Internet DRAFT - draft-jiang-detnet-ring
draft-jiang-detnet-ring
DetNet Working Group Y. Jiang
Internet-Draft N. Finn
Intended status: Standards Track Huawei Technologies
Expires: January 14, 2021 J. Ryoo
ETRI
B. Varga
Ericsson
L. Geng
China Mobile
July 13, 2020
Deterministic Networking Application in Ring Topologies
draft-jiang-detnet-ring-06
Abstract
Deterministic Networking (DetNet) provides a capability to carry data
flows for real-time applications with extremely low data loss rates
and bounded latency. This document describes how DetNet can be used
in ring topologies to support Point-to-Point (P2P) and Point-to-
Multipoint (P2MP) real-time services.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on January 14, 2021.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 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
Jiang, et al. Expires January 14, 2021 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft DetNet Ring July 2020
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
2. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. P2P DetNet Ring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.1. DetNet applications on a single ring for P2P traffic . . 4
4.2. Implementation implications of a DetNet ring for P2P
traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. P2MP DetNet Ring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5.1. DetNet applications on a single ring for P2MP traffic . . 5
5.2. Section LSPs as underlay (service sub-layer replication) 6
5.3. P2MP LSP tunnels as underlay (forwarding sub-layer
replication) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. DetNet Ring Interconnections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.1. Single node interconnection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.2. Dual node interconnection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.2.1. Dual node interconnection for P2P traffic . . . . . . 9
6.2.2. Dual node interconnection for P2MP traffic using
section LSP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.2.3. Dual node interconnection for P2MP traffic using P2MP
LSP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7. Resource Reservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
10. Editor's Note . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1. Introduction
The overall architecture for Deterministic Networking (DetNet), which
provides a capability to carry specified unicast or multicast data
flows for real-time applications with extremely low data loss rates
and bounded latency, is specified in [RFC8655], and the generic data
plane framework, which is common to any DetNet data plane
implementations, is provided at
[I-D.ietf-detnet-data-plane-framework]. In addition to the DetNet
architecture documents, RFC 8578 [RFC8578] outlines several DetNet
Jiang, et al. Expires January 14, 2021 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft DetNet Ring July 2020
use cases where multicast capability is needed. If a multicast
service replicates all of its packets from the source (as a
traditional Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS) does), the
requirements of deterministic delay and high availability for all
these replicated packets will pose a great challenge to the DetNet
network.
Ring topologies have been very popular and widely deployed in network
arrangements for various transport networks, such as Synchronous
Digital Hierarchy, Synchronous Optical Network, Optical Transport
Network, and Ethernet. For Multi-Protocol Label Switching -
Transport Profile (MPLS-TP), the applicability of the MPLS-TP linear
protection [RFC6378][RFC7271] for ring topologies and the ring-
specific protection mechanism are specified in RFC 6974 [RFC6974] and
RFC 8227 [RFC8227], respectively. All these works, except Ethernet
ring protection, typically use swapping or steering as the protection
mechanism. As ring topologies are widely deployed for transport
networks, it is also necessary for the DetNet to support ring
topologies.
This document demonstrates how the DetNet can be used in a ring
topology. Specifically, DetNet ring supports for Point-to-Point
(P2P) and Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP, for multicast services) are
discussed in details. This document assumes that the Multi-Protocol
Label Switching (MPLS) encapsulation for DetNet is supported as
specified in [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls] and all nodes in a ring network
can support the MPLS functionalities. It should be noted that it is
more convenient for the DetNet to support a ring topology with the
intrinsic duplication and elimination mechanism, as there is no need
of swapping or steering operations (consequently, its Operations,
Administration and Maintenance (OAM) can also be simplified) for
service protection.
2. Conventions Used in This Document
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. Abbreviations
Jiang, et al. Expires January 14, 2021 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft DetNet Ring July 2020
This document uses the following abbreviations:
DetNet Deterministic Networking
LSP Label Switched Path
MPLS Multi-Protocol Label Switching
MPLS-TP Multi-Protocol Label Switching - Transport Profile
P2MP Point-to-Multipoint
P2P Point-to-Point
PEF Packet Elimination Function
POF Packet Ordering Function
PRF Packet Replication Function
PW Pseudowire
4. P2P DetNet Ring
This section describes how the DetNet can deliver P2P traffic over a
single ring.
4.1. DetNet applications on a single ring for P2P traffic
Figure 1 shows an example of the DetNet ring for P2P real time
traffic. Nodes A and C are DetNet aware devices, and P2P DetNet
traffic is transported from node A to node C.
