grid projects such as smart meters and sensors can
1294 increase the vulnerability of the grid to attack. Top security
1295 concerns for utilities migrating to an intelligent smart grid
1296 telecommunications platform center on the following trends:
1298 o Integration of distributed energy resources
1300 o Proliferation of digital devices to enable management, automation,
1301 protection, and control
1303 o Regulatory mandates to comply with standards for critical
1304 infrastructure protection
1306 o Migration to new systems for outage management, distribution
1307 automation, condition-based maintenance, load forecasting, and
1308 smart metering
1310 o Demand for new levels of customer service and energy management
1312 This development of a diverse set of networks to support the
1313 integration of microgrids, open-access energy competition, and the
1314 use of network-controlled devices is driving the need for a converged
1315 security infrastructure for all participants in the smart grid,
1316 including utilities, energy service providers, large commercial and
1317 industrial, as well as residential customers. Securing the assets of
1318 electric power delivery systems (from the control center to the
1319 substation, to the feeders and down to customer meters) requires an
1320 end-to-end security infrastructure that protects the myriad of
1321 telecommunications assets used to operate, monitor, and control power
1322 flow and measurement.
1324 "Cyber security" refers to all the security issues in automation and
1325 telecommunications that affect any functions related to the operation
1326 of the electric power systems. Specifically, it involves the
1327 concepts of:
1329 o Integrity : data cannot be altered undetectably
1331 o Authenticity : the telecommunications parties involved must be
1332 validated as genuine
1334 o Authorization : only requests and commands from the authorized
1335 users can be accepted by the system
1337 o Confidentiality : data must not be accessible to any
1338 unauthenticated users
1340 When designing and deploying new smart grid devices and
1341 telecommunications systems, it is imperative to understand the
1342 various impacts of these new components under a variety of attack
1343 situations on the power grid. Consequences of a cyber attack on the
1344 grid telecommunications network can be catastrophic. This is why
1345 security for smart grid is not just an ad hoc feature or product,
1346 it's a complete framework integrating both physical and Cyber
1347 security requirements and covering the entire smart grid networks
1348 from generation to distribution. Security has therefore become one
1349 of the main foundations of the utility telecom network architecture
1350 and must be considered at every layer with a defense-in-depth
1351 approach. Migrating to IP based protocols is key to address these
1352 challenges for two reasons:
1354 o IP enables a rich set of features and capabilities to enhance the
1355 security posture
1357 o IP is based on open standards, which allows interoperability
1358 between different vendors and products, driving down the costs
1359 associated with implementing security solutions in OT networks.
1361 Securing OT (Operation technology) telecommunications over packet-
1362 switched IP networks follow the same principles that are foundational
1363 for securing the IT infrastructure, i.e., consideration must be given
1364 to enforcing electronic access control for both person-to-machine and
1365 machine-to-machine communications, and providing the appropriate
1366 levels of data privacy, device and platform integrity, and threat
1367 detection and mitigation.
1369 3.4. Electrical Utilities Asks
1371 o Mixed L2 and L3 topologies
1373 o Deterministic behavior
1375 o Bounded latency and jitter
1377 o High availability, low recovery time
1379 o Redundancy, low packet loss
1381 o Precise timing
1383 o Centralized computing of deterministic paths
1385 o Distributed configuration may also be useful
1387 4. Building Automation Systems
1389 4.1. Use Case Description
1391 A Building Automation System (BAS) manages equipment and sensors in a
1392 building for improving residents' comfort, reducing energy
1393 consumption, and responding to failures and emergencies. For
1394 example, the BAS measures the temperature of a room using sensors and
1395 then controls the HVAC (heating, ventilating, and air conditioning)
1396 to maintain a set temperature and minimize energy consumption.
1398 A BAS primarily performs the following functions:
1400 o Periodically measures states of devices, for example humidity and
1401 illuminance of rooms, open/close state of doors, FAN speed, etc.
1403 o Stores the measured data.
1405 o Provides the measured data to BAS systems and operators.
1407 o Generates alarms for abnormal state of devices.
1409 o Controls devices (e.g. turn off room lights at 10:00 PM).
1411 4.2. Building Automation Systems Today
1412 4.2.1. BAS Architecture
1414 A typical BAS architecture of today is shown in Figure 1.
1416 +----------------------------+
1417 | |
1418 | BMS HMI |
1419 | | | |
1420 | +----------------------+ |
1421 | | Management Network | |
1422 | +----------------------+ |
1423 | | | |
1424 | LC LC |
1425 | | | |
1426 | +----------------------+ |
1427 | | Field Network | |
1428 | +----------------------+ |
1429 | | | | | |
1430 | Dev Dev Dev Dev |
1431 | |
1432 +----------------------------+
1434 BMS := Building Management Server
1435 HMI := Human Machine Interface
1436 LC := Local Controller
1438 Figure 1: BAS architecture
1440 There are typically two layers of network in a BAS. The upper one is
1441 called the Management Network and the lower one is called the Field
1442 Network. In management networks an IP-based communication protocol
1443 is used, while in field networks non-IP based communication protocols
1444 ("field protocols") are mainly used. Field networks have specific
1445 timing requirements, whereas management networks can be best-effort.
1447 A Human Machine Interface (HMI) is typically a desktop PC used by
1448 operators to monitor and display device states, send device control
1449 commands to Local Controllers (LCs), and configure building schedules
1450 (for example "turn off all room lights in the building at 10:00 PM").
1452 A Building Management Server (BMS) performs the following operations.
1454 o Collect and store device states from LCs at regular intervals.
1456 o Send control values to LCs according to a building schedule.
1458 o Send an alarm signal to operators if it detects abnormal devices
1459 states.
1461 The BMS and HMI communicate with LCs via IP-based "management
1462 protocols" (see standards [bacnetip], [knx]).
1464 A LC is typically a Programmable Logic Controller (PLC) which is
1465 connected to several tens or hundreds of devices using "field
1466 protocols". An LC performs the following kinds of operations:
1468 o Measure device states and provide the information to BMS or HMI.
1470 o Send control values to devices, unilaterally or as part of a
1471 feedback control loop.
1473 There are many field protocols used today; some are standards-based
1474 and others are proprietary (see standards [lontalk], [modbus],
1475 [profibus] and [flnet]). The result is that BASs have multiple MAC/
1476 PHY modules and interfaces. This makes BASs more expensive, slower
1477 to develop, and can result in "vendor lock-in" with multiple types of
1478 management applications.
1480 4.2.2. BAS Deployment Model
1482 An example BAS for medium or large buildings is shown in Figure 2.
1483 The physical layout spans multiple floors, and there is a monitoring
1484 room where the BAS management entities are located. Each floor will
1485 have one or more LCs depending upon the number of devices connected
1486 to the field network.
1488 +--------------------------------------------------+
1489 | Floor 3 |
1490 | +----LC~~~~+~~~~~+~~~~~+ |
1491 | | | | | |
1492 | | Dev Dev Dev |
1493 | | |
1494 |--- | ------------------------------------------|
1495 | | Floor 2 |
1496 | +----LC~~~~+~~~~~+~~~~~+ Field Network |
1497 | | | | | |
1498 | | Dev Dev Dev |
1499 | | |
1500 |--- | ------------------------------------------|
1501 | | Floor 1 |
1502 | +----LC~~~~+~~~~~+~~~~~+ +-----------------|
1503 | | | | | | Monitoring Room |
1504 | | Dev Dev Dev | |
1505 | | | BMS HMI |
1506 | | Management Network | | | |
1507 | +--------------------------------+-----+ |
1508 | | |
1509 +--------------------------------------------------+
1511 Figure 2: BAS Deployment model for Medium/Large Buildings
1513 Each LC is connected to the monitoring room via the Management
1514 network, and the management functions are performed within the
1515 building. In most cases, fast Ethernet (e.g. 100BASE-T) is used for
1516 the management network. Since the management network is non-
1517 realtime, use of Ethernet without quality of service is sufficient
1518 for today's deployment.
1520 In the field network a variety of physical interfaces such as RS232C
1521 and RS485 are used, which have specific timing requirements. Thus if
1522 a field network is to be replaced with an Ethernet or wireless
1523 network, such networks must support time-critical deterministic
1524 flows.
1526 In Figure 3, another deployment model is presented in which the
1527 management system is hosted remotely. This is becoming popular for
1528 small office and residential buildings in which a standalone
1529 monitoring system is not cost-effective.
1531 +---------------+
1532 | Remote Center |
1533 | |
1534 | BMS HMI |
1535 +------------------------------------+ | | | |
1536 | Floor 2 | | +---+---+ |
1537 | +----LC~~~~+~~~~~+ Field Network| | | |
1538 | | | | | | Router |
1539 | | Dev Dev | +-------|-------+
1540 | | | |
1541 |--- | ------------------------------| |
1542 | | Floor 1 | |
1543 | +----LC~~~~+~~~~~+ | |
1544 | | | | | |
1545 | | Dev Dev | |
1546 | | | |
1547 | | Management Network | WAN |
1548 | +------------------------Router-------------+
1549 | |
1550 +------------------------------------+
1552 Figure 3: Deployment model for Small Buildings
1554 Some interoperability is possible today in the Management Network,
1555 but not in today's field networks due to their non-IP-based design.
