RFC9024: Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Data Plane: IEEE 802.1 Time-Sensitive Networking over MPLS
Download in text format
Related keywords:
(interconnecting TSN networks)
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) B. Varga, Ed.
Request for Comments: 9024 J. Farkas
Category: Standards Track Ericsson
ISSN: 2070-1721 A. Malis
Malis Consulting
S. Bryant
Futurewei Technologies
D. Fedyk
LabN Consulting, L.L.C.
June 2021
Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Data Plane: IEEE 802.1 Time-Sensitive
Networking over MPLS
Abstract
This document specifies the Deterministic Networking data plane when
Time-Sensitive Networking (TSN) networks are interconnected over a
DetNet MPLS network.
Status of This Memo
This is an Internet Standards Track document.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9024.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Terminology
2.1. Terms Used in This Document
2.2. Abbreviations
2.3. Requirements Language
3. IEEE 802.1 TSN over DetNet MPLS Data Plane Scenario
4. DetNet MPLS Data Plane
4.1. Overview
4.2. TSN over DetNet MPLS Encapsulation
5. TSN over MPLS Data Plane Procedures
5.1. Edge Node TSN Procedures
5.2. Edge Node DetNet Service Proxy Procedures
5.3. Edge Node DetNet Service and Forwarding Sub-Layer
Procedures
6. Controller Plane (Management and Control) Considerations
7. Security Considerations
8. IANA Considerations
9. References
9.1. Normative References
9.2. Informative References
Acknowledgements
Authors' Addresses
1. Introduction
The Time-Sensitive Networking Task Group (TSN TG) within the IEEE
802.1 Working Group deals with deterministic services through IEEE
802 networks. Deterministic Networking (DetNet) defined by the IETF
is a service that can be offered by an L3 network to DetNet flows.
General background and concepts of DetNet can be found in [RFC8655].
This document specifies the use of a DetNet MPLS network to
interconnect TSN nodes/network segments. The DetNet MPLS data plane
is defined in [RFC8964].
2. Terminology
2.1. Terms Used in This Document
This document uses the terminology and concepts established in the
DetNet architecture [RFC8655] [RFC8938] [RFC8964]. TSN-specific
terms are defined in the TSN TG of the IEEE 802.1 Working Group. The
reader is assumed to be familiar with these documents and their
terminology.
2.2. Abbreviations
The following abbreviations are used in this document:
AC Attachment Circuit
CE Customer Edge equipment
d-CW DetNet Control Word
DetNet Deterministic Networking
DF DetNet Flow
FRER Frame Replication and Elimination for Redundancy (TSN
function)
L2 Layer 2
L2VPN Layer 2 Virtual Private Network
L3 Layer 3
LSP Label Switched Path
LSR Label Switching Router
MPLS Multiprotocol Label Switching
MPLS-TE Multiprotocol Label Switching - Traffic Engineering
NSP Native Service Processing
OAM Operations, Administration, and Maintenance
PE Provider Edge
PREOF Packet Replication, Elimination and Ordering Functions
PW Pseudowire
S-PE Switching Provider Edge
T-PE Terminating Provider Edge
TSN Time-Sensitive Network
2.3. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
3. IEEE 802.1 TSN over DetNet MPLS Data Plane Scenario
Figure 1 shows IEEE 802.1 TSN end stations operating over a TSN-aware
DetNet service running over an MPLS network. DetNet edge nodes sit
at the boundary of a DetNet domain. They are responsible for mapping
non-DetNet-aware L2 traffic to DetNet services. They also support
the imposition and disposition of the required DetNet encapsulation.
These are functionally similar to PW T-PE nodes, which use MPLS-TE
LSPs. In this example, TSN Streams are simple applications over
DetNet flows. The specifics of this operation are discussed later in
this document.
TSN Edge Transit Edge TSN
End System Node Node Node End System
(T-PE) (LSR) (T-PE)
+----------+ +----------+
| TSN | <-------- End-to-End TSN Service ---------> | TSN |
| Applic. | | Applic. |
+----------+ +.........+ +.........+ +----------+
| | | \S-Proxy: :S-Proxy/ | | |
| TSN | | +.+---+<-- DetNet flow -->+---+ | | | TSN |
| | |TSN| |Svc| |Svc| |TSN| | |
+----------+ +---+ +---+ +----------+ +---+ +---+ +----------+
| L2 | | L2| |Fwd| |Forwarding| |Fwd| |L2 | | L2 |
+------.---+ +-.-+ +-.-+ +---.----.-+ +--.+ +-.-+ +---.------+
: Link : / ,-----. \ : Link : / ,-----. \
+........+ +-[ Sub- ]-+ +........+ +-[ TSN ]-+
[Network] [Network]
`-----' `-----'
|<------ DetNet MPLS ------>|
|<---------------------- TSN --------------------->|
Figure 1: A TSN over DetNet MPLS-Enabled Network
In this example, edge nodes provide a service proxy function that
"associates" the DetNet flows and native flows (i.e., TSN Streams) at
the edge of the DetNet domain. TSN Streams are treated as App-flows
for DetNet. The whole DetNet domain behaves as a TSN relay node for
the TSN Streams. The service proxy behaves as a port of that TSN
relay node.