+---+#############+---+
| B |-------------| C | +-- DetNet
+---+ +---+ egress
#/ *\
#/ *\
#/ *\
+---+ +---+
DetNet--+ | A | | D |
ingress +---+ +---+
\* */
\* */
\* */
+---+*************+---+
| F |-------------| E |
+---+ +---+
----- Physical Links
##### Clockwise_
***** Counter Clockwise
Figure 1: DetNet Ring for P2P traffic
A clockwise and a counter clockwise Label Switched Paths (LSPs) are
configured from node A to node C using the DetNet forwarding labels
Jiang, et al. Expires January 14, 2021 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft DetNet Ring July 2020
(F-Labels) are configured from node A to node C. The DetNet service
sub-layer functions are provided at nodes A and C utilizing the
DetNet service label(s) (S-Label) and DetNet control word (d-CW) as
described in [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls]. The P2P traffic is replicated
by a Packet Replication Function (PRF) in node A, encapsulated with
the d-CW and specific S-Label and F-Label(s), and transported on both
LSP paths towards node C. Upon reception of the traffic, node C
terminates the LSP and is aware of the DetNet traffic by inspection
of the S-Label carried in each packet. A Packet Elimination Function
(PEF) in node C guarantees that only one copy of the DetNet service
exits on egress with the help of the DetNet sequence number. A
Packet Ordering Function (POF) can further reorder packets in node C
before transport of these packets to the destination.
4.2. Implementation implications of a DetNet ring for P2P traffic
In a DetNet ring for P2P traffic, one path may be far longer than the
other path. The buffer for reordering at the egress needs to be
large enough to accommodate for the sequence number difference
between these two paths.
5. P2MP DetNet Ring
5.1. DetNet applications on a single ring for P2MP traffic
Figure 2 shows an example of the DetNet ring for P2MP real time
traffic. Nodes A, B, C, E and F are DetNet aware devices, and P2MP
DetNet traffic is transported from head-end node A to multiple tail-
end nodes C, E and F.
Two approaches are described in Section 5.2 and Section 5.3 for P2MP
traffic.
Jiang, et al. Expires January 14, 2021 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft DetNet Ring July 2020
+---+#############+---+
| B |-------------| C | +-- DetNet
+---+*************+---+ egress
#/ *\#
#/ *\#
#/ *\#
+---+ +---+
DetNet--+ | A | | D |
ingress +---+ +---+
\* */#
\* */#
\* */#
+---+*************+---+
DetNet--+ | F |-------------| E |+-- DetNet
egress +---+#############+---+ egress
----- Physical Links
##### Clockwise traffic
***** Counter Clockwise traffic
Figure 2: DetNet Ring for P2MP traffic
5.2. Section LSPs as underlay (service sub-layer replication)
If section LSPs are used as an underlay for DetNet services, a
bidirectional section LSP tunnel is set up between each pair of
neighboring nodes in the ring (e.g., node A and node B, ..., node F
and node A). In this case, the DetNet sub-layer replicates the
DetNet packets from one tail-end to another neighboring tail-end.
The DetNet head-end (i.e., node A) in the ring needs to support
DetNet replication function. Upon reception on node A, the DetNet
traffic is replicated with a d-CW, encapsulated with a S-Label and a
section LSP label per DetNet member flow, and transported on both
section LSPs (i.e., A-B and A-F).
All intermediate nodes (non tail-ends) on the ring MUST transparently
forward the DetNet packet, which contains a d-CW and S-Label, to the
next hop on the ring.
All DetNet tail-ends except the penultimate node (egress nodes such
as nodes C and E in the clockwise, and nodes F, E and C in the
counter clockwise) on the ring MUST support both DetNet PRF and PEF
functions, and MAY further support a DetNet POF function. For the
example of Figure 2, upon reception of the clockwise traffic, node C
terminates the section LSP and recognizes the DetNet flow by
inspection of the S-label in the packet. Firstly, node C needs to
forward the DetNet packet to the next hop on the ring in the
Jiang, et al. Expires January 14, 2021 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft DetNet Ring July 2020
clockwise direction. Secondly, the DetNet packet is also directed to
a DetNet PEF associated with the DetNet flow, only one copy is
egressed from the ring by inspection of the sequence number in the
d-CW. Furthermore, if the DetNet POF function is enabled, the
packets in the DetNet flow are reordered before exit to DetNet
egress.