1557 4.2.3. Use Cases for Field Networks
1559 Below are use cases for Environmental Monitoring, Fire Detection, and
1560 Feedback Control, and their implications for field network
1561 performance.
1563 4.2.3.1. Environmental Monitoring
1565 The BMS polls each LC at a maximum measurement interval of 100ms (for
1566 example to draw a historical chart of 1 second granularity with a 10x
1567 sampling interval) and then performs the operations as specified by
1568 the operator. Each LC needs to measure each of its several hundred
1569 sensors once per measurement interval. Latency is not critical in
1570 this scenario as long as all sensor values are completed in the
1571 measurement interval. Availability is expected to be 99.999 %.
1573 4.2.3.2. Fire Detection
1575 On detection of a fire, the BMS must stop the HVAC, close the fire
1576 shutters, turn on the fire sprinklers, send an alarm, etc. There are
1577 typically ~10s of sensors per LC that BMS needs to manage. In this
1578 scenario the measurement interval is 10-50ms, the communication delay
1579 is 10ms, and the availability must be 99.9999 %.
1581 4.2.3.3. Feedback Control
1583 BAS systems utilize feedback control in various ways; the most time-
1584 critial is control of DC motors, which require a short feedback
1585 interval (1-5ms) with low communication delay (10ms) and jitter
1586 (1ms). The feedback interval depends on the characteristics of the
1587 device and a target quality of control value. There are typically
1588 ~10s of such devices per LC.
1590 Communication delay is expected to be less than 10 ms, jitter less
1591 than 1 sec while the availability must be 99.9999% .
1593 4.2.4. Security Considerations
1595 When BAS field networks were developed it was assumed that the field
1596 networks would always be physically isolated from external networks
1597 and therefore security was not a concern. In today's world many BASs
1598 are managed remotely and are thus connected to shared IP networks and
1599 so security is definitely a concern, yet security features are not
1600 available in the majority of BAS field network deployments .
1602 The management network, being an IP-based network, has the protocols
1603 available to enable network security, but in practice many BAS
1604 systems do not implement even the available security features such as
1605 device authentication or encryption for data in transit.
1607 4.3. BAS Future
1609 In the future we expect more fine-grained environmental monitoring
1610 and lower energy consumption, which will require more sensors and
1611 devices, thus requiring larger and more complex building networks.
1613 We expect building networks to be connected to or converged with
1614 other networks (Enterprise network, Home network, and Internet).
1616 Therefore better facilities for network management, control,
1617 reliability and security are critical in order to improve resident
1618 and operator convenience and comfort. For example the ability to
1619 monitor and control building devices via the internet would enable
1620 (for example) control of room lights or HVAC from a resident's
1621 desktop PC or phone application.
1623 4.4. BAS Asks
1625 The community would like to see an interoperable protocol
1626 specification that can satisfy the timing, security, availability and
1627 QoS constraints described above, such that the resulting converged
1628 network can replace the disparate field networks. Ideally this
1629 connectivity could extend to the open Internet.
1631 This would imply an architecture that can guarantee
1633 o Low communication delays (from <10ms to 100ms in a network of
1634 several hundred devices)
1636 o Low jitter (< 1 ms)
1638 o Tight feedback intervals (1ms - 10ms)
1640 o High network availability (up to 99.9999% )
1642 o Availability of network data in disaster scenario
1644 o Authentication between management and field devices (both local
1645 and remote)
1647 o Integrity and data origin authentication of communication data
1648 between field and management devices
1650 o Confidentiality of data when communicated to a remote device
1652 5. Wireless for Industrial
1654 5.1. Use Case Description
1656 Wireless networks are useful for industrial applications, for example
1657 when portable, fast-moving or rotating objects are involved, and for
1658 the resource-constrained devices found in the Internet of Things
1659 (IoT).
1661 Such network-connected sensors, actuators, control loops (etc.)
1662 typically require that the underlying network support real-time
1663 quality of service (QoS), as well as specific classes of other
1664 network properties such as reliability, redundancy, and security.
1666 These networks may also contain very large numbers of devices, for
1667 example for factories, "big data" acquisition, and the IoT. Given
1668 the large numbers of devices installed, and the potential
1669 pervasiveness of the IoT, this is a huge and very cost-sensitive
1670 market. For example, a 1% cost reduction in some areas could save
1671 $100B
1673 5.1.1. Network Convergence using 6TiSCH
1675 Some wireless network technologies support real-time QoS, and are
1676 thus useful for these kinds of networks, but others do not. For
1677 example WiFi is pervasive but does not provide guaranteed timing or
1678 delivery of packets, and thus is not useful in this context.
1680 In this use case we focus on one specific wireless network technology
1681 which does provide the required deterministic QoS, which is "IPv6
1682 over the TSCH mode of IEEE 802.15.4e" (6TiSCH, where TSCH stands for
1683 "Time-Slotted Channel Hopping", see [I-D.ietf-6tisch-architecture],
1684 [IEEE802154], [IEEE802154e], and [RFC7554]).
1686 There are other deterministic wireless busses and networks available
1687 today, however they are imcompatible with each other, and
1688 incompatible with IP traffic (for example [ISA100], [WirelessHART]).
1690 Thus the primary goal of this use case is to apply 6TiSH as a
1691 converged IP- and standards-based wireless network for industrial
1692 applications, i.e. to replace multiple proprietary and/or
1693 incompatible wireless networking and wireless network management
1694 standards.
1696 5.1.2. Common Protocol Development for 6TiSCH
1698 Today there are a number of protocols required by 6TiSCH which are
1699 still in development, and a second intent of this use case is to
1700 highlight the ways in which these "missing" protocols share goals in
1701 common with DetNet. Thus it is possible that some of the protocol
1702 technology developed for DetNet will also be applicable to 6TiSCH.
1704 These protocol goals are identified here, along with their
1705 relationship to DetNet. It is likely that ultimately the resulting
1706 protocols will not be identical, but will share design principles
1707 which contribute to the eficiency of enabling both DetNet and 6TiSCH.
1709 One such commonality is that although at a different time scale, in
1710 both TSN [IEEE802.1TSNTG] and TSCH a packet crosses the network from
1711 node to node follows a precise schedule, as a train that leaves
1712 intermediate stations at precise times along its path. This kind of
1713 operation reduces collisions, saves energy, and enables engineering
1714 the network for deterministic properties.
1716 Another commonality is remote monitoring and scheduling management of
1717 a TSCH network by a Path Computation Element (PCE) and Network
1718 Management Entity (NME). The PCE/NME manage timeslots and device
1719 resources in a manner that minimizes the interaction with and the
1720 load placed on resource-constrained devices. For example, a tiny IoT
1721 device may have just enough buffers to store one or a few IPv6
1722 packets, and will have limited bandwidth between peers such that it
1723 can maintain only a small amount of peer information, and will not be
1724 able to store many packets waiting to be forwarded. It is
1725 advantageous then for it to only be required to carry out the
1726 specific behavior assigned to it by the PCE/NME (as opposed to
1727 maintaining its own IP stack, for example).
1729 6TiSCH depends on [PCE] and [I-D.finn-detnet-architecture], and we
1730 expect that DetNet will maintain consistency with [IEEE802.1TSNTG].
1732 5.2. Wireless Industrial Today
1734 Today industrial wireless is accomplished using multiple
1735 deterministic wireless networks which are incompatible with each
1736 other and with IP traffic.
1738 6TiSCH is not yet fully specified, so it cannot be used in today's
1739 applications.
1741 5.3. Wireless Industrial Future
1743 5.3.1. Unified Wireless Network and Management
1745 We expect DetNet and 6TiSCH together to enable converged transport of
1746 deterministic and best-effort traffic flows between real-time
1747 industrial devices and wide area networks via IP routing. A high
1748 level view of a basic such network is shown in Figure 4.
1750 ---+-------- ............ ------------
1751 | External Network |
1752 | +-----+
1753 +-----+ | NME |
1754 | | LLN Border | |
1755 | | router +-----+
1756 +-----+
1757 o o o
1758 o o o o
1759 o o LLN o o o
1760 o o o o
1761 o
1763 Figure 4: Basic 6TiSCH Network
1765 Figure 5 shows a backbone router federating multiple synchronized
1766 6TiSCH subnets into a single subnet connected to the external
1767 network.
1769 ---+-------- ............ ------------
1770 | External Network |
1771 | +-----+
1772 | +-----+ | NME |
1773 +-----+ | +-----+ | |
1774 | | Router | | PCE | +-----+
1775 | | +--| |
1776 +-----+ +-----+
1777 | |
1778 | Subnet Backbone |
1779 +--------------------+------------------+
1780 | | |
1781 +-----+ +-----+ +-----+
1782 | | Backbone | | Backbone | | Backbone
1783 o | | router | | router | | router
1784 +-----+ +-----+ +-----+
1785 o o o o o
1786 o o o o o o o o o o o
1787 o o o LLN o o o o
1788 o o o o o o o o o o o o
1790 Figure 5: Extended 6TiSCH Network
1792 The backbone router must ensure end-to-end deterministic behavior
1793 between the LLN and the backbone. We would like to see this
1794 accomplished in conformance with the work done in
1795 [I-D.finn-detnet-architecture] with respect to Layer-3 aspects of
1796 deterministic networks that span multiple Layer-2 domains.