Figure 2 illustrates how DetNet can provide services for IEEE 802.1
TSN end systems, CE1 and CE2, over a DetNet-enabled MPLS network.
Edge nodes E1 and E2 insert and remove the required DetNet data plane
encapsulation. The 'X' in the edge nodes and relay node, R1,
represent a potential DetNet compound flow packet replication and
elimination point. This conceptually parallels L2VPN services and
could leverage existing related solutions as discussed below.
TSN |<------- End-to-End DetNet Service ------>| TSN
Service | Transit Transit | Service
TSN (AC) | |<-Tnl->| |<-Tnl->| | (AC) TSN
End | V V 1 V V 2 V V | End
System | +--------+ +--------+ +--------+ | System
+---+ | | E1 |=======| R1 |=======| E2 | | +---+
| |--|----|._X_....|..DF1..|.._ _...|..DF3..|...._X_.|---|---| |
|CE1| | | \ | | X | | / | | |CE2|
| | | \_.|..DF2..|._/ \_..|..DF4..|._/ | | |
+---+ | |=======| |=======| | +---+
^ +--------+ +--------+ +--------+ ^
| Edge Node Relay Node Edge Node |
| (T-PE) (S-PE) (T-PE) |
| |
|<- TSN -> <------- TSN over DetNet MPLS -------> <- TSN ->|
| |
|<-------- Time-Sensitive Networking (TSN) Service ------->|
X = Service protection
DFx = DetNet member flow x over a TE LSP
AC = Attachment Circuit
Tnl = Tunnel
Figure 2: IEEE 802.1TSN over DetNet
4. DetNet MPLS Data Plane
4.1. Overview
The basic approach defined in [RFC8964] supports the DetNet service
sub-layer based on existing PW encapsulations and mechanisms and
supports the DetNet forwarding sub-layer based on existing MPLS
Traffic Engineering encapsulations and mechanisms.
A node operating on a DetNet flow in the DetNet service sub-layer,
i.e., a node processing a DetNet packet that has the S-Label as top
of stack, uses the local context associated with that S-Label. For
example, a received F-Label can be used to determine what local
DetNet operation(s) is applied to that packet. An S-Label may be
unique when taken from the platform label space [RFC3031], which
would enable correct DetNet flow identification regardless of which
input interface or LSP the packet arrives on. The service sub-layer
functions (i.e., PREOF) use a DetNet control word (d-CW).
The DetNet MPLS data plane builds on MPLS Traffic Engineering
encapsulations and mechanisms to provide a forwarding sub-layer that
is responsible for providing resource allocation and explicit routes.
The forwarding sub-layer is supported by one or more forwarding
labels (F-Labels).
DetNet edge/relay nodes are DetNet service sub-layer aware,
understand the particular needs of DetNet flows, and provide both
DetNet service and forwarding sub-layer functions. They add, remove,
and process d-CWs, S-Labels, and F-Labels as needed. MPLS DetNet
nodes and transit nodes include DetNet forwarding sub-layer functions
-- notably, support for explicit routes and resource allocation to
eliminate (or reduce) congestion loss and jitter. Unlike other
DetNet node types, transit nodes provide no service sub-layer
processing.
4.2. TSN over DetNet MPLS Encapsulation
The basic encapsulation approach is to treat a TSN Stream as an App-
flow from the DetNet MPLS perspective. The corresponding example is
shown in Figure 3. Note that three example flows are shown in the
figure.
