Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Controller Plane Framework
draft-ietf-detnet-controller-plane-framework-07
| Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (detnet WG) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Andrew G. Malis , Xuesong Geng , Mach Chen , Balazs Varga , Carlos J. Bernardos | ||
| Last updated | 2024-11-06 (Latest revision 2024-07-05) | ||
| Replaces | draft-malis-detnet-controller-plane-framework | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Reviews | |||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
| Stream | WG state | In WG Last Call | |
| Associated WG milestone |
|
||
| Document shepherd | Lou Berger | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | [email protected] |
draft-ietf-detnet-controller-plane-framework-07
Network Working Group A. Malis
Internet-Draft Independent
Intended status: Informational X. Geng, Ed.
Expires: 6 January 2025 M. Chen
Huawei
B. Varga
Ericsson
C. Bernardos
Universidad Carlos III de Madrid
5 July 2024
Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Controller Plane Framework
draft-ietf-detnet-controller-plane-framework-07
Abstract
This document provides a framework overview for the Deterministic
Networking (DetNet) controller plane. It discusses concepts and
requirements for DetNet controller plane which could be basis for
future solution specification.
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 6 January 2025.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2024 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
Malis, et al. Expires 6 January 2025 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft DetNet Controller Plane July 2024
and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components
extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. DetNet Controller Plane Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. DetNet Control Plane Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. DetNet Management Plane Requirements . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.3. Requirements For Both Planes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. DetNet Control Plane Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1. Distributed Control Plane and Signaling Protocols . . . . 6
3.2. SDN/Fully Centralized Control Plane . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.3. Hybrid Control Plane (partly centralized, partly
distributed) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. DetNet Control Plane for DetNet Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1. Explicit Paths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.2. Resource Reservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.3. PREOF Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.4. Data Plane specific considerations . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.4.1. DetNet in an MPLS Domain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.4.2. DetNet in an IP Domain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.4.3. DetNet in a Segment Routing Domain . . . . . . . . . 11
5. Management Plane Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.1. Provisioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.2. DetNet Operations, Administration and Maintenance
(OAM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.2.1. OAM for Performance Monitoring (PM) . . . . . . . . . 12
5.2.2. OAM for Connectivity and Fault/Defect Management
(CFM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6. Multidomain Aspects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. Gap Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
10. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
11. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Malis, et al. Expires 6 January 2025 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft DetNet Controller Plane July 2024
1. Introduction
Deterministic Networking (DetNet) provides the capability to carry
specified unicast and/or multicast data flows for real-time
applications with extremely low data loss rates and bounded latency
within a network domain. As defined in [RFC8655], techniques used to
provide DetNet capability include reserving data plane resources for
individual (or aggregated) DetNet flows in some or all of the
intermediate nodes along the path of the flow, providing explicit
routes for DetNet flows that do not immediately change with the
network topology, and distributing data from DetNet flow packets over
time and/or space to ensure delivery of each packet’s data in spite
of the loss of a path.
DetNet data plane is defined in a set of documents that are anchored
by the DetNet Data Plane Framework[RFC8938] (and the associated
DetNet MPLS defined in [RFC8964] and DetNet IP defined in [RFC8939]
and other data plane specifications defined in [RFC9023], [RFC9024],
[RFC9025], [RFC9037] and [RFC9056])
While the Detnet Architecture and Data Plane documents are primarily
concerned with data plane operations, they do contain some
requirements for functions that would be required in order to
automate DetNet service provisioning and monitoring via a DetNet
controller plane. The purpose of this document is to gather these
requirements into a single document and discuss how various possible
DetNet controller plane architectures could be used to satisfy these
requirements, while not providing the protocol details for a DetNet
controller plane solution. Such controller plane protocol solutions
will be the subject of subsequent documents.
Note that in the DetNet overall architecture, the controller plane
includes what are more traditionally considered separate control and
management planes. Traditionally, the management plane is primarily
involved with fault management, configuration management and
performance management(sometimes accounting management and security
management is also considered in the management plane, but not in the
scope of this document). , while the control plane is primarily
responsible for the instantiation and maintenance of flows, MPLS
label allocation and distribution, and active in-band or out-of-band
signaling to support DetNet functions. In the DetNet architecture,
all of this functionality is combined into a single Controller Plane.
See Section 4.4.2 of [RFC8655] and the aggregation of Control and
Management planes in [RFC7426] for further details.
Malis, et al. Expires 6 January 2025 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft DetNet Controller Plane July 2024
1.1. Terminology
This document uses the terminology established in the DetNet
Architecture [RFC8655], and the reader is assumed to be familiar with
that document and its terminology.
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.
