idnits 2.17.1 draft-xiong-detnet-qos-policy-01.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 : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (March 11, 2019) is 1873 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Missing Reference: 'IEEE802.1Qav' is mentioned on line 181, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'IEEE802.1Qbv' is mentioned on line 192, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'IEEE802.1Qch' is mentioned on line 193, but not defined == Outdated reference: A later version (-13) exists of draft-ietf-detnet-architecture-11 == Outdated reference: A later version (-02) exists of draft-ietf-detnet-dp-sol-ip-01 == Outdated reference: A later version (-02) exists of draft-ietf-detnet-dp-sol-mpls-01 ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 4594 Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 7 warnings (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 DeNet WG Quan Xiong 3 Internet-Draft Jinghai Yu 4 Intended status: Standards Track ZTE Corporation 5 Expires: September 12, 2019 March 11, 2019 7 DetNet QoS Policy 8 draft-xiong-detnet-qos-policy-01 10 Abstract 12 This document proposes a Quality of Service (QoS) policy to apply 13 Differentiated Services (DiffServ) model for Deterministic Networking 14 (DetNet) and defines a DetNet DiffServ mechanism including DetNet IP 15 and MPLS encapsulation. 17 Status of This Memo 19 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 20 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 22 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 23 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 24 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 25 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 27 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 28 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 29 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 30 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 32 This Internet-Draft will expire on September 12, 2019. 34 Copyright Notice 36 Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 37 document authors. All rights reserved. 39 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 40 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 41 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 42 publication of this document. Please review these documents 43 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 44 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 45 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 46 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 47 described in the Simplified BSD License. 49 Table of Contents 51 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 52 1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 53 1.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 54 2. DetNet DiffServ Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 55 2.1. DetNet Classifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 56 2.2. DetNet Traffic Conditioners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 57 2.2.1. Scheduler . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 58 2.2.2. Order . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 59 2.3. DetNet DSCP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 60 2.4. DetNet PHB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 61 2.5. DetNet Queuing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 62 3. DetNet IP DiffServ Consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 63 4. DetNet MPLS DiffServ Consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 64 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 65 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 66 7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 67 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 68 8.1. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 69 8.2. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 70 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 72 1. Introduction 74 As defined in [I-D.ietf-detnet-architecture], Deterministic 75 Networking (DetNet) provides a capability to carry specified unicast 76 or multicast data flows for real-time applications with extremely low 77 data loss rates and bounded latency. DetNet and non-DetNet packets 78 may be allowed to transmitted in the same network and more than one 79 DetNet flows which has different priorities may be forwarded through 80 the DetNet domain. The DetNet Class of Service (CoS) should be taken 81 into consideration to provide Quality of Service (QoS) for DetNet 82 services. 