/-> +------+ +------+ +------+ TSN ^ ^
MPLS | | X | | X | | X |<- Appli : :
App-Flow <-+ +------+ +------+ +------+ cation : :(1)
| |TSN-L2| |TSN-L2| |TSN-L2| : v
\-> +---+======+--+======+--+======+-----+ :
| d-CW | | d-CW | | d-CW | :
DetNet-MPLS +------+ +------+ +------+ :(2)
|Labels| |Labels| |Labels| v
+---+======+--+======+--+======+-----+
Link/Sub-Network | L2 | | TSN | | UDP |
+------+ +------+ +------+
| IP |
+------+
| L2 |
+------+
(1) TSN Stream
(2) DetNet MPLS Flow
Figure 3: Examples of TSN over MPLS Encapsulation Formats
In the figure, "Application" indicates the application payload
carried by the TSN network. "MPLS App-Flow" indicates that the TSN
Stream is the payload from the perspective of the DetNet MPLS data
plane defined in [RFC8964]. A single DetNet MPLS flow can aggregate
multiple TSN Streams.
| Note: Network fragmentation for DetNet is not supported and
| MUST be avoided. The reason for this is that network
| fragmentation is not consistent with the packet delivery times
| needed for DetNet. Therefore, when IP is used as the sub-
| network, IPv6 fragmentation MUST NOT be used, and IPv4 packets
| MUST be sent with the DF bit set. This means that the network
| operator MUST ensure that all the DetNet encapsulation overhead
| plus the maximum TSN App-flow frame size does not exceed the
| DetNet network's MTU.
5. TSN over MPLS Data Plane Procedures
The description of edge node procedures and functions for TSN over
DetNet MPLS scenarios follows the concepts from [RFC3985] and covers
the edge node components shown in Figure 1. In this section, the
following procedures of DetNet edge nodes are described:
* TSN related (Section 5.1)
* DetNet Service Proxy (Section 5.2)
* DetNet service and forwarding sub-layer (Section 5.3)
The subsections describe procedures for forwarding packets by DetNet
edge nodes, where such packets are received from either directly
connected CEs (TSN nodes) or some other DetNet edge nodes.
5.1. Edge Node TSN Procedures
The TSN TG of the IEEE 802.1 Working Group has defined (and is
defining) a number of amendments to [IEEE8021Q] that provide zero
congestion loss and bounded latency in bridged networks.
[IEEE8021CB] defines packet replication and elimination functions for
a TSN network.
The implementation of a TSN entity (i.e., TSN packet processing
functions) must be compliant with the relevant IEEE 802.1 standards.
TSN-specific functions are executed on the data received by the
DetNet edge node from the connected CE before being forwarded to
connected CE(s) or presented to the DetNet service proxy function for
transmission across the DetNet domain. TSN-specific functions are
also executed on the data received from a DetNet PW by a PE before
the data is output on the AC(s).
The TSN packet processing function(s) of edge nodes (T-PE) belongs to
the NSP [RFC3985] block. This is similar to other functionalities
being defined by standards bodies other than the IETF (for example,
in the case of Ethernet, stripping, overwriting, or adding VLAN tags,
etc.). Depending on the TSN role of the edge node in the end-to-end
TSN service, selected TSN functions are supported.
When a PE receives a packet from a CE on a given AC with DetNet
service, it first checks via Stream identification (see Clause 6 of
[IEEE8021CB] and [IEEEP8021CBdb]) whether the packet belongs to a
configured TSN Stream (i.e., App-flow from the DetNet perspective).
If no Stream ID is matched and no other (VPN) service is configured
for the AC, then the packet MUST be dropped. If there is a matching
TSN Stream, then the Stream-ID-specific TSN functions are executed
(e.g., ingress policing, header field manipulation in the case of
active Stream identification, FRER, etc.). Source Media Access
Control (MAC) lookup may also be used for local MAC address learning.
If the PE decides to forward the packet, the packet MUST be forwarded
according to the TSN-Stream-specific configuration to connected CE(s)
(in case of local bridging) and/or to the DetNet service proxy (in
case of forwarding to remote CE(s)). If there are no TSN-Stream-
specific forwarding configurations, the PE MUST flood the packet to
other locally attached CE(s) and to the DetNet service proxy. If the
administrative policy on the PE does not allow flooding, the PE MUST
drop the packet.
When a TSN entity of the PE receives a packet from the DetNet service
proxy, it first checks via Stream identification (see Clause 6 of
[IEEE8021CB] and [IEEEP8021CBdb]) whether the packet belongs to a
configured TSN Stream. If no Stream ID is matched, then the packet
is dropped. If there is a matching TSN Stream, then the Stream-ID-
specific TSN functions are executed (e.g., header field manipulation
in case of active Stream identification, FRER, etc.). Source MAC
lookup may also be used for local MAC address learning.
If the PE decides to forward the packet, the packet is forwarded
according to the TSN-Stream-specific configuration to connected
CE(s). If there are no TSN-Stream-specific forwarding
configurations, the PE floods the packet to locally attached CE(s).