2. DetNet Controller Plane Requirements
Other DetNet documents, including [RFC8655] and [RFC8938], contain
requirements for the Controller Plane. For convenience, these
requirements have been compiled here. These requirements have been
organized into 3 groups, including: requirements primarily applicable
to control plane, requirements primarily applicable to management
plane and requirements applicable to both planes.
2.1. DetNet Control Plane Requirements
The primary requirements for the DetNet Control Plane include:
* Support the dynamic creation, modification, and deletion of DetNet
flows. This may include some or all of explicit path
determination, link bandwidth reservations, restricting flows to
specific links (e.g., IEEE 802.1 Time-Sensitive Networking (TSN)
links), node buffer and other resource reservations, specification
of required queuing disciplines along the path, ability to manage
bidirectional flows, etc., as needed for a flow.
* Support DetNet flow aggregation and de-aggregation via the ability
to dynamically create and delete flow aggregates (FAs), and be
able to modify existing FAs by adding or deleting participating
flows.
* Allow flow instantiation requests to originate in an end
application (via an Application Programming Interface (API), via
static provisioning, or via a dynamic control plane, such as a
centralized SDN controller or distributed signaling protocols.
See Section 3 for further discussion of these options.
* In the case of the DetNet MPLS data plane, manage DetNet Service
Label (S-Label), Forwarding Label (F-Label), and Aggregation Label
(A-Label) [RFC8964] allocation and distribution.
Malis, et al. Expires 6 January 2025 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft DetNet Controller Plane July 2024
* Also in the case of the DetNet MPLS data plane, support the DetNet
service sub-layer, which provides DetNet service functions such as
protection and reordering through the use of packet replication,
duplicate elimination, and packet ordering functions (PREOF).
* Support queue control techniques defined in Section 4.5 of
[RFC8655] and [RFC9320] that require time synchronization among
network nodes.
* Advertise static and dynamic node and link resources such as
capabilities and adjacencies to other network nodes (for dynamic
signaling approaches) or to network controllers (for centralized
approaches).
* Scale to handle the number of DetNet flows expected in a domain
(which may require per-flow signaling or provisioning).
* Provision flow identification information at each of the nodes
along the path. Flow identification may differ depending on the
location in the network and the DetNet functionality (e.g. transit
node vs. relay node).
2.2. DetNet Management Plane Requirements
The primary requirements of the DetNet Management Plane are that it
must be able to:
* Monitor the performance of DetNet flows and nodes to ensure that
they are meeting required objectives, both proactively and on-
demand.
* Support DetNet flow continuity check and connectivity verification
functions.
* Support testing and monitoring of packet replication, duplicate
elimination, and packet ordering functionality in the DetNet
domain.
2.3. Requirements For Both Planes
The following requirements apply to both the DetNet Controller and
Management Planes:
* Operate in a converged network domain that contains both DetNet
and non-DetNet flows.
* Adapt to DetNet domain topology changes such as links or nodes
failures (fault recovery/restoration), additions and removals.
Malis, et al. Expires 6 January 2025 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft DetNet Controller Plane July 2024
3. DetNet Control Plane Architecture
As noted in the Introduction, the DetNet control plane is responsible
for the instantiation and maintenance of flows, allocation and
distribution of flow related information (e.g., MPLS label), and
active in-band or out-of-band information distribution to support
these functions.
The following sections define three types of DetNet control plane
architectures: a fully distributed control plane utilizing dynamic
signaling protocols, a fully centralized SDN-like control plane, and
a hybrid control plane containing both distributed protocols and
centralized controlling . This document describes the various
information exchanges between entities in the network for Each type
of these architectures and the corresponding advantages and
disadvantages.
In each of the following sections, there are examples to illustrate
possible mechanisms that could be used in each type of the
architectures. They are not meant to be exhaustive or to preclude
any other possible mechanism that could be used in place of those
used in the examples.
3.1. Distributed Control Plane and Signaling Protocols
In a fully distributed configuration model, User-to-Network Interface
(UNI) information is transmitted over a DetNet UNI protocol from the
user side to the network side.Then UNI and network configuration
information propagate in the network via distributed control plane
signaling protocols. Such a DetNet UNI protocol is not necessary in
case that the End-systems are DetNet capable.
Taking an RSVP-TE MPLS network as an example, where end systems are
not part of the DetNet domain:
1. Network nodes collects topology information and DetNet
capabilities of the network nodes through IGP;
2. Ingress edge node receives a flow establishment request from the
UNI and calculates one or more valid path(s);
3. The ingress node sends a PATH message with an explicit route
through RSVP-TE [RFC3209]. After receiving the PATH message, the
egress edge node sends a RESV message with the distributed label
and resource reservation request.
In this example, both IGP and RSVT-TE may request extensions for
DetNet.