1798 The PCE must compute a deterministic path end-to-end across the TSCH
1799 network and IEEE802.1 TSN Ethernet backbone, and DetNet protocols are
1800 expected to enable end-to-end deterministic forwarding.
1802 +-----+
1803 | IoT |
1804 | G/W |
1805 +-----+
1806 ^ <---- Elimination
1807 | |
1808 Track branch | |
1809 +-------+ +--------+ Subnet Backbone
1810 | |
1811 +--|--+ +--|--+
1812 | | | Backbone | | | Backbone
1813 o | | | router | | | router
1814 +--/--+ +--|--+
1815 o / o o---o----/ o
1816 o o---o--/ o o o o o
1817 o \ / o o LLN o
1818 o v <---- Replication
1819 o
1821 Figure 6: 6TiSCH Network with PRE
1823 5.3.1.1. PCE and 6TiSCH ARQ Retries
1825 6TiSCH uses the IEEE802.15.4 Automatic Repeat-reQuest (ARQ) mechanism
1826 to provide higher reliability of packet delivery. ARQ is related to
1827 packet replication and elimination because there are two independent
1828 paths for packets to arrive at the destination, and if an expected
1829 packed does not arrive on one path then it checks for the packet on
1830 the second path.
1832 Although to date this mechanism is only used by wireless networks,
1833 this may be a technique that would be appropriate for DetNet and so
1834 aspects of the enabling protocol could be co-developed.
1836 For example, in Figure 6, a Track is laid out from a field device in
1837 a 6TiSCH network to an IoT gateway that is located on a IEEE802.1 TSN
1838 backbone.
1840 The Replication function in the field device sends a copy of each
1841 packet over two different branches, and the PCE schedules each hop of
1842 both branches so that the two copies arrive in due time at the
1843 gateway. In case of a loss on one branch, hopefully the other copy
1844 of the packet still arrives within the allocated time. If two copies
1845 make it to the IoT gateway, the Elimination function in the gateway
1846 ignores the extra packet and presents only one copy to upper layers.
1848 At each 6TiSCH hop along the Track, the PCE may schedule more than
1849 one timeSlot for a packet, so as to support Layer-2 retries (ARQ).
1851 In current deployments, a TSCH Track does not necessarily support PRE
1852 but is systematically multi-path. This means that a Track is
1853 scheduled so as to ensure that each hop has at least two forwarding
1854 solutions, and the forwarding decision is to try the preferred one
1855 and use the other in case of Layer-2 transmission failure as detected
1856 by ARQ.
1858 5.3.2. Schedule Management by a PCE
1860 A common feature of 6TiSCH and DetNet is the action of a PCE to
1861 configure paths through the network. Specifically, what is needed is
1862 a protocol and data model that the PCE will use to get/set the
1863 relevant configuration from/to the devices, as well as perform
1864 operations on the devices. We expect that this protocol will be
1865 developed by DetNet with consideration for its reuse by 6TiSCH. The
1866 remainder of this section provides a bit more context from the 6TiSCH
1867 side.
1869 5.3.2.1. PCE Commands and 6TiSCH CoAP Requests
1871 The 6TiSCH device does not expect to place the request for bandwidth
1872 between itself and another device in the network. Rather, an
1873 operation control system invoked through a human interface specifies
1874 the required traffic specification and the end nodes (in terms of
1875 latency and reliability). Based on this information, the PCE must
1876 compute a path between the end nodes and provision the network with
1877 per-flow state that describes the per-hop operation for a given
1878 packet, the corresponding timeslots, and the flow identification that
1879 enables recognizing that a certain packet belongs to a certain path,
1880 etc.
1882 For a static configuration that serves a certain purpose for a long
1883 period of time, it is expected that a node will be provisioned in one
1884 shot with a full schedule, which incorporates the aggregation of its
1885 behavior for multiple paths. 6TiSCH expects that the programing of
1886 the schedule will be done over COAP as discussed in
1887 [I-D.ietf-6tisch-coap].
1889 6TiSCH expects that the PCE commands will be issued directly as CoAP
1890 requests or be mapped back and forth into CoAP by a gateway function
1891 at the edge of the 6TiSCH network. For instance, it is possible that
1892 a mapping entity on the backbone transforms a non-CoAP protocol such
1893 as PCEP into the RESTful interfaces that the 6TiSCH devices support.
1894 This architecture will be refined to comply with DetNet
1895 [I-D.finn-detnet-architecture] when the work is formalized. Related
1896 information about 6TiSCH can be found at
1897 [I-D.ietf-6tisch-6top-interface] and RPL [RFC6550].
1899 If it appears that a path through the network does not perform as
1900 expected, a protocol may be used to update the state in the devices,
1901 but in 6TiSCH that flow was not designed and no protocol was selected
1902 and it is expected that DetNet will determine the appropriate end-to-
1903 end protocols to be used in that case.
1905 A "slotFrame" is the base object that the PCE needs to manipulate to
1906 program a schedule into an LLN node ([I-D.ietf-6tisch-architecture]).
1908 The PCE should be able to read energy data from devices, and compute
1909 paths that will implement policies on how energy in devices is
1910 consumed, for instance to ensure that the spent energy does not
1911 exceeded the available energy over a period of time.
1913 6TiSCH devices can discover their neighbors over the radio using a
1914 mechanism such as beacons, but even though the neighbor information
1915 is available in the 6TiSCH interface data model, 6TiSCH does not
1916 describe a protocol to proactively push the neighborhood information
1917 to a PCE. DetNet should define this protocol, and it and should
1918 operate over CoAP. The protocol should be able to carry multiple
1919 metrics, in particular the same metrics as used for RPL operations
1920 [RFC6551]
1922 5.3.2.2. 6TiSCH IP Interface
1924 "6top" ([I-D.wang-6tisch-6top-sublayer]) is a logical link control
1925 sitting between the IP layer and the TSCH MAC layer which provides
1926 the link abstraction that is required for IP operations. The 6top
1927 data model and management interfaces are further discussed in
1928 [I-D.ietf-6tisch-6top-interface] and [I-D.ietf-6tisch-coap].
1930 An IP packet that is sent along a 6TiSCH path uses the Differentiated
1931 Services Per-Hop-Behavior Group called Deterministic Forwarding, as
1932 described in [I-D.svshah-tsvwg-deterministic-forwarding].
1934 5.3.3. 6TiSCH Security Considerations
1936 On top of the classical requirements for protection of control
1937 signaling, it must be noted that 6TiSCH networks operate on limited
1938 resources that can be depleted rapidly in a DoS attack on the system,
1939 for instance by placing a rogue device in the network, or by
1940 obtaining management control and setting up unexpected additional
1941 paths.
1943 5.4. Wireless Industrial Asks
1945 6TiSCH depends on DetNet to define:
1947 o Configuration (state) and operations for deterministic paths
1949 o End-to-end protocols for deterministic forwarding (tagging, IP)
1951 o Protocol for packet replication and elimination
1953 o Protocol for packet automatic retries (ARQ) (specific to wireless)
1955 6. Cellular Radio
1957 6.1. Use Case Description
1959 This use case describes the application of deterministic networking
1960 in the context of cellular telecom transport networks. Important
1961 elements include time synchronization, clock distribution, and ways
1962 of establishing time-sensitive streams for both Layer-2 and Layer-3
1963 user plane traffic.
1965 6.1.1. Network Architecture
1967 Figure 7 illustrates a typical 3GPP-defined cellular network
1968 architecture, which includes "Fronthaul" and "Midhaul" network
1969 segments. The "Fronthaul" is the network connecting base stations
1970 (baseband processing units) to the remote radio heads (antennas).
1971 The "Midhaul" is the network inter-connecting base stations (or small
1972 cell sites).
1974 In Figure 7 "eNB" ("E-UTRAN Node B") is the hardware that is
1975 connected to the mobile phone network which communicates directly
1976 with mobile handsets ([TS36300]).
1978 Y (remote radio heads (antennas))
1979 \
1980 Y__ \.--. .--. +------+
1981 \_( `. +---+ _(Back`. | 3GPP |
1982 Y------( Front )----|eNB|----( Haul )----| core |
1983 ( ` .Haul ) +---+ ( ` . ) ) | netw |
1984 /`--(___.-' \ `--(___.-' +------+
1985 Y_/ / \.--. \
1986 Y_/ _( Mid`. \
1987 ( Haul ) \
1988 ( ` . ) ) \
1989 `--(___.-'\_____+---+ (small cell sites)
1990 \ |SCe|__Y
1991 +---+ +---+
1992 Y__|eNB|__Y
1993 +---+
1994 Y_/ \_Y ("local" radios)
1996 Figure 7: Generic 3GPP-based Cellular Network Architecture
1998 6.1.2. Delay Constraints
2000 The available processing time for Fronthaul networking overhead is
2001 limited to the available time after the baseband processing of the
2002 radio frame has completed. For example in Long Term Evolution (LTE)
2003 radio, processing of a radio frame is allocated 3ms but typically the
2004 processing uses most of it, allowing only a small fraction to be used
2005 by the Fronthaul network (e.g. up to 250us one-way delay, though the
2006 existing spec ([NGMN-fronth]) supports delay only up to 100us). This
2007 ultimately determines the distance the remote radio heads can be
2008 located from the base stations (e.g., 100us equals roughly 20 km of
2009 optical fiber-based transport). Allocation options of the available
2010 time budget between processing and transport are under heavy
2011 discussions in the mobile industry.