84 As discussed in [I-D.ietf-detnet-dp-sol-ip], Differentiated Services 85 (DiffServ) can be used to provide traffic forwarding treatment for 86 DetNet network. The DiffServ architecture as specified in [RFC2475] 87 defined a model that traffic entering a DiffServ domain is classified 88 and conditioned at the boundaries and marked with a DiffServ Code 89 Point (DSCP) defined in [RFC2474]. The DSCP is used at transit nodes 90 to select the Per Hop Behavior (PHB) that determines the scheduling 91 treatment. And [RFC3270] provide a solution to support DiffServ for 92 traffic marked with Traffic Class (TC) [RFC5462] transported over an 93 MPLS network. 95 This document proposes a QoS policy to apply DiffServ model for 96 DetNet network and defines a DetNet DiffServ mechanism including 97 DetNet IP and MPLS encapsulation. 99 1.1. Requirements Language 101 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 102 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 103 document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. 105 1.2. Terminology 107 The terminology is defined as [I-D.ietf-detnet-architecture], 108 [RFC3270], [RFC2475] and [RFC2474]. 110 2. DetNet DiffServ Overview 112 The DetNet network needs to be capable of supporting differentiated 113 services dividing to one or more contiguous DiffServ domains. The 114 key components within a DiffServ domain including traffic 115 classification and conditioning functions, and PHB-based forwarding. 116 The customers may specify packet classification policy, traffic 117 profiles and actions to DetNet flows which are in-profile or out-of- 118 profile at the boundary. The DiffServ domains may support different 119 PHB groups internally and different codepoint->PHB mappings at the 120 transit nodes. The DetNet DiffServ process for packets is as 121 Figure 1 shown. 123 +---------+ 124 | Meter |-----------------------------------+ 125 +----->| (DetNet |------------------+ | 126 | | Profile)|--+ | | 127 | +---------+ | | | 128 | V V V 129 DetNet+------------+ +----------+ +------------+ +---------+ 130 Flow | Classifier | | Marker | |Shaper/Order| | Queuing | 131 =====>| (DetNet |====>| (DetNet |====>| Dropper/ |====>| (DetNet | 132 | BA/MF) | | DSCP) | | Scheduler/ | | PHB) | 133 +------------+ +----------+ +------------+ +---------+ 135 Figure 1: Overview of a DetNet DiffServ mechanism 137 2.1. DetNet Classifiers 139 As defined in [RFC2475], packet classifiers select packets in a 140 traffic stream based on the information of packet header including 141 two types of classifiers, the BA (Behavior Aggregate) and MF (Multi- 142 Field) Classifier. The difference is that the BA classifies packets 143 based on the CoS field and the latter one based on more other header 144 fields. 146 In DetNet DiffServ model, BA and MF can be applied for packets 147 classification. After classification, the flows can be seperated 148 from DetNet and non-DetNet. As specified in 149 [I-D.ietf-detnet-dp-sol-ip], no DetNet specific encapsulation is 150 defined to support DetNet IP flow identification and DetNet service 151 delivery. So the DetNet IP classifiers is the same as defined in 152 [RFC2474] and [RFC2475]. As defined in 153 [I-D.ietf-detnet-dp-sol-mpls], DetNet service Label (S-Label) is used 154 to identify a DetNet flow and forwarding labels (F-Labels) are used 155 to provide LSP-based connectivity in DetNet MPLS header. The S-Label 156 and F-Labels can be used in combination with MPLS TC filed in MF 157 classifier. And DetNet MPLS BA classifier select packets based on 158 the MPLS TC field only as defined in [RFC5462]. 160 2.2. DetNet Traffic Conditioners 162 As mentioned in [I-D.ietf-detnet-architecture], DetNet flows can be 163 shaped or scheduled. The rate limiting of DetNet traffic and the 164 starvation avoiding of non-DetNet traffic, e.g., at the ingress of 165 the DetNet domain must be applied by traffic policing and shaping 166 functions. As [RFC2475] defined, the traffic conditioner may contain 167 four elements: meter, marker, shaper and dropper. Traffic 168 conditioning performs metering, shaping, policing and/or re-marking 169 to ensure the traffic which entering the DiffServ domain conforms to 170 the service provisioning policy. 