Internet DRAFT - draft-xiong-detnet-qos-policy
draft-xiong-detnet-qos-policy
DeNet WG Q. Xiong
Internet-Draft J. Yu
Intended status: Standards Track ZTE Corporation
Expires: May 4, 2020 P. Liu
F. Qin
China Mobile
November 1, 2019
DetNet QoS Policy
draft-xiong-detnet-qos-policy-02
Abstract
This document proposes a Quality of Service (QoS) policy to apply
Differentiated Services (DiffServ) model for Deterministic Networking
(DetNet) and defines a DetNet DiffServ mechanism including DetNet IP
and MPLS encapsulation.
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 May 4, 2020.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 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
Xiong, et al. Expires May 4, 2020 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft DetNet QoS Policy November 2019
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. DetNet DiffServ Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. DetNet Classifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. DetNet Traffic Conditioners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2.1. Scheduler . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2.2. Order . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.3. DetNet DSCP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.4. DetNet PHB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.5. DetNet Queuing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. DetNet IP DiffServ Consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. DetNet MPLS DiffServ Consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8.1. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8.2. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1. Introduction
As defined in [RFC8655], Deterministic Networking (DetNet) provides a
capability to carry specified unicast or multicast data flows for
real-time applications with extremely low data loss rates and bounded
latency. DetNet and non-DetNet packets may be allowed to transmitted
in the same network and more than one DetNet flows which has
different priorities may be forwarded through the DetNet domain. The
DetNet Class of Service (CoS) should be taken into consideration to
provide Quality of Service (QoS) for DetNet services.
As discussed in [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls] and [I-D.ietf-detnet-ip],
Differentiated Services (DiffServ) can provide traffic forwarding
treatment for DetNet networks. The DiffServ architecture as
specified in [RFC2475] defined a model that traffic entering a
DiffServ domain is classified and conditioned at the boundaries and
marked with a DiffServ Code Point (DSCP) defined in [RFC2474]. The
DSCP is used at transit nodes to select the Per Hop Behavior (PHB)
that determines the scheduling treatment. And [RFC3270] provide a
solution to support DiffServ for traffic marked with Traffic Class
(TC) [RFC5462] transported over an MPLS network.
Xiong, et al. Expires May 4, 2020 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft DetNet QoS Policy November 2019
This document proposes a QoS policy to apply DiffServ model for
DetNet networks and defines a DetNet DiffServ mechanism including
DetNet IP and MPLS encapsulation.
1.1. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
1.2. Terminology
The terminology is defined as [RFC8655], [RFC3270], [RFC2475] and
[RFC2474].
2. DetNet DiffServ Overview
The DetNet network needs to be capable of supporting differentiated
services dividing to one or more contiguous DiffServ domains. The
key components within a DiffServ domain including traffic
classification and conditioning functions, and PHB-based forwarding.
The customers may specify packet classification policy, traffic
profiles and actions to DetNet flows which are in-profile or out-of-
profile at the boundary. The DiffServ domains may support different
PHB groups internally and different codepoint->PHB mappings at the
transit nodes. The DetNet DiffServ process for packets is as
Figure 1 shown.
+---------+
| Meter |-----------------------------------+
+----->| (DetNet |------------------+ |
| | Profile)|--+ | |
| +---------+ | | |
| V V V
DetNet+------------+ +----------+ +------------+ +---------+
Flow | Classifier | | Marker | |Shaper/Order| | Queuing |
=====>| (DetNet |====>| (DetNet |====>| Dropper/ |====>| (DetNet |
| BA/MF) | | DSCP) | | Scheduler/ | | PHB) |
+------------+ +----------+ +------------+ +---------+
Figure 1: Overview of a DetNet DiffServ mechanism
Xiong, et al. Expires May 4, 2020 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft DetNet QoS Policy November 2019
2.1. DetNet Classifiers
As defined in [RFC2475], packet classifiers select packets in a
traffic stream based on the information of packet header including
two types of classifiers, the BA (Behavior Aggregate) and MF (Multi-
Field) Classifier. The difference is that the BA classifies packets
based on the CoS field and the latter one based on more other header
fields.
In DetNet DiffServ model, BA and MF can be applied for packets
classification. After classification, the flows can be seperated
from DetNet and non-DetNet. As specified in [I-D.ietf-detnet-ip], no
DetNet specific encapsulation is defined to support DetNet IP flow
identification and DetNet service delivery. So the DetNet IP
classifiers is the same as defined in [RFC2474] and [RFC2475]. As
defined in [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls], DetNet service Label (S-Label) is
used to identify a DetNet flow and forwarding labels (F-Labels) are
used to provide LSP-based connectivity in DetNet MPLS header. The
S-Label and F-Labels can be used in combination with MPLS TC filed in
MF classifier. And DetNet MPLS BA classifier select packets based on
the MPLS TC field only as defined in [RFC5462].