2013 For packet-based transport the allocated transport time (e.g. CPRI
2014 would allow for 100us delay [CPRI]) is consumed by all nodes and
2015 buffering between the remote radio head and the baseband processing
2016 unit, plus the distance-incurred delay.
2018 The baseband processing time and the available "delay budget" for the
2019 fronthaul is likely to change in the forthcoming "5G" due to reduced
2020 radio round trip times and other architectural and service
2021 requirements [NGMN].
2023 [METIS] documents the fundamental challenges as well as overall
2024 technical goals of the future 5G mobile and wireless system as the
2025 starting point. These future systems should support much higher data
2026 volumes and rates and significantly lower end-to-end latency for 100x
2027 more connected devices (at similar cost and energy consumption levels
2028 as today's system).
2030 For Midhaul connections, delay constraints are driven by Inter-Site
2031 radio functions like Coordinated Multipoint Processing (CoMP, see
2032 [CoMP]). CoMP reception and transmission is a framework in which
2033 multiple geographically distributed antenna nodes cooperate to
2034 improve the performance of the users served in the common cooperation
2035 area. The design principal of CoMP is to extend the current single-
2036 cell to multi-UE (User Equipment) transmission to a multi-cell-to-
2037 multi-UEs transmission by base station cooperation.
2039 CoMP has delay-sensitive performance parameters, which are "midhaul
2040 latency" and "CSI (Channel State Information) reporting and
2041 accuracy". The essential feature of CoMP is signaling between eNBs,
2042 so Midhaul latency is the dominating limitation of CoMP performance.
2043 Generally, CoMP can benefit from coordinated scheduling (either
2044 distributed or centralized) of different cells if the signaling delay
2045 between eNBs is within 1-10ms. This delay requirement is both rigid
2046 and absolute because any uncertainty in delay will degrade the
2047 performance significantly.
2049 Inter-site CoMP is one of the key requirements for 5G and is also a
2050 near-term goal for the current 4.5G network architecture.
2052 6.1.3. Time Synchronization Constraints
2054 Fronthaul time synchronization requirements are given by [TS25104],
2055 [TS36104], [TS36211], and [TS36133]. These can be summarized for the
2056 current 3GPP LTE-based networks as:
2058 Delay Accuracy:
2059 +-8ns (i.e. +-1/32 Tc, where Tc is the UMTS Chip time of 1/3.84
2060 MHz) resulting in a round trip accuracy of +-16ns. The value is
2061 this low to meet the 3GPP Timing Alignment Error (TAE) measurement
2062 requirements.
2064 Timing Alignment Error:
2065 Timing Alignment Error (TAE) is problematic to Fronthaul networks
2066 and must be minimized. If the transport network cannot guarantee
2067 low enough TAE then additional buffering has to be introduced at
2068 the edges of the network to buffer out the jitter. Buffering is
2069 not desirable as it reduces the total available delay budget.
2070 Packet Delay Variation (PDV) requirements can be derived from TAE
2071 for packet based Fronthaul networks.
2073 * For multiple input multiple output (MIMO) or TX diversity
2074 transmissions, at each carrier frequency, TAE shall not exceed
2075 65 ns (i.e. 1/4 Tc).
2077 * For intra-band contiguous carrier aggregation, with or without
2078 MIMO or TX diversity, TAE shall not exceed 130 ns (i.e. 1/2
2079 Tc).
2081 * For intra-band non-contiguous carrier aggregation, with or
2082 without MIMO or TX diversity, TAE shall not exceed 260 ns (i.e.
2083 one Tc).
2085 * For inter-band carrier aggregation, with or without MIMO or TX
2086 diversity, TAE shall not exceed 260 ns.
2088 Transport link contribution to radio frequency error:
2089 +-2 PPB. This value is considered to be "available" for the
2090 Fronthaul link out of the total 50 PPB budget reserved for the
2091 radio interface. Note: the reason that the transport link
2092 contributes to radio frequency error is as follows. The current
2093 way of doing Fronthaul is from the radio unit to remote radio head
2094 directly. The remote radio head is essentially a passive device
2095 (without buffering etc.) The transport drives the antenna
2096 directly by feeding it with samples and everything the transport
2097 adds will be introduced to radio as-is. So if the transport
2098 causes additional frequency error that shows immediately on the
2099 radio as well.
2101 The above listed time synchronization requirements are difficult to
2102 meet with point-to-point connected networks, and more difficult when
2103 the network includes multiple hops. It is expected that networks
2104 must include buffering at the ends of the connections as imposed by
2105 the jitter requirements, since trying to meet the jitter requirements
2106 in every intermediate node is likely to be too costly. However,
2107 every measure to reduce jitter and delay on the path makes it easier
2108 to meet the end-to-end requirements.
2110 In order to meet the timing requirements both senders and receivers
2111 must remain time synchronized, demanding very accurate clock
2112 distribution, for example support for IEEE 1588 transparent clocks in
2113 every intermediate node.
2115 In cellular networks from the LTE radio era onward, phase
2116 synchronization is needed in addition to frequency synchronization
2117 ([TS36300], [TS23401]).
2119 6.1.4. Transport Loss Constraints
2121 Fronthaul and Midhaul networks assume almost error-free transport.
2122 Errors can result in a reset of the radio interfaces, which can cause
2123 reduced throughput or broken radio connectivity for mobile customers.
2125 For packetized Fronthaul and Midhaul connections packet loss may be
2126 caused by BER, congestion, or network failure scenarios. Current
2127 tools for elminating packet loss for Fronthaul and Midhaul networks
2128 have serious challenges, for example retransmitting lost packets and/
2129 or using forward error correction (FEC) to circumvent bit errors is
2130 practically impossible due to the additional delay incurred. Using
2131 redundant streams for better guarantees for delivery is also
2132 practically impossible in many cases due to high bandwidth
2133 requirements of Fronthaul and Midhaul networks. Protection switching
2134 is also a candidate but current technologies for the path switch are
2135 too slow to avoid reset of mobile interfaces.
2137 Fronthaul links are assumed to be symmetric, and all Fronthaul
2138 streams (i.e. those carrying radio data) have equal priority and
2139 cannot delay or pre-empt each other. This implies that the network
2140 must guarantee that each time-sensitive flow meets their schedule.
2142 6.1.5. Security Considerations
2144 Establishing time-sensitive streams in the network entails reserving
2145 networking resources for long periods of time. It is important that
2146 these reservation requests be authenticated to prevent malicious
2147 reservation attempts from hostile nodes (or accidental
2148 misconfiguration). This is particularly important in the case where
2149 the reservation requests span administrative domains. Furthermore,
2150 the reservation information itself should be digitally signed to
2151 reduce the risk of a legitimate node pushing a stale or hostile
2152 configuration into another networking node.
2154 6.2. Cellular Radio Networks Today
2156 6.2.1. Fronthaul
2158 Today's Fronthaul networks typically consist of:
2160 o Dedicated point-to-point fiber connection is common
2162 o Proprietary protocols and framings
2164 o Custom equipment and no real networking
2165 Current solutions for Fronthaul are direct optical cables or
2166 Wavelength-Division Multiplexing (WDM) connections.
2168 6.2.2. Midhaul and Backhaul
2170 Today's Midhaul and Backhaul networks typically consist of:
2172 o Mostly normal IP networks, MPLS-TP, etc.
2174 o Clock distribution and sync using 1588 and SyncE
2176 Telecommunication networks in the Mid- and Backhaul are already
2177 heading towards transport networks where precise time synchronization
2178 support is one of the basic building blocks. While the transport
2179 networks themselves have practically transitioned to all-IP packet-
2180 based networks to meet the bandwidth and cost requirements, highly
2181 accurate clock distribution has become a challenge.
2183 In the past, Mid- and Backhaul connections were typically based on
2184 Time Division Multiplexing (TDM-based) and provided frequency
2185 synchronization capabilities as a part of the transport media.
2186 Alternatively other technologies such as Global Positioning System
2187 (GPS) or Synchronous Ethernet (SyncE) are used [SyncE].
2189 Both Ethernet and IP/MPLS [RFC3031] (and PseudoWires (PWE) [RFC3985]
2190 for legacy transport support) have become popular tools to build and
2191 manage new all-IP Radio Access Networks (RANs)
2192 [I-D.kh-spring-ip-ran-use-case]. Although various timing and
2193 synchronization optimizations have already been proposed and
2194 implemented including 1588 PTP enhancements
2195 [I-D.ietf-tictoc-1588overmpls] and [I-D.ietf-mpls-residence-time],
2196 these solution are not necessarily sufficient for the forthcoming RAN
2197 architectures nor do they guarantee the more stringent time-
2198 synchronization requirements such as [CPRI].
2200 There are also existing solutions for TDM over IP such as [RFC5087]
2201 and [RFC4553], as well as TDM over Ethernet transports such as
2202 [RFC5086].
2204 6.3. Cellular Radio Networks Future
2206 Future Cellular Radio Networks will be based on a mix of different
2207 xHaul networks (xHaul = front-, mid- and backhaul), and future
2208 transport networks should be able to support all of them
2209 simultaneously. It is already envisioned today that:
2211 o Not all "cellular radio network" traffic will be IP, for example
2212 some will remain at Layer 2 (e.g. Ethernet based). DetNet
2213 solutions must address all traffic types (Layer 2, Layer 3) with
2214 the same tools and allow their transport simultaneously.