172 In DetNet, the traffic policing and conditioning SHOULD include 173 meter, marker, shaper, dropper, scheduler and order. A meter with a 174 DetNet Profile is used to measure the DetNet flows selected by a 175 DetNet classifier and the result of the meter with respect to a 176 packet may be used to trigger a DetNet action including a marking, 177 shaping, dropping, scheduling or ordering. A marker is used to set 178 the Cos field of a DetNet packet to a DetNet DSCP (section 2.3), 179 mapping the marked packet to a DetNet PHB. A Shaper may apply 180 specific shaping algorithms implemented by DetNet network, e.g., 181 credit-based shaper [IEEE802.1Qav]. A dropper is used to discard 182 some of the non-DetNet packets to provide the QoS of the DetNet flows 183 when congestion occurs. 185 2.2.1. Scheduler 187 As decribed in [I-D.ietf-detnet-architecture], the DetNet flows can 188 be scheduled to achieve time-based synchronization for scheduled 189 traffic. This document proposes a new type of action for DetNet 190 traffic conditioning named Scheduler action. A scheduler may apply 191 specific scheduling and related Queuing algorithms implemented by 192 DetNet network, e.g., Time-gated queues [IEEE802.1Qbv] and Cyclic 193 Queuing and Forwarding [IEEE802.1Qch]. 195 2.2.2. Order 197 As defined in [I-D.ietf-detnet-dp-sol-mpls], DetNet control word 198 (d-CW) containing sequencing information for packet replication and 199 duplicate elimination purposes. Sequence Number is different packet- 200 by-packet. Based on Detnet MPLS date plane encapsulation, this 201 document proposes a new type of action for DetNet traffic 202 conditioning named order action which used to reorder the packets 203 within a DetNet flow that are received out of order. 205 2.3. DetNet DSCP 207 The DetNet DSCP carried in CoS field in IP header and TC field in 208 MPLS header may be uesd to mark packets at ingress nodes and select a 209 DetNet PHB (section 2.4) at transit nodes. DetNet DSCP MUST be 210 defined to one or more particular values, which MUST be unique for 211 codepoints in the standard space. 213 [Ed.note: We need to define one or more DetNet DSCP values and 214 related DetNet PHB for DetNet-specific treatment.] 216 2.4. DetNet PHB 218 As specified in [RFC2475], per-hop behaviors are defined to permit a 219 reasonably granular means of allocating buffer and bandwidth 220 resources at each node among competing traffic streams. PHB groups 221 will usually share a common constraint such as a packet scheduling or 222 buffer management policy. According to [RFC4594], Default Forwarding 223 (DF) PHB, Assured Forwarding (AF) PHBs, Expedited Forwarding (EF) PHB 224 and Class Selector (CS) PHBs have been defined to provide forwarding 225 treatment. These PHBs can be used to forward DetNet flows based on 226 the requirement. 228 This document defines a new type of Deterministic Networking (DN) PHB 229 which is intended for traffic requiring extremely low data loss rates 230 and bounded latency for DetNet. The DN PHB may include a set of PHB 231 classes, e.g., DN1,DN2,etc. And the number of the class is the same 232 with the DetNet DSCP values. The DSCP in IP header and TC in MPLS 233 header should be mapped to DN PHB with the relevant PHB specification 234 which may be completed in future discussion. 236 2.5. DetNet Queuing 238 As discussed in [I-D.ietf-detnet-architecture],the nodes in DetNet 239 network shall queue each received packets to one of the potential 240 transmission ports and provide storage for queued packets, awaiting 241 to submit these for transmission. A port provides one or more queues 242 corresponding to the number of traffic classes. The queuing 243 mechanism should be configured and implemented to DetNet nodes. 245 As defined in [RFC4594], Priority Queuing (PQ) was defined to queue 246 the packets in priority sequence and Rate Queuing (RQ)selects packets 247 according to the specified rate including Weighted Fair Queuing (WFQ) 248 and Weighted Round Robin (WRR). Active Queue Management (AQM) also 249 be defined to use packet dropping or marking to manage the depth of a 250 queue. 252 As per IEEE 802.1 WG, queuing and transmission selection algorithms 253 also can be used for queue scheduling in DetNet network. 