2.2. DetNet Traffic Conditioners
As mentioned in [RFC8655], DetNet flows can be shaped or scheduled.
The rate limiting of DetNet traffic and the starvation avoiding of
non-DetNet traffic, e.g., at the ingress of the DetNet domain must be
applied by traffic policing and shaping functions. As [RFC2475]
defined, the traffic conditioner may contain four elements: meter,
marker, shaper and dropper. Traffic conditioning performs metering,
shaping, policing and/or re-marking to ensure the traffic which
entering the DiffServ domain conforms to the service provisioning
policy.
In DetNet, the traffic policing and conditioning SHOULD include
meter, marker, shaper, dropper, scheduler and order. A meter with a
DetNet Profile is used to measure the DetNet flows selected by a
DetNet classifier and the result of the meter with respect to a
packet may be used to trigger a DetNet action including a marking,
shaping, dropping, scheduling or ordering. A marker is used to set
the Cos field of a DetNet packet to a DetNet DSCP (section 2.3),
mapping the marked packet to a DetNet PHB. A Shaper may apply
specific shaping algorithms implemented by DetNet network, e.g.,
credit-based shaper [IEEE802.1Qav]. A dropper is used to discard
some of the non-DetNet packets to provide the QoS of the DetNet flows
when congestion occurs.
Xiong, et al. Expires May 4, 2020 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft DetNet QoS Policy November 2019
2.2.1. Scheduler
As decribed in [RFC8655], the DetNet flows can be scheduled to
achieve time-based synchronization for scheduled traffic. This
document proposes a new type of action for DetNet traffic
conditioning named Scheduler action. A scheduler may apply specific
scheduling and related Queuing algorithms implemented by DetNet
network, e.g., Time-gated queues [IEEE802.1Qbv] and Cyclic Queuing
and Forwarding [IEEE802.1Qch].
2.2.2. Order
As defined in [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls], DetNet control word (d-CW)
containing sequencing information for packet replication and
duplicate elimination purposes. Sequence Number is different packet-
by-packet. Based on Detnet MPLS date plane encapsulation, this
document proposes a new type of action for DetNet traffic
conditioning named order action which used to reorder the packets
within a DetNet flow that are received out of order.
2.3. DetNet DSCP
The DetNet DSCP carried in CoS field in IP header and TC field in
MPLS header may be uesd to mark packets at ingress nodes and select a
DetNet PHB (section 2.4) at transit nodes. DetNet DSCP MUST be
defined to one or more particular values, which MUST be unique for
codepoints in the standard space.
[Ed.note: We need to define one or more DetNet DSCP values and
related DetNet PHB for DetNet-specific treatment.]
2.4. DetNet PHB
As specified in [RFC2475], per-hop behaviors are defined to permit a
reasonably granular means of allocating buffer and bandwidth
resources at each node among competing traffic streams. PHB groups
will usually share a common constraint such as a packet scheduling or
buffer management policy. According to [RFC4594], Default Forwarding
(DF) PHB, Assured Forwarding (AF) PHBs, Expedited Forwarding (EF) PHB
and Class Selector (CS) PHBs have been defined to provide forwarding
treatment. These PHBs can be used to forward DetNet flows based on
the requirement.
This document defines a new type of Deterministic Networking (DN) PHB
which is intended for traffic requiring extremely low data loss rates
and bounded latency for DetNet. The DN PHB may include a set of PHB
classes, e.g., DN1,DN2,etc. And the number of the class is the same
with the DetNet DSCP values. The DSCP in IP header and TC in MPLS
Xiong, et al. Expires May 4, 2020 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft DetNet QoS Policy November 2019
header should be mapped to DN PHB with the relevant PHB specification
which may be completed in future discussion.
2.5. DetNet Queuing
As discussed in [RFC8655],the nodes in DetNet network shall queue
each received packets to one of the potential transmission ports and
provide storage for queued packets, awaiting to submit these for
transmission. A port provides one or more queues corresponding to
the number of traffic classes. The queuing mechanism should be
configured and implemented to DetNet nodes.
As defined in [RFC4594], Priority Queuing (PQ) was defined to queue
the packets in priority sequence and Rate Queuing (RQ)selects packets
according to the specified rate including Weighted Fair Queuing (WFQ)
and Weighted Round Robin (WRR). Active Queue Management (AQM) also
be defined to use packet dropping or marking to manage the depth of a
queue.
As per IEEE 802.1 WG, queuing and transmission selection algorithms
also can be used for queue scheduling in DetNet network.