If multiple endpoints are attached to a tail-end node, a multicast
module can be used to forward the traffic to all these endpoints.
To avoid a loop of DetNet service, the penultimate node in the ring
(such as node B on the counter clock-wise LSP) MUST terminate the
DetNet flow. For example, upon reception of the clockwise DetNet
traffic, node F terminates the DetNet traffic by inspection of the
S-Label in the packet. As an alternative, the last DetNet tail-end
(such as node C on the counter clock-wise LSP) MAY terminate the
DetNet flow, so that the bandwidth from this node to the penultimate
node can be saved.
5.3. P2MP LSP tunnels as underlay (forwarding sub-layer replication)
If P2MP LSPs are used as an underlay for the DetNet service, a P2MP
unidirectional LSP tunnel in clockwise is set up from head-end
(ingress node A) to all the tail-ends (egress nodes C, E and F) for
the ring, and another P2MP unidirectional LSP tunnel in counter
clockwise is set up from head-end (ingress node A) to all the tail-
ends (egress nodes F, E and C) for the ring. Thus, a PRF in LSP
layer replicates the DetNet packets from one tail-end to another
neighboring tail-end.
The DetNet head-end (i.e., node A) in the ring needs to support the
DetNet PRF function. Upon reception on node A, the DetNet traffic is
replicated with a d-CW, encapsulated with a S-Label per DetNet member
flow, and transported on both P2MP LSP tunnels in the ring.
All DetNet tail-ends (egress nodes such as nodes C, E and F in
Figure 2) on the ring need to support the DetNet PEF function. For
example, upon reception of the traffic, node C pops the P2MP LSP
label and is aware of the DetNet traffic by inspection of the S-Label
label in the label stack. Two DetNet member flows are identified
with their S-Labels and directed to the same PEF so that only one
copy of the DetNet service is selected by inspection of the DetNet
sequence number in the d-CW. Furthermore, if DetNet POF function is
enabled, the packets in the DetNet flow are reordered before exit to
DetNet egress.
Jiang, et al. Expires January 14, 2021 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft DetNet Ring July 2020
If multiple endpoints are attached to a tail-end node, a multicast
module can be used to forward the filtered DetNet traffic to all
these endpoints
6. DetNet Ring Interconnections
Two DetNet rings can be connected via one or more interconnection
nodes. Figure 3 shows the ring interconnection scenarios with a
single node and dual nodes. In the interconnected rings, each ring
operates in the same way as described in Section 4 and Section 5
except the node or nodes that are used to interconnect two rings.
S T
B C S T O----O
O----O O----O / \
/ \ / \ B I1/ \
/ \ / \ O----O Ring R O U
A O Ring L O Ring R O U / \ /
\ /I\ / / \ /
\ / \ / A O Ring L O----O
O----O O----O \ /I2 V
F E W V \ /
O----O
F E
(a) (b)
Figure 3: DetNet ring interconnection with: (a) single node (node I),
and (b) dual nodes (nodes I1 and I2)
In this section, we describe the behavior of interconnection nodes
with the traffic going from Ring L to Ring R. Symmetrical
description is assumed for the traffic in the other direction (i.e.,
from Ring R to Ring L).
6.1. Single node interconnection
In the case of the single node interconnection, as shown in
Figure 3(a), both P2P and P2MP DetNet traffic that needs to be
transported between Ring L and Ring R use a single interconnection
node between two rings. Thus, the interconnection node acts as a
DetNet relay node, which provides both PRF and PEF functions.
For P2P DetNet traffic going from Ring L to Ring R, interconnection
node I receives the same DetNet flow traffic from both node C and
node E (i.e., clockwise and counter-clockwise), a PEF in node I
performs packet elimination, and a PRF in node I replicates the
packet, node I then sends one copy to node S and another copy to node
W.
Jiang, et al. Expires January 14, 2021 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft DetNet Ring July 2020
For P2MP DetNet traffic going from Ring L to Ring R, interconnection
node I performs the same packet elimination and replication functions
as described above. In addition, node I further transparently
forwards the P2MP DetNet traffic on Ring L in the same direction if
it is not the last tail-end node.
6.2. Dual node interconnection
In order to prevent a single point of failure, two interconnection
nodes can be used as shown in Figure 3(b). To provide high
availability for DetNet services, dual node interconnection is
recommended. Two interconnection nodes act as DetNet relay nodes,
each provides both packet replication and elimination functions.