If the administrative policy on the PE does not allow flooding, the
PE drops the packet.
Implementations of this document SHALL use management and control
information to ensure TSN-specific functions of the edge node
according to the expectations of the connected TSN network.
5.2. Edge Node DetNet Service Proxy Procedures
The service proxy function maps between App-flows and DetNet flows.
The DetNet edge node TSN entity MUST support the TSN Stream
identification functions (as defined in Clause 6 of [IEEE8021CB] and
[IEEEP8021CBdb]) and the related managed objects (as defined in
Clause 9 of [IEEE8021CB] and [IEEEP8021CBdb]) to recognize the
packets related to App-flow. The service proxy presents TSN Streams
as an App-flow to a DetNet flow.
When a DetNet service proxy receives a packet from the TSN entity, it
MUST check whether such an App-flow is present in its mapping table.
If present, it associates the internal DetNet flow ID to the packet
and MUST forward it to the DetNet service and forwarding sub-layers.
If no match is found, it MUST drop the packet.
When a DetNet service proxy receives a packet from the DetNet service
and forwarding sub-layers, it MUST be forwarded to the edge node TSN
entity.
Implementations of this document SHALL use management and control
information to map a TSN Stream to a DetNet flow. N:1 mapping
(aggregating multiple TSN Streams in a single DetNet flow) SHALL be
supported. The management or control function that provisions flow
mapping SHALL ensure that adequate resources are allocated and
configured to fulfill the service requirements of the mapped flows.
Due to the (intentional) similarities of the DetNet PREOF and TSN
FRER functions, service protection function interworking is possible
between the TSN and the DetNet domains. Such service protection
interworking scenarios might require copying of sequence number
fields from TSN (L2) to PW (MPLS) encapsulation. However, such
interworking is out of scope in this document and is left for further
study.
5.3. Edge Node DetNet Service and Forwarding Sub-Layer Procedures
In the design presented in [RFC8964], an MPLS service label (the
S-Label), similar to a PW label [RFC3985], is used to identify both
the DetNet flow identity and the MPLS payload type. The DetNet
sequence number is carried in the d-CW, which carries the Data/OAM
discriminator as well. In [RFC8964], two sequence number sizes are
supported: a 16-bit sequence number and a 28-bit sequence number.
PREOF functions and the provided service recovery are available only
within the DetNet domain as the DetNet flow ID and the DetNet
sequence number are not valid outside the DetNet network. MPLS
(DetNet) edge nodes terminate all related information elements
encoded in the MPLS labels.
When a PE receives a packet from the service proxy function, it MUST
handle the packet as defined in [RFC8964].
When a PE receives an MPLS packet from a remote PE, then, after
processing the MPLS label stack, if the top MPLS label ends up being
a DetNet S-Label that was advertised by this node, then the PE MUST
forward the packet according to the configured DetNet service and
forwarding sub-layer rules to other PE nodes or via the DetNet
service proxy function towards locally connected CE(s).
For further details on DetNet service and forwarding sub-layers, see
[RFC8964].
6. Controller Plane (Management and Control) Considerations
Information related to TSN Stream(s) to DetNet flow mapping is
required only for the service proxy function of MPLS (DetNet) edge
nodes. From the data plane perspective, there is no practical
difference based on the origin of flow-mapping-related information
(management plane or control plane).
The following summarizes the set of information that is needed to
configure TSN over DetNet MPLS:
* TSN-related configuration information according to the TSN role of
the DetNet MPLS node, as per [IEEE8021Q], [IEEE8021CB], and
[IEEEP8021CBdb].
* DetNet MPLS-related configuration information according to the
DetNet role of the DetNet MPLS node, as per [RFC8964].
* App-flow identification information to map received TSN Stream(s)
to the DetNet flow. Parameters of TSN Stream identification are
defined in [IEEE8021CB] and [IEEEP8021CBdb].
This information MUST be provisioned per DetNet flow.
Mappings between DetNet and TSN management and control planes are out
of scope of the document. Some of the challenges are highlighted
below.
MPLS DetNet edge nodes are a member of both the DetNet domain and the
connected TSN network. From the TSN network perspective, the MPLS
(DetNet) edge node has a "TSN relay node" role, so TSN-specific
management and control plane functionalities must be implemented.
There are many similarities in the management plane techniques used
in DetNet and TSN, but that is not the case for the control plane
protocols. For example, RSVP-TE and MSRP behave differently.
Therefore, management and control plane design is an important aspect
of scenarios where mapping between DetNet and TSN is required.