255 3. DetNet IP DiffServ Consideration 257 As specified in [I-D.ietf-detnet-dp-sol-ip], no DetNet specific 258 encapsulation is defined to support DetNet IP flow identification and 259 DetNet service delivery. So the DetNet IP classification is the same 260 as defined in [RFC2474] and [RFC2475]. But the recommended DetNet 261 DSCP may be uesd to mark packets to select a DetNet PHB and the 262 transit nodes should implement mechanisms performing the PHB. The 263 mapping of DSCP to PHBs MUST be configurable. Implementations should 264 support the recommended codepoint-to-PHB mappings in their default 265 configuration. 267 4. DetNet MPLS DiffServ Consideration 269 As defined in [I-D.ietf-detnet-dp-sol-mpls], DetNet S-Label and 270 F-Labels can be used in combination with MPLS TC filed in MF 271 classifier. The BA classifier is the same with the [RFC3270]. 273 Two types of LSPs including Explicitly TC-encoded-PSC LSP (E-LSP) and 274 Label-Only-Inferred-PSC LSP (L-LSP) follows the definition of 275 [RFC3270] and can be used to support DetNet explicit routes in MPLS- 276 TE LSP. A E-LSP can be used to support one or more DetNet flows and 277 a L-LSP can be established for one flow. E-LSP and L-LSP can use a 278 signaled TC->PHB mapping to forward packets whose corresponding PHBs 279 are defined in this document. 281 In DetNet MPLS network, DetNet Layer Two Service is supported in TSN 282 over MPLS. The LSP egressing over egde nodes can use the 283 preconfigured PHB->802.1 mapping as defined in [RFC3270]. 285 As specified in [RFC3270], there may be more than one LSP carrying 286 the same flow. Two or more LSPs can be merged into one LSP at one 287 egressing LSR. It can be used to perform the packet replication 288 (PRF) at ingress nodes and the packet elimination (PEF) at the egress 289 nodes in DetNet DiffServ model. The order action which defined in 290 this document can be used for packet ordering functionality (POF). 292 5. Security Considerations 294 TBD. 296 6. IANA Considerations 298 TBD. 300 7. Acknowledgements 302 TBD. 304 8. References 306 8.1. Informative References 308 [RFC2475] Blake, S., Black, D., Carlson, M., Davies, E., Wang, Z., 309 and W. Weiss, "An Architecture for Differentiated 310 Services", RFC 2475, DOI 10.17487/RFC2475, December 1998, 311 . 313 8.2. Normative References 315 [I-D.ietf-detnet-architecture] 316 Finn, N., Thubert, P., Varga, B., and J. Farkas, 317 "Deterministic Networking Architecture", draft-ietf- 318 detnet-architecture-11 (work in progress), February 2019. 320 [I-D.ietf-detnet-dp-sol-ip] 321 Korhonen, J. and B. Varga, "DetNet IP Data Plane 322 Encapsulation", draft-ietf-detnet-dp-sol-ip-01 (work in 323 progress), October 2018. 325 [I-D.ietf-detnet-dp-sol-mpls] 326 Korhonen, J. and B. Varga, "DetNet MPLS Data Plane 327 Encapsulation", draft-ietf-detnet-dp-sol-mpls-01 (work in 328 progress), October 2018. 330 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 331 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 332 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 333 . 335 [RFC2474] Nichols, K., Blake, S., Baker, F., and D. Black, 336 "Definition of the Differentiated Services Field (DS 337 Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers", RFC 2474, 338 DOI 10.17487/RFC2474, December 1998, 339 . 341 [RFC3270] Le Faucheur, F., Wu, L., Davie, B., Davari, S., Vaananen, 342 P., Krishnan, R., Cheval, P., and J. Heinanen, "Multi- 343 Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Support of Differentiated 344 Services", RFC 3270, DOI 10.17487/RFC3270, May 2002, 345 . 347 [RFC4594] Babiarz, J., Chan, K., and F. Baker, "Configuration 348 Guidelines for DiffServ Service Classes", RFC 4594, 349 DOI 10.17487/RFC4594, August 2006, 350 . 352 [RFC5462] Andersson, L. and R. Asati, "Multiprotocol Label Switching 353 (MPLS) Label Stack Entry: "EXP" Field Renamed to "Traffic 354 Class" Field", RFC 5462, DOI 10.17487/RFC5462, February 355 2009, . 357 Authors' Addresses 359 Quan Xiong 360 ZTE Corporation 361 No.6 Huashi Park Rd 362 Wuhan, Hubei 430223 363 China 365 Phone: +86 27 83531060 366 Email: xiong.quan@zte.com.cn 368 Jinghai Yu 369 ZTE Corporation 370 50 Software Avenue, YuHuaTai District 371 Nanjing, Jiangsu 210012 372 China 374 Phone: +86 025 26774049 375 Email: yu.jinghai@zte.com.cn