6.2.1. Dual node interconnection for P2P traffic
For the P2P DetNet traffic that flows from Ring L to Ring R in
Figure 3(b), the operations of interconnection nodes I1 and I2 are
described below.
When interconnection node I1 receives clockwise traffic from node B,
it replicates the traffic and sends one copy to interconnection node
I2 and the other copy to a PEF in interconnection node I1.
When interconnection node I1 receives counter-clockwise traffic from
interconnection node I2, it forwards the traffic to the PEF of
interconnection node I1.
At the PEF of interconnection node I1, duplicate elimination is
performed for the clockwise traffic from node B and the counter-
clockwise traffic from interconnection node I2, and only one copy is
sent to the clockwise direction of Ring R (i.e., sent towards node
S). Furthermore, if DetNet POF function is enabled on
interconnection node I1, the packets in the DetNet flow are reordered
before being forwarded to Ring R.
When interconnection node I2 receives counter-clockwise traffic from
node E, it replicates the traffic and sends one copy to
interconnection node I1 and the other copy to a PEF in
interconnection node I2.
When interconnection node I2 receives clockwise traffic from
interconnection node I1, it forwards the traffic to the PEF of
interconnection node I2.
At the PEF of interconnection node I2, duplicate elimination is
performed for the counter-clockwise traffic from node E and the
clockwise traffic from interconnection node I1, and only one copy is
Jiang, et al. Expires January 14, 2021 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft DetNet Ring July 2020
sent to the counter-clockwise direction of Ring R (i.e., sent towards
node V). Furthermore, if DetNet POF function is enabled on
interconnection node I2, the packets in the DetNet flow are reordered
before being forwarded to Ring R.
6.2.2. Dual node interconnection for P2MP traffic using section LSP
For the P2MP traffic that flows from Ring L to Ring R in Figure 3(b),
each ring is configured and operated as described in Section 5.2
except the interconnection nodes, whose operations are described
below.
When interconnection node I1 receives clockwise traffic from node B,
its PRF replicates the traffic and sends one copy to interconnection
node I2 and the other copy to interconnection node I1's PEF.
When interconnection node I1 receives the counter-clockwise traffic
from interconnection node I2, its PRF replicates the traffic and
sends one copy to node B and the other copy to interconnection node
I1's PEF unless interconnection node I1 is the penultimate node for
the counter-clockwise traffic on Ring L. In the case that
interconnection node I1 is the penultimate node for the counter-
clockwise traffic on Ring L, the counter-clockwise traffic from
interconnection node I2 is only forwarded to interconnection node
I1's PEF.
At interconnection node I1's PEF, duplicate elimination is performed
for the clockwise traffic from node B and the counter-clockwise
traffic from interconnection node I2, and only one copy is sent to
the clockwise direction of Ring R (i.e., sent towards node S).
Furthermore, if DetNet POF function is enabled on node I1, the
packets in the DetNet flow are reordered before being forwarded to
Ring R.
When interconnection node I2 receives the counter-clockwise traffic
from node E, its PRF replicates the traffic and sends one copy to
interconnection node I1 and the other copy to node I2's PEF.
When interconnection node I2 receives the clockwise traffic from
interconnection node I1, its PRF replicates the traffic and sends one
copy to node E and the other copy to interconnection node I2's PEF
unless interconnection node I2 is the penultimate node for the
clockwise traffic on Ring L. In the case that interconnection node
I2 is the penultimate node for the clockwise traffic on Ring L, the
clockwise traffic from interconnection node I1 is only forwarded to
node I2's PEF.
Jiang, et al. Expires January 14, 2021 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft DetNet Ring July 2020
At node I2's PEF, duplicate elimination is performed for the counter-
clockwise traffic from node E and the clockwise traffic from
interconnection node I1, and only one copy is sent to the counter-
clockwise direction of Ring R (i.e., sent towards node V).
Furthermore, if DetNet POF function is enabled on interconnection
node I2, the packets in the DetNet flow are reordered before being
forwarded to Ring R.
6.2.3. Dual node interconnection for P2MP traffic using P2MP LSP
If P2MP LSPs are used in the interconnected rings, two P2MP
unidirectional LSP tunnels are used on each ring for the clockwise
and counter-clockwise directions.