3. DetNet IP DiffServ Consideration
As specified in [I-D.ietf-detnet-ip], no DetNet specific
encapsulation is defined to support DetNet IP flow identification and
DetNet service delivery. So the DetNet IP classification is the same
as defined in [RFC2474] and [RFC2475]. But the recommended DetNet
DSCP may be uesd to mark packets to select a DetNet PHB and the
transit nodes should implement mechanisms performing the PHB. The
mapping of DSCP to PHBs MUST be configurable. Implementations should
support the recommended codepoint-to-PHB mappings in their default
configuration.
4. DetNet MPLS DiffServ Consideration
As defined in [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls], DetNet S-Label and F-Labels can
be used in combination with MPLS TC filed in MF classifier. The BA
classifier is the same with the [RFC3270].
Two types of LSPs including Explicitly TC-encoded-PSC LSP (E-LSP) and
Label-Only-Inferred-PSC LSP (L-LSP) follows the definition of
[RFC3270] and can be used to support DetNet explicit routes in MPLS-
TE LSP. A E-LSP can be used to support one or more DetNet flows and
a L-LSP can be established for one flow. E-LSP and L-LSP can use a
signaled TC->PHB mapping to forward packets whose corresponding PHBs
are defined in this document.
Xiong, et al. Expires May 4, 2020 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft DetNet QoS Policy November 2019
In DetNet MPLS network, DetNet Layer Two Service is supported in TSN
over MPLS. The LSP egressing over egde nodes can use the
preconfigured PHB->802.1 mapping as defined in [RFC3270].
As specified in [RFC3270], there may be more than one LSP carrying
the same flow. Two or more LSPs can be merged into one LSP at one
egressing LSR. It can be used to perform the packet replication
(PRF) at ingress nodes and the packet elimination (PEF) at the egress
nodes in DetNet DiffServ model. The order action which defined in
this document can be used for packet ordering functionality (POF).
5. Security Considerations
TBD.
6. IANA Considerations
TBD.
7. Acknowledgements
TBD.
8. References
8.1. Informative References
[RFC2475] Blake, S., Black, D., Carlson, M., Davies, E., Wang, Z.,
and W. Weiss, "An Architecture for Differentiated
Services", RFC 2475, DOI 10.17487/RFC2475, December 1998,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2475>.
8.2. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-detnet-ip]
Varga, B., Farkas, J., Berger, L., Fedyk, D., Malis, A.,
Bryant, S., and J. Korhonen, "DetNet Data Plane: IP",
draft-ietf-detnet-ip-03 (work in progress), October 2019.
[I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls]
Varga, B., Farkas, J., Berger, L., Fedyk, D., Malis, A.,
Bryant, S., and J. Korhonen, "DetNet Data Plane: MPLS",
draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-03 (work in progress), October
2019.
Xiong, et al. Expires May 4, 2020 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft DetNet QoS Policy November 2019
[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>.
[RFC2474] Nichols, K., Blake, S., Baker, F., and D. Black,
"Definition of the Differentiated Services Field (DS
Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers", RFC 2474,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2474, December 1998,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2474>.
[RFC3270] Le Faucheur, F., Wu, L., Davie, B., Davari, S., Vaananen,
P., Krishnan, R., Cheval, P., and J. Heinanen, "Multi-
Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Support of Differentiated
Services", RFC 3270, DOI 10.17487/RFC3270, May 2002,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3270>.
[RFC4594] Babiarz, J., Chan, K., and F. Baker, "Configuration
Guidelines for DiffServ Service Classes", RFC 4594,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4594, August 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4594>.
[RFC5462] Andersson, L. and R. Asati, "Multiprotocol Label Switching
(MPLS) Label Stack Entry: "EXP" Field Renamed to "Traffic
Class" Field", RFC 5462, DOI 10.17487/RFC5462, February
2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5462>.
[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>.
Authors' Addresses
Quan Xiong
ZTE Corporation
No.6 Huashi Park Rd
Wuhan, Hubei 430223
China
Phone: +86 27 83531060
Email: xiong.quan@zte.com.cn
Xiong, et al. Expires May 4, 2020 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft DetNet QoS Policy November 2019
Jinghai Yu
ZTE Corporation
50 Software Avenue, YuHuaTai District
Nanjing, Jiangsu 210012
China
Phone: +86 025 26774049
Email: yu.jinghai@zte.com.cn
Peng Liu
China Mobile
Beijing 100053
China
Email: liupengyjy@chinamobile.com
Fengwei Qin
China Mobile
Beijing
China
Email: qinfengwei@chinamobile.com
Xiong, et al. Expires May 4, 2020 [Page 9]