2216 o All form of xHaul networks will need some form of DetNet
2217 solutions. For example with the advent of 5G some Backhaul
2218 traffic will also have DetNet requirements (e.g. traffic belonging
2219 to time-critical 5G applications).
2221 We would like to see the following in future Cellular Radio networks:
2223 o Unified standards-based transport protocols and standard
2224 networking equipment that can make use of underlying deterministic
2225 link-layer services
2227 o Unified and standards-based network management systems and
2228 protocols in all parts of the network (including Fronthaul)
2230 New radio access network deployment models and architectures may
2231 require time- sensitive networking services with strict requirements
2232 on other parts of the network that previously were not considered to
2233 be packetized at all. Time and synchronization support are already
2234 topical for Backhaul and Midhaul packet networks [MEF] and are
2235 becoming a real issue for Fronthaul networks also. Specifically in
2236 Fronthaul networks the timing and synchronization requirements can be
2237 extreme for packet based technologies, for example, on the order of
2238 sub +-20 ns packet delay variation (PDV) and frequency accuracy of
2239 +0.002 PPM [Fronthaul].
2241 The actual transport protocols and/or solutions to establish required
2242 transport "circuits" (pinned-down paths) for Fronthaul traffic are
2243 still undefined. Those are likely to include (but are not limited
2244 to) solutions directly over Ethernet, over IP, and using MPLS/
2245 PseudoWire transport.
2247 Even the current time-sensitive networking features may not be
2248 sufficient for Fronthaul traffic. Therefore, having specific
2249 profiles that take the requirements of Fronthaul into account is
2250 desirable [IEEE8021CM].
2252 Interesting and important work for time-sensitive networking has been
2253 done for Ethernet [TSNTG], which specifies the use of IEEE 1588 time
2254 precision protocol (PTP) [IEEE1588] in the context of IEEE 802.1D and
2255 IEEE 802.1Q. [IEEE8021AS] specifies a Layer 2 time synchronizing
2256 service, and other specifications such as IEEE 1722 [IEEE1722]
2257 specify Ethernet-based Layer-2 transport for time-sensitive streams.
2259 New promising work seeks to enable the transport of time-sensitive
2260 fronthaul streams in Ethernet bridged networks [IEEE8021CM].
2262 Analogous to IEEE 1722 there is an ongoing standardization effort to
2263 define the Layer-2 transport encapsulation format for transporting
2264 radio over Ethernet (RoE) in the IEEE 1904.3 Task Force [IEEE19043].
2266 All-IP RANs and xHhaul networks would benefit from time
2267 synchronization and time-sensitive transport services. Although
2268 Ethernet appears to be the unifying technology for the transport,
2269 there is still a disconnect providing Layer 3 services. The protocol
2270 stack typically has a number of layers below the Ethernet Layer 2
2271 that shows up to the Layer 3 IP transport. It is not uncommon that
2272 on top of the lowest layer (optical) transport there is the first
2273 layer of Ethernet followed one or more layers of MPLS, PseudoWires
2274 and/or other tunneling protocols finally carrying the Ethernet layer
2275 visible to the user plane IP traffic.
2277 While there are existing technologies to establish circuits through
2278 the routed and switched networks (especially in MPLS/PWE space),
2279 there is still no way to signal the time synchronization and time-
2280 sensitive stream requirements/reservations for Layer-3 flows in a way
2281 that addresses the entire transport stack, including the Ethernet
2282 layers that need to be configured.
2284 Furthermore, not all "user plane" traffic will be IP. Therefore, the
2285 same solution also must address the use cases where the user plane
2286 traffic is a different layer, for example Ethernet frames.
2288 There is existing work describing the problem statement
2289 [I-D.finn-detnet-problem-statement] and the architecture
2290 [I-D.finn-detnet-architecture] for deterministic networking (DetNet)
2291 that targets solutions for time-sensitive (IP/transport) streams with
2292 deterministic properties over Ethernet-based switched networks.
2294 6.4. Cellular Radio Networks Asks
2296 A standard for data plane transport specification which is:
2298 o Unified among all xHauls
2300 o Deployed in a highly deterministic network environment
2302 A standard for data flow information models that are:
2304 o Aware of the time sensitivity and constraints of the target
2305 networking environment
2307 o Aware of underlying deterministic networking services (e.g., on
2308 the Ethernet layer)
2310 7. Industrial M2M
2312 7.1. Use Case Description
2314 Industrial Automation in general refers to automation of
2315 manufacturing, quality control and material processing. In this
2316 "machine to machine" (M2M) use case we consider machine units in a
2317 plant floor which periodically exchange data with upstream or
2318 downstream machine modules and/or a supervisory controller within a
2319 local area network.
2321 The actors of M2M communication are Programmable Logic Controllers
2322 (PLCs). Communication between PLCs and between PLCs and the
2323 supervisory PLC (S-PLC) is achieved via critical control/data streams
2324 Figure 8.
2326 S (Sensor)
2327 \ +-----+
2328 PLC__ \.--. .--. ---| MES |
2329 \_( `. _( `./ +-----+
2330 A------( Local )-------------( L2 )
2331 ( Net ) ( Net ) +-------+
2332 /`--(___.-' `--(___.-' ----| S-PLC |
2333 S_/ / PLC .--. / +-------+
2334 A_/ \_( `.
2335 (Actuator) ( Local )
2336 ( Net )
2337 /`--(___.-'\
2338 / \ A
2339 S A
2341 Figure 8: Current Generic Industrial M2M Network Architecture
2343 This use case focuses on PLC-related communications; communication to
2344 Manufacturing-Execution-Systems (MESs) are not addressed.
2346 This use case covers only critical control/data streams; non-critical
2347 traffic between industrial automation applications (such as
2348 communication of state, configuration, set-up, and database
2349 communication) are adequately served by currently available
2350 prioritizing techniques. Such traffic can use up to 80% of the total
2351 bandwidth required. There is also a subset of non-time-critical
2352 traffic that must be reliable even though it is not time sensitive.
2354 In this use case the primary need for deterministic networking is to
2355 provide end-to-end delivery of M2M messages within specific timing
2356 constraints, for example in closed loop automation control. Today
2357 this level of determinism is provided by proprietary networking
2358 technologies. In addition, standard networking technologies are used
2359 to connect the local network to remote industrial automation sites,
2360 e.g. over an enterprise or metro network which also carries other
2361 types of traffic. Therefore, flows that should be forwarded with
2362 deterministic guarantees need to be sustained regardless of the
2363 amount of other flows in those networks.
2365 7.2. Industrial M2M Communication Today
2367 Today, proprietary networks fulfill the needed timing and
2368 availability for M2M networks.
2370 The network topologies used today by industrial automation are
2371 similar to those used by telecom networks: Daisy Chain, Ring, Hub and
2372 Spoke, and Comb (a subset of Daisy Chain).
2374 PLC-related control/data streams are transmitted periodically and
2375 carry either a pre-configured payload or a payload configured during
2376 runtime.
2378 Some industrial applications require time synchronization at the end
2379 nodes. For such time-coordinated PLCs, accuracy of 1 microsecond is
2380 required. Even in the case of "non-time-coordinated" PLCs time sync
2381 may be needed e.g. for timestamping of sensor data.
2383 Industrial network scenarios require advanced security solutions.
2384 Many of the current industrial production networks are physically
2385 separated. Preventing critical flows from be leaked outside a domain
2386 is handled today by filtering policies that are typically enforced in
2387 firewalls.
2389 7.2.1. Transport Parameters
2391 The Cycle Time defines the frequency of message(s) between industrial
2392 actors. The Cycle Time is application dependent, in the range of 1ms
2393 - 100ms for critical control/data streams.
2395 Because industrial applications assume deterministic transport for
2396 critical Control-Data-Stream parameters (instead of defining latency
2397 and delay variation parameters) it is sufficient to fulfill the upper
2398 bound of latency (maximum latency). The underlying networking
2399 infrastructure must ensure a maximum end-to-end delivery time of
2400 messages in the range of 100 microseconds to 50 milliseconds
2401 depending on the control loop application.
2403 The bandwidth requirements of control/data streams are usually
2404 calculated directly from the bytes-per-cycle parameter of the control
2405 loop. For PLC-to-PLC communication one can expect 2 - 32 streams
2406 with packet size in the range of 100 - 700 bytes. For S-PLC to PLCs
2407 the number of streams is higher - up to 256 streams. Usually no more
2408 than 20% of available bandwidth is used for critical control/data
2409 streams. In today's networks 1Gbps links are commonly used.
2411 Most PLC control loops are rather tolerant of packet loss, however
2412 critical control/data streams accept no more than 1 packet loss per
2413 consecutive communication cycle (i.e. if a packet gets lost in cycle
2414 "n", then the next cycle ("n+1") must be lossless). After two or
2415 more consecutive packet losses the network may be considered to be
2416 "down" by the Application.
2418 As network downtime may impact the whole production system the
2419 required network availability is rather high (99,999%).