When the P2MP traffic is forwarded from one ring to another ring, for
example from Ring L to Ring R in Figure 3(b), each P2MP LSP in Ring L
MUST include interconnection nodes I1 and I2 as its tail-ends. For
Ring R, one P2MP LSP is set up from interconnection node I1 to all
the tail-ends in the clockwise direction on Ring R, and the other
P2MP LSP is set up from interconnection node I2 to all the tail-ends
in the counter-clockwise direction on Ring R. Therefore, an
interconnection node acts as a tail-end for one ring and a head-end
for another ring in one direction, and performs the same operation of
tail-end and head-end as specified in Section 5.3.
7. Resource Reservation
In order to guarantee that DetNet flows do not suffer from network
congestion, the DetNet data plane considerations on resource
reservation and allocation as described in
[I-D.ietf-detnet-data-plane-framework] apply here.
8. IANA Considerations
There are no IANA actions required by this document
9. Security Considerations
This document describes the application of DetNet MPLS on ring
topologies. Thus, the security considerations described in
[I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls] are also applied to this document. If any new
security considerations specific to ring topologies are identified,
they will be added in a future version of this draft.
Jiang, et al. Expires January 14, 2021 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft DetNet Ring July 2020
10. Editor's Note
This section lists current issues raised by experts in DetNet and
other ring protection technologies. This section will be removed
once the issues are addressed.
o See if Resilient MPLS Ring (RMR) can be used for automatic
configuration of a DetNet ring topology network.
o Consideration of coexistence with existing ring protection
solutions in the DetNet forwarding sublayer.
o Consideration on scalability
o Explain why this document is needed when the DetNet architecture
and data plane documents exist.
11. References
11.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-detnet-data-plane-framework]
Varga, B., Farkas, J., Berger, L., Malis, A., and S.
Bryant, "DetNet Data Plane Framework", draft-ietf-detnet-
data-plane-framework-06 (work in progress), May 2020.
[I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls]
Varga, B., Farkas, J., Berger, L., Malis, A., Bryant, S.,
and J. Korhonen, "DetNet Data Plane: MPLS", draft-ietf-
detnet-mpls-09 (work in progress), July 2020.
[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>.
[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>.
Jiang, et al. Expires January 14, 2021 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft DetNet Ring July 2020
11.2. Informative References
[RFC6378] Weingarten, Y., Ed., Bryant, S., Osborne, E., Sprecher,
N., and A. Fulignoli, Ed., "MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-
TP) Linear Protection", RFC 6378, DOI 10.17487/RFC6378,
October 2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6378>.
[RFC6974] Weingarten, Y., Bryant, S., Ceccarelli, D., Caviglia, D.,
Fondelli, F., Corsi, M., Wu, B., and X. Dai,
"Applicability of MPLS Transport Profile for Ring
Topologies", RFC 6974, DOI 10.17487/RFC6974, July 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6974>.
[RFC7271] Ryoo, J., Ed., Gray, E., Ed., van Helvoort, H.,
D'Alessandro, A., Cheung, T., and E. Osborne, "MPLS
Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) Linear Protection to Match the
Operational Expectations of Synchronous Digital Hierarchy,
Optical Transport Network, and Ethernet Transport Network
Operators", RFC 7271, DOI 10.17487/RFC7271, June 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7271>.
[RFC8227] Cheng, W., Wang, L., Li, H., van Helvoort, H., and J.
Dong, "MPLS-TP Shared-Ring Protection (MSRP) Mechanism for
Ring Topology", RFC 8227, DOI 10.17487/RFC8227, August
2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8227>.
[RFC8578] Grossman, E., Ed., "Deterministic Networking Use Cases",
RFC 8578, DOI 10.17487/RFC8578, May 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8578>.
Authors' Addresses
Yuanlong Jiang
Huawei Technologies
Bantian, Longgang district
Shenzhen 518129
China
Phone: +86-18926415311
Email: jiangyuanlong@huawei.com
Jiang, et al. Expires January 14, 2021 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft DetNet Ring July 2020
Norman Finn
Huawei Technologies
3755 Avocado Blvd
California 91941
USA
Phone: +1 925 980 6430
Email: norman.finn@mail01.huawei.com
Jeong-dong Ryoo
ETRI
218 Gajeongno
Yuseong-gu, Daejeon 34129
South Korea
Phone: +82-42-860-5384
Email: ryoo@etri.re.kr
Balazs Varga
Ericsson
Konyves Kalman krt. 11/B
Budapest 1097
Hungary
Email: balazs.a.varga@ericsson.com
Liang Geng
China Mobile
Beijing
China
Email: gengliang@chinamobile.com
Jiang, et al. Expires January 14, 2021 [Page 14]