Note that as the DetNet network is just a portion of the end-to-end
TSN path (i.e., single hop from the Ethernet perspective), some
parameters (e.g., delay) may differ significantly. Since there is no
interworking function, the bandwidth of the DetNet network is assumed
to be set large enough to handle all TSN flows it will support. At
the egress of the DetNet domain, the MPLS headers are stripped, and
the TSN flow continues on as a normal TSN flow.
In order to use a DetNet network to interconnect TSN segments, TSN-
specific information must be converted to DetNet-domain-specific
information. TSN Stream ID(s) and stream-related parameters/
requirements must be converted to a DetNet flow ID and flow-related
parameters/requirements.
In some cases, it may be challenging to determine some information
related to the egress-node. For example, it may be not trivial to
locate the egress point/interface of a TSN Stream with a multicast
destination MAC address. Such scenarios may require interaction
between control and management plane functions and between DetNet and
TSN domains.
Mapping between DetNet flow identifiers and TSN Stream identifiers,
if not provided explicitly, can be done by the service proxy function
of an MPLS (DetNet) edge node locally based on information provided
for the configuration of the TSN Stream identification functions
(e.g., Mask-and-Match Stream identification).
Triggering the setup/modification of a DetNet flow in the DetNet
network is an example where management and/or control plane
interactions are required between the DetNet and the TSN network.
Configuration of TSN-specific functions (e.g., FRER) inside the TSN
network is a TSN-domain-specific decision and may not be visible in
the DetNet domain. Service protection interworking scenarios are
left for further study.
7. Security Considerations
Security considerations for DetNet are described in detail in
[DETNET-SEC]. General security considerations are described in
[RFC8655].
Considerations specific to the DetNet MPLS data plane are summarized
and described in [RFC8964], including any application flow types.
This document focuses on a scenario where TSN Streams are the
application flows for DetNet, which is already covered by those
DetNet MPLS data plane security considerations.
8. IANA Considerations
This document has no IANA actions.
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[IEEE8021CB]
IEEE, "Standard for Local and metropolitan area networks
-- Frame Replication and Elimination for Reliability",
IEEE 802.1CB-2017, DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2017.8091139,
October 2017,
<https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8091139>.
[IEEEP8021CBdb]
IEEE, "Draft Standard for Local and metropolitan area
networks - Frame Replication and Elimination for
Reliability - Amendment: Extended Stream Identification
Functions", IEEE P802.1CBdb D1.3, April 2021,
<https://1.ieee802.org/tsn/802-1cbdb>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC3031] Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., and R. Callon, "Multiprotocol
Label Switching Architecture", RFC 3031,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3031, January 2001,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3031>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8655] Finn, N., Thubert, P., Varga, B., and J. Farkas,
"Deterministic Networking Architecture", RFC 8655,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8655, October 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8655>.
[RFC8938] Varga, B., Ed., Farkas, J., Berger, L., Malis, A., and S.
Bryant, "Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Data Plane
Framework", RFC 8938, DOI 10.17487/RFC8938, November 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8938>.
[RFC8964] Varga, B., Ed., Farkas, J., Berger, L., Malis, A., Bryant,
S., and J. Korhonen, "Deterministic Networking (DetNet)
Data Plane: MPLS", RFC 8964, DOI 10.17487/RFC8964, January
2021, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8964>.
9.2. Informative References
[DETNET-SEC]
Grossman, E., Ed., Mizrahi, T., and A. Hacker,
"Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Security
Considerations", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
ietf-detnet-security-16, 2 March 2021,
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-detnet-security-
16>.
[IEEE8021Q]
IEEE, "Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area Networks--
Bridges and Bridged Networks", IEEE Std. 802.1Q-2018,
DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2018.8403927, July 2018,
<https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8403927>.
[RFC3985] Bryant, S., Ed. and P. Pate, Ed., "Pseudo Wire Emulation
Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) Architecture", RFC 3985,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3985, March 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3985>.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank Norman Finn, Lou Berger, Craig Gunther,
Christophe Mangin, and Jouni Korhonen for their various contributions
to this work.
Authors' Addresses
Balázs Varga (editor)
Ericsson
Budapest
Magyar Tudosok krt. 11.
1117
Hungary
Email: balazs.a.varga@ericsson.com
János Farkas
Ericsson
Budapest
Magyar Tudosok krt. 11.
1117
Hungary
Email: janos.farkas@ericsson.com
Andrew G. Malis
Malis Consulting
Email: agmalis@gmail.com
Stewart Bryant
Futurewei Technologies
Email: sb@stewartbryant.com
Don Fedyk
LabN Consulting, L.L.C.
Email: dfedyk@labn.net