2421 Based on the above parameters we expect that some form of redundancy
2422 will be required for M2M communications, however any individual
2423 solution depends on several parameters including cycle time, delivery
2424 time, etc.
2426 7.2.2. Stream Creation and Destruction
2428 In an industrial environment, critical control/data streams are
2429 created rather infrequently, on the order of ~10 times per day / week
2430 / month. Most of these critical control/data streams get created at
2431 machine startup, however flexibility is also needed during runtime,
2432 for example when adding or removing a machine. Going forward as
2433 production systems become more flexible, we expect a significant
2434 increase in the rate at which streams are created, changed and
2435 destroyed.
2437 7.3. Industrial M2M Future
2439 We would like to see a converged IP-standards-based network with
2440 deterministic properties that can satisfy the timing, security and
2441 reliability constraints described above. Today's proprietary
2442 networks could then be interfaced to such a network via gateways or,
2443 in the case of new installations, devices could be connected directly
2444 to the converged network.
2446 7.4. Industrial M2M Asks
2448 o Converged IP-based network
2450 o Deterministic behavior (bounded latency and jitter )
2452 o High availability (presumably through redundancy) (99.999 %)
2453 o Low message delivery time (100us - 50ms)
2455 o Low packet loss (burstless, 0.1-1 %)
2457 o Precise time synchronization accuracy (1us)
2459 o Security (e.g. prevent critical flows from being leaked between
2460 physically separated networks)
2462 8. Internet-based Applications
2464 8.1. Use Case Description
2466 There are many applications that communicate across the open Internet
2467 that could benefit from guaranteed delivery and bounded latency. The
2468 following are some representative examples.
2470 8.1.1. Media Content Delivery
2472 Media content delivery continues to be an important use of the
2473 Internet, yet users often experience poor quality audio and video due
2474 to the delay and jitter inherent in today's Internet.
2476 8.1.2. Online Gaming
2478 Online gaming is a significant part of the gaming market, however
2479 latency can degrade the end user experience. For example "First
2480 Person Shooter" (FPS) games are highly delay-sensitive.
2482 8.1.3. Virtual Reality
2484 Virtual reality (VR) has many commercial applications including real
2485 estate presentations, remote medical procedures, and so on. Low
2486 latency is critical to interacting with the virtual world because
2487 perceptual delays can cause motion sickness.
2489 8.2. Internet-Based Applications Today
2491 Internet service today is by definition "best effort", with no
2492 guarantees on delivery or bandwidth.
2494 8.3. Internet-Based Applications Future
2496 We imagine an Internet from which we will be able to play a video
2497 without glitches and play games without lag.
2499 For online gaming, the maximum round-trip delay can be 100ms and
2500 stricter for FPS gaming which can be 10-50ms. Transport delay is the
2501 dominate part with a 5-20ms budget.
2503 For VR, 1-10ms maximum delay is needed and total network budget is
2504 1-5ms if doing remote VR.
2506 Flow identification can be used for gaming and VR, i.e. it can
2507 recognize a critical flow and provide appropriate latency bounds.
2509 8.4. Internet-Based Applications Asks
2511 o Unified control and management protocols to handle time-critical
2512 data flow
2514 o Application-aware flow filtering mechanism to recognize the timing
2515 critical flow without doing 5-tuple matching
2517 o Unified control plane to provide low latency service on Layer-3
2518 without changing the data plane
2520 o OAM system and protocols which can help to provide E2E-delay
2521 sensitive service provisioning
2523 9. Use Case Common Elements
2525 Looking at the use cases collectively, the following common desires
2526 for the DetNet-based networks of the future emerge:
2528 o Open standards-based network (replace various proprietary
2529 networks, reduce cost, create multi-vendor market)
2531 o Centrally administered (though such administration may be
2532 distributed for scale and resiliency)
2534 o Integrates L2 (bridged) and L3 (routed) environments (independent
2535 of the Link layer, e.g. can be used with Ethernet, 6TiSCH, etc.)
2537 o Carries both deterministic and best-effort traffic (guaranteed
2538 end-to-end delivery of deterministic flows, deterministic flows
2539 isolated from each other and from best-effort traffic congestion,
2540 unused deterministic BW available to best-effort traffic)
2542 o Ability to add or remove systems from the network with minimal,
2543 bounded service interruption (applications include replacement of
2544 failed devices as well as plug and play)
2546 o Uses standardized data flow information models capable of
2547 expressing deterministic properties (models express device
2548 capabilities, flow properties. Protocols for pushing models from
2549 controller to devices, devices to controller)
2551 o Scalable size (long distances (many km) and short distances
2552 (within a single machine), many hops (radio repeaters, microwave
2553 links, fiber links...) and short hops (single machine))
2555 o Scalable timing parameters and accuracy (bounded latency,
2556 guaranteed worst case maximum, minimum. Low latency, e.g. control
2557 loops may be less than 1ms, but larger for wide area networks)
2559 o High availability (99.9999 percent up time requested, but may be
2560 up to twelve 9s)
2562 o Reliability, redundancy (lives at stake)
2564 o Security (from failures, attackers, misbehaving devices -
2565 sensitive to both packet content and arrival time)
2567 10. Acknowledgments
2569 10.1. Pro Audio
2571 This section was derived from draft-gunther-detnet-proaudio-req-01.
2573 The editors would like to acknowledge the help of the following
2574 individuals and the companies they represent:
2576 Jeff Koftinoff, Meyer Sound
2578 Jouni Korhonen, Associate Technical Director, Broadcom
2580 Pascal Thubert, CTAO, Cisco
2582 Kieran Tyrrell, Sienda New Media Technologies GmbH
2584 10.2. Utility Telecom
2586 This section was derived from draft-wetterwald-detnet-utilities-reqs-
2587 02.
2589 Faramarz Maghsoodlou, Ph. D. IoT Connected Industries and Energy
2590 Practice Cisco
2592 Pascal Thubert, CTAO Cisco
2594 10.3. Building Automation Systems
2596 This section was derived from draft-bas-usecase-detnet-00.
2598 10.4. Wireless for Industrial
2600 This section was derived from draft-thubert-6tisch-4detnet-01.
2602 This specification derives from the 6TiSCH architecture, which is the
2603 result of multiple interactions, in particular during the 6TiSCH
2604 (bi)Weekly Interim call, relayed through the 6TiSCH mailing list at
2605 the IETF.
2607 The authors wish to thank: Kris Pister, Thomas Watteyne, Xavier
2608 Vilajosana, Qin Wang, Tom Phinney, Robert Assimiti, Michael
2609 Richardson, Zhuo Chen, Malisa Vucinic, Alfredo Grieco, Martin Turon,
2610 Dominique Barthel, Elvis Vogli, Guillaume Gaillard, Herman Storey,
2611 Maria Rita Palattella, Nicola Accettura, Patrick Wetterwald, Pouria
2612 Zand, Raghuram Sudhaakar, and Shitanshu Shah for their participation
2613 and various contributions.
2615 10.5. Cellular Radio
2617 This section was derived from draft-korhonen-detnet-telreq-00.
2619 10.6. Industrial M2M
2621 The authors would like to thank Feng Chen and Marcel Kiessling for
2622 their comments and suggestions.
2624 10.7. Internet Applications and CoMP
2626 This section was derived from draft-zha-detnet-use-case-00.
2628 This document has benefited from reviews, suggestions, comments and
2629 proposed text provided by the following members, listed in
2630 alphabetical order: Jing Huang, Junru Lin, Lehong Niu and Oilver
2631 Huang.
2633 11. Informative References
2635 [ACE] IETF, "Authentication and Authorization for Constrained
2636 Environments", .
2639 [bacnetip]
2640 ASHRAE, "Annex J to ANSI/ASHRAE 135-1995 - BACnet/IP",
2641 January 1999.
2643 [CCAMP] IETF, "Common Control and Measurement Plane",
2644 .
2646 [CoMP] NGMN Alliance, "RAN EVOLUTION PROJECT COMP EVALUATION AND
2647 ENHANCEMENT", NGMN Alliance NGMN_RANEV_D3_CoMP_Evaluation_
2648 and_Enhancement_v2.0, March 2015,
2649 .
2652 [CONTENT_PROTECTION]
2653 Olsen, D., "1722a Content Protection", 2012,
2654 .
2657 [CPRI] CPRI Cooperation, "Common Public Radio Interface (CPRI);
2658 Interface Specification", CPRI Specification V6.1, July
2659 2014, .
2662 [CPRI-transp]
2663 CPRI TWG, "CPRI requirements for Ethernet Fronthaul",
2664 November 2015,
2665 .
2668 [DCI] Digital Cinema Initiatives, LLC, "DCI Specification,
2669 Version 1.2", 2012, .
2671 [DICE] IETF, "DTLS In Constrained Environments",
2672 .
2674 [EA12] Evans, P. and M. Annunziata, "Industrial Internet: Pushing
2675 the Boundaries of Minds and Machines", November 2012.
2677 [ESPN_DC2]
2678 Daley, D., "ESPN's DC2 Scales AVB Large", 2014,
2679 .
2682 [flnet] Japan Electrical Manufacturers' Association, "JEMA 1479 -
2683 English Edition", September 2012.
2685 [Fronthaul]
2686 Chen, D. and T. Mustala, "Ethernet Fronthaul
2687 Considerations", IEEE 1904.3, February 2015,
2688 .
2691 [HART] www.hartcomm.org, "Highway Addressable remote Transducer,
2692 a group of specifications for industrial process and
2693 control devices administered by the HART Foundation".
2695 [I-D.finn-detnet-architecture]
2696 Finn, N., Thubert, P., and M. Teener, "Deterministic
2697 Networking Architecture", draft-finn-detnet-
2698 architecture-03 (work in progress), March 2016.
2700 [I-D.finn-detnet-problem-statement]
2701 Finn, N. and P. Thubert, "Deterministic Networking Problem
2702 Statement", draft-finn-detnet-problem-statement-04 (work
2703 in progress), October 2015.
2705 [I-D.ietf-6tisch-6top-interface]
2706 Wang, Q. and X. Vilajosana, "6TiSCH Operation Sublayer
2707 (6top) Interface", draft-ietf-6tisch-6top-interface-04
2708 (work in progress), July 2015.
2710 [I-D.ietf-6tisch-architecture]
2711 Thubert, P., "An Architecture for IPv6 over the TSCH mode
2712 of IEEE 802.15.4", draft-ietf-6tisch-architecture-09 (work
2713 in progress), November 2015.
2715 [I-D.ietf-6tisch-coap]
2716 Sudhaakar, R. and P. Zand, "6TiSCH Resource Management and
2717 Interaction using CoAP", draft-ietf-6tisch-coap-03 (work
2718 in progress), March 2015.
2720 [I-D.ietf-6tisch-terminology]
2721 Palattella, M., Thubert, P., Watteyne, T., and Q. Wang,
2722 "Terminology in IPv6 over the TSCH mode of IEEE
2723 802.15.4e", draft-ietf-6tisch-terminology-06 (work in
2724 progress), November 2015.
2726 [I-D.ietf-ipv6-multilink-subnets]
2727 Thaler, D. and C. Huitema, "Multi-link Subnet Support in
2728 IPv6", draft-ietf-ipv6-multilink-subnets-00 (work in
2729 progress), July 2002.
2731 [I-D.ietf-mpls-residence-time]
2732 Mirsky, G., Ruffini, S., Gray, E., Drake, J., Bryant, S.,
2733 and S. Sasha, "Residence Time Measurement in MPLS
2734 network", draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time-06 (work in
2735 progress), March 2016.
2737 [I-D.ietf-roll-rpl-industrial-applicability]
2738 Phinney, T., Thubert, P., and R. Assimiti, "RPL
2739 applicability in industrial networks", draft-ietf-roll-
2740 rpl-industrial-applicability-02 (work in progress),
2741 October 2013.
2743 [I-D.ietf-tictoc-1588overmpls]
2744 Davari, S., Oren, A., Bhatia, M., Roberts, P., and L.
2745 Montini, "Transporting Timing messages over MPLS
2746 Networks", draft-ietf-tictoc-1588overmpls-07 (work in
2747 progress), October 2015.
2749 [I-D.kh-spring-ip-ran-use-case]
2750 Khasnabish, B., hu, f., and L. Contreras, "Segment Routing
2751 in IP RAN use case", draft-kh-spring-ip-ran-use-case-02
2752 (work in progress), November 2014.
2754 [I-D.svshah-tsvwg-deterministic-forwarding]
2755 Shah, S. and P. Thubert, "Deterministic Forwarding PHB",
2756 draft-svshah-tsvwg-deterministic-forwarding-04 (work in
2757 progress), August 2015.
2759 [I-D.thubert-6lowpan-backbone-router]
2760 Thubert, P., "6LoWPAN Backbone Router", draft-thubert-
2761 6lowpan-backbone-router-03 (work in progress), February
2762 2013.
2764 [I-D.wang-6tisch-6top-sublayer]
2765 Wang, Q. and X. Vilajosana, "6TiSCH Operation Sublayer
2766 (6top)", draft-wang-6tisch-6top-sublayer-04 (work in
2767 progress), November 2015.
2769 [IEC61850-90-12]
2770 TC57 WG10, IEC., "IEC 61850-90-12 TR: Communication
2771 networks and systems for power utility automation - Part
2772 90-12: Wide area network engineering guidelines", 2015.
2774 [IEC62439-3:2012]
2775 TC65, IEC., "IEC 62439-3: Industrial communication
2776 networks - High availability automation networks - Part 3:
2777 Parallel Redundancy Protocol (PRP) and High-availability
2778 Seamless Redundancy (HSR)", 2012.
2780 [IEEE1588]
2781 IEEE, "IEEE Standard for a Precision Clock Synchronization
2782 Protocol for Networked Measurement and Control Systems",
2783 IEEE Std 1588-2008, 2008,
2784 .
2787 [IEEE1722]
2788 IEEE, "1722-2011 - IEEE Standard for Layer 2 Transport
2789 Protocol for Time Sensitive Applications in a Bridged
2790 Local Area Network", IEEE Std 1722-2011, 2011,
2791 .
2794 [IEEE19043]
2795 IEEE Standards Association, "IEEE 1904.3 TF", IEEE 1904.3,
2796 2015, .
2798 [IEEE802.1TSNTG]
2799 IEEE Standards Association, "IEEE 802.1 Time-Sensitive
2800 Networks Task Group", March 2013,
2801 .
2803 [IEEE802154]
2804 IEEE standard for Information Technology, "IEEE std.
2805 802.15.4, Part. 15.4: Wireless Medium Access Control (MAC)
2806 and Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications for Low-Rate
2807 Wireless Personal Area Networks".
2809 [IEEE802154e]
2810 IEEE standard for Information Technology, "IEEE standard
2811 for Information Technology, IEEE std. 802.15.4, Part.
2812 15.4: Wireless Medium Access Control (MAC) and Physical
2813 Layer (PHY) Specifications for Low-Rate Wireless Personal
2814 Area Networks, June 2011 as amended by IEEE std.
2815 802.15.4e, Part. 15.4: Low-Rate Wireless Personal Area
2816 Networks (LR-WPANs) Amendment 1: MAC sublayer", April
2817 2012.
2819 [IEEE8021AS]
2820 IEEE, "Timing and Synchronizations (IEEE 802.1AS-2011)",
2821 IEEE 802.1AS-2001, 2011,
2822 .
2825 [IEEE8021CM]
2826 Farkas, J., "Time-Sensitive Networking for Fronthaul",
2827 Unapproved PAR, PAR for a New IEEE Standard;
2828 IEEE P802.1CM, April 2015,
2829 .
2832 [IEEE8021TSN]
2833 IEEE 802.1, "The charter of the TG is to provide the
2834 specifications that will allow time-synchronized low
2835 latency streaming services through 802 networks.", 2016,
2836 .
2838 [IETFDetNet]
2839 IETF, "Charter for IETF DetNet Working Group", 2015,
2840 .
2842 [ISA100] ISA/ANSI, "ISA100, Wireless Systems for Automation",
2843 .
2845 [ISA100.11a]
2846 ISA/ANSI, "Wireless Systems for Industrial Automation:
2847 Process Control and Related Applications - ISA100.11a-2011
2848 - IEC 62734", 2011, .
2851 [ISO7240-16]
2852 ISO, "ISO 7240-16:2007 Fire detection and alarm systems --
2853 Part 16: Sound system control and indicating equipment",
2854 2007, .
2857 [knx] KNX Association, "ISO/IEC 14543-3 - KNX", November 2006.
2859 [lontalk] ECHELON, "LonTalk(R) Protocol Specification Version 3.0",
2860 1994.
2862 [LTE-Latency]
2863 Johnston, S., "LTE Latency: How does it compare to other
2864 technologies", March 2014,
2865 .
2868 [MEF] MEF, "Mobile Backhaul Phase 2 Amendment 1 -- Small Cells",
2869 MEF 22.1.1, July 2014,
2870 .
2873 [METIS] METIS, "Scenarios, requirements and KPIs for 5G mobile and
2874 wireless system", ICT-317669-METIS/D1.1 ICT-
2875 317669-METIS/D1.1, April 2013, .
2878 [modbus] Modbus Organization, "MODBUS APPLICATION PROTOCOL
2879 SPECIFICATION V1.1b", December 2006.
2881 [net5G] Ericsson, "5G Radio Access, Challenges for 2020 and
2882 Beyond", Ericsson white paper wp-5g, June 2013,
2883 .
2885 [NGMN] NGMN Alliance, "5G White Paper", NGMN 5G White Paper v1.0,
2886 February 2015, .
2889 [NGMN-fronth]
2890 NGMN Alliance, "Fronthaul Requirements for C-RAN", March
2891 2015, .
2894 [PCE] IETF, "Path Computation Element",
2895 .
2897 [profibus]
2898 IEC, "IEC 61158 Type 3 - Profibus DP", January 2001.
2900 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
2901 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
2902 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
2903 .
2905 [RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
2906 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, DOI 10.17487/RFC2460,
2907 December 1998, .
2909 [RFC2474] Nichols, K., Blake, S., Baker, F., and D. Black,
2910 "Definition of the Differentiated Services Field (DS
2911 Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers", RFC 2474,
2912 DOI 10.17487/RFC2474, December 1998,
2913 .
2915 [RFC3031] Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., and R. Callon, "Multiprotocol
2916 Label Switching Architecture", RFC 3031,
2917 DOI 10.17487/RFC3031, January 2001,
2918 .
2920 [RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
2921 and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
2922 Tunnels", RFC 3209, DOI 10.17487/RFC3209, December 2001,
2923 .
2925 [RFC3393] Demichelis, C. and P. Chimento, "IP Packet Delay Variation
2926 Metric for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM)", RFC 3393,
2927 DOI 10.17487/RFC3393, November 2002,
2928 .
2930 [RFC3444] Pras, A. and J. Schoenwaelder, "On the Difference between
2931 Information Models and Data Models", RFC 3444,
2932 DOI 10.17487/RFC3444, January 2003,
2933 .
2935 [RFC3972] Aura, T., "Cryptographically Generated Addresses (CGA)",
2936 RFC 3972, DOI 10.17487/RFC3972, March 2005,
2937 .
2939 [RFC3985] Bryant, S., Ed. and P. Pate, Ed., "Pseudo Wire Emulation
2940 Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) Architecture", RFC 3985,
2941 DOI 10.17487/RFC3985, March 2005,
2942 .
2944 [RFC4291] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
2945 Architecture", RFC 4291, DOI 10.17487/RFC4291, February
2946 2006, .
2948 [RFC4553] Vainshtein, A., Ed. and YJ. Stein, Ed., "Structure-
2949 Agnostic Time Division Multiplexing (TDM) over Packet
2950 (SAToP)", RFC 4553, DOI 10.17487/RFC4553, June 2006,
2951 .
2953 [RFC4903] Thaler, D., "Multi-Link Subnet Issues", RFC 4903,
2954 DOI 10.17487/RFC4903, June 2007,
2955 .
2957 [RFC4919] Kushalnagar, N., Montenegro, G., and C. Schumacher, "IPv6
2958 over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Networks (6LoWPANs):
2959 Overview, Assumptions, Problem Statement, and Goals",
2960 RFC 4919, DOI 10.17487/RFC4919, August 2007,
2961 .
2963 [RFC5086] Vainshtein, A., Ed., Sasson, I., Metz, E., Frost, T., and
2964 P. Pate, "Structure-Aware Time Division Multiplexed (TDM)
2965 Circuit Emulation Service over Packet Switched Network
2966 (CESoPSN)", RFC 5086, DOI 10.17487/RFC5086, December 2007,
2967 .
2969 [RFC5087] Stein, Y(J)., Shashoua, R., Insler, R., and M. Anavi,
2970 "Time Division Multiplexing over IP (TDMoIP)", RFC 5087,
2971 DOI 10.17487/RFC5087, December 2007,
2972 .
2974 [RFC6282] Hui, J., Ed. and P. Thubert, "Compression Format for IPv6
2975 Datagrams over IEEE 802.15.4-Based Networks", RFC 6282,
2976 DOI 10.17487/RFC6282, September 2011,
2977 .
2979 [RFC6550] Winter, T., Ed., Thubert, P., Ed., Brandt, A., Hui, J.,
2980 Kelsey, R., Levis, P., Pister, K., Struik, R., Vasseur,
2981 JP., and R. Alexander, "RPL: IPv6 Routing Protocol for
2982 Low-Power and Lossy Networks", RFC 6550,
2983 DOI 10.17487/RFC6550, March 2012,
2984 .
2986 [RFC6551] Vasseur, JP., Ed., Kim, M., Ed., Pister, K., Dejean, N.,
2987 and D. Barthel, "Routing Metrics Used for Path Calculation
2988 in Low-Power and Lossy Networks", RFC 6551,
2989 DOI 10.17487/RFC6551, March 2012,
2990 .
2992 [RFC6775] Shelby, Z., Ed., Chakrabarti, S., Nordmark, E., and C.
2993 Bormann, "Neighbor Discovery Optimization for IPv6 over
2994 Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Networks (6LoWPANs)",
2995 RFC 6775, DOI 10.17487/RFC6775, November 2012,
2996 .
2998 [RFC7554] Watteyne, T., Ed., Palattella, M., and L. Grieco, "Using
2999 IEEE 802.15.4e Time-Slotted Channel Hopping (TSCH) in the
3000 Internet of Things (IoT): Problem Statement", RFC 7554,
3001 DOI 10.17487/RFC7554, May 2015,
3002 .
3004 [SRP_LATENCY]
3005 Gunther, C., "Specifying SRP Latency", 2014,
3006 .
3009 [STUDIO_IP]
3010 Mace, G., "IP Networked Studio Infrastructure for
3011 Synchronized & Real-Time Multimedia Transmissions", 2007,
3012 .
3015 [SyncE] ITU-T, "G.8261 : Timing and synchronization aspects in
3016 packet networks", Recommendation G.8261, August 2013,
3017 .
3019 [TEAS] IETF, "Traffic Engineering Architecture and Signaling",
3020 .
3022 [TS23401] 3GPP, "General Packet Radio Service (GPRS) enhancements
3023 for Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access Network
3024 (E-UTRAN) access", 3GPP TS 23.401 10.10.0, March 2013.
3026 [TS25104] 3GPP, "Base Station (BS) radio transmission and reception
3027 (FDD)", 3GPP TS 25.104 3.14.0, March 2007.
3029 [TS36104] 3GPP, "Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access
3030 (E-UTRA); Base Station (BS) radio transmission and
3031 reception", 3GPP TS 36.104 10.11.0, July 2013.
3033 [TS36133] 3GPP, "Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access
3034 (E-UTRA); Requirements for support of radio resource
3035 management", 3GPP TS 36.133 12.7.0, April 2015.
3037 [TS36211] 3GPP, "Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access
3038 (E-UTRA); Physical channels and modulation", 3GPP
3039 TS 36.211 10.7.0, March 2013.
3041 [TS36300] 3GPP, "Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access (E-UTRA)
3042 and Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access Network
3043 (E-UTRAN); Overall description; Stage 2", 3GPP TS 36.300
3044 10.11.0, September 2013.
3046 [TSNTG] IEEE Standards Association, "IEEE 802.1 Time-Sensitive
3047 Networks Task Group", 2013,
3048 .
3050 [UHD-video]
3051 Holub, P., "Ultra-High Definition Videos and Their
3052 Applications over the Network", The 7th International
3053 Symposium on VICTORIES Project PetrHolub_presentation,
3054 October 2014, .
3057 [WirelessHART]
3058 www.hartcomm.org, "Industrial Communication Networks -
3059 Wireless Communication Network and Communication Profiles
3060 - WirelessHART - IEC 62591", 2010.
3062 Authors' Addresses
3064 Ethan Grossman (editor)
3065 Dolby Laboratories, Inc.
3066 1275 Market Street
3067 San Francisco, CA 94103
3068 USA
3070 Phone: +1 415 645 4726
3071 Email: ethan.grossman@dolby.com
3072 URI: http://www.dolby.com
3074 Craig Gunther
3075 Harman International
3076 10653 South River Front Parkway
3077 South Jordan, UT 84095
3078 USA
3080 Phone: +1 801 568-7675
3081 Email: craig.gunther@harman.com
3082 URI: http://www.harman.com
3084 Pascal Thubert
3085 Cisco Systems, Inc
3086 Building D
3087 45 Allee des Ormes - BP1200
3088 MOUGINS - Sophia Antipolis 06254
3089 FRANCE
3091 Phone: +33 497 23 26 34
3092 Email: pthubert@cisco.com
3094 Patrick Wetterwald
3095 Cisco Systems
3096 45 Allees des Ormes
3097 Mougins 06250
3098 FRANCE
3100 Phone: +33 4 97 23 26 36
3101 Email: pwetterw@cisco.com
3102 Jean Raymond
3103 Hydro-Quebec
3104 1500 University
3105 Montreal H3A3S7
3106 Canada
3108 Phone: +1 514 840 3000
3109 Email: raymond.jean@hydro.qc.ca
3111 Jouni Korhonen
3112 Broadcom Corporation
3113 3151 Zanker Road
3114 San Jose, CA 95134
3115 USA
3117 Email: jouni.nospam@gmail.com
3119 Yu Kaneko
3120 Toshiba
3121 1 Komukai-Toshiba-cho, Saiwai-ku, Kasasaki-shi
3122 Kanagawa, Japan
3124 Email: yu1.kaneko@toshiba.co.jp
3126 Subir Das
3127 Applied Communication Sciences
3128 150 Mount Airy Road, Basking Ridge
3129 New Jersey, 07920, USA
3131 Email: sdas@appcomsci.com
3133 Yiyong Zha
3134 Huawei Technologies
3136 Email: zhayiyong@huawei.com
3138 Balazs Varga
3139 Ericsson
3140 Konyves Kalman krt. 11/B
3141 Budapest 1097
3142 Hungary
3144 Email: balazs.a.varga@ericsson.com
3145 Janos Farkas
3146 Ericsson
3147 Konyves Kalman krt. 11/B
3148 Budapest 1097
3149 Hungary
3151 Email: janos.farkas@ericsson.com
3153 Franz-Josef Goetz
3154 Siemens
3155 Gleiwitzerstr. 555
3156 Nurnberg 90475
3157 Germany
3159 Email: franz-josef.goetz@siemens.com
3161 Juergen Schmitt
3162 Siemens
3163 Gleiwitzerstr. 555
3164 Nurnberg 90475
3165 Germany
3167 Email: juergen.jues.schmitt@siemens.com