Malis, et al. Expires 6 January 2025 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft DetNet Controller Plane July 2024
3.2. SDN/Fully Centralized Control Plane
In the fully SDN/centralized configuration model, flow/UNI
information is transmitted from a Centralized User Controller or from
applications via an API/ northbound interface to a Centralized
Controlle. Network node configurations for DetNet flows are
performed by the controller using a protocol such as NETCONF
[RFC6241]/YANG [RFC6020] or PCE-CC [RFC8283].
Take the following case as an example::
1. A Centralized Controller collects topology information and DetNet
capabilities of the network nodes via NETCONF/YANG;
2. The Controller receives a flow establishment request from a UNI
and calculates one or more valid path(s) through the network;
3. The Controller chooses the optimal path and configures the
devices along that path for DetNet flow transmission via PCE-CC.
Protocols in the above example may require extensions for DetNet.
3.3. Hybrid Control Plane (partly centralized, partly distributed)
In the hybrid model, controller and control plane protocols work
together to provide DetNet services, and there are a number of
possible combinations.
In the following case, RSVP-TE and controller are used together:
1. Controller collects topology information and DetNet capabilities
of the network nodes via an IGP and/or BGP-LS [RFC7752];
2. Controller receives a flow establishment request through API and
calculates one or more valid path(s) through the network ;
3. Based on the calculation result, the Controller distributes flow
path information to the ingress edge node and configures network
nodes along the path with necessary DetNet information (e.g. for
replication/duplicate elimination)
4. Using RSVP-TE, the ingress edge node sends a PATH message with an
explicit route. After receiving the PATH message, the egress
edge node sends a RESV message with the distributed label and
resource reservation request.
Malis, et al. Expires 6 January 2025 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft DetNet Controller Plane July 2024
There are many other variations that could be included in a hybrid
control plane. The requested DetNet extensions for protocol in each
possible case is for future work.
4. DetNet Control Plane for DetNet Mechanisms
This section discusses requested control plane features for DetNet
mechanisms as defined in [RFC8655], including explicit path, resource
reservation, service protection(PREOF). Different DetNet service may
implement part/all of them based on the requirements.
4.1. Explicit Paths
Explicit paths are required in DetNet to provide a stable forwarding
service and guarantee that DetNet service is not impacted when the
network topology changes. The following features are necessary in
control plane to implement explicit paths in DetNet:
* Path computation: DetNet explicit paths need to meet the SLA
(Service Level Agreement) requirements of the application, which
include bandwidth, maximum end- to-end delay, maximum end-to-end
delay variation, maximum loss ratio, etc. In a distributed
network system, IGP with CSPF (Constrained Shortest Path First)
may be used to compute a set of feasible paths for a DetNet
service. In a centralized network system, controller can compute
paths satisfying the requirements of DetNet based on the network
information collected from the DetNet domain.
* Path establishment: The computed path for the DetNet service has
to be sent/configured/signaled to the network device, so the
corresponding DetNet flow could pass through the network domain
following the specified path.
4.2. Resource Reservation
DetNet flows are supposed to be protected from congestion, so
sufficient resource reservation for DetNet service could protect
service from congestion. There are multiple types of resources in
the network that could be allocated to DetNet flows, e.g., packet
processing resource, buffer resource, and bandwidth of the output
port. The network resource requested by a specified DetNet service
is determined by the SLA requirements and network capability.
* Resource Allocation: Port bandwidth is one of the basic attributes
of a network device which is easy to obtain or calculate. In
current traffic engineering implementations, network resource
allocation is synonymous with bandwidth allocation. A DetNet flow
is characterized with a traffic specification as defined in
Malis, et al. Expires 6 January 2025 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft DetNet Controller Plane July 2024
[RFC9016], including attributes such as Interval, Maximum Packets
Per Interval, and Maximum Payload Size. The traffic specification
describes the worst case, rather than the average case, for the
traffic, to ensure that sufficient bandwidth and buffering
resources are reserved to satisfy the traffic specification.
However, in case of DetNet, resource allocation is more than
simple bandwidth reservation. For example, allocation of buffers
and required queuing disciplines during forwarding may be required
as well. Furthermore, resources must be ensured to execute DetNet
service sub-layer functions on the node, such as protection and
reordering through the use of packet replication, duplicate
elimination, and packet ordering functions (PREOF).
* Device configuration with or without flow discrimination: The
resource allocation can be guaranteed by device configuration.
For example, an output port bandwidth reservation can be
configured as a parameter of queue management and the port
scheduling algorithm. When DetNet flows are aggregated, a group
of DetNet flows share the allocated resource in the network
device. When the DetNet flows are treated independently, the
device should maintains a mapping relationship between a DetNet
flow and its corresponding resources.
4.3. PREOF Support
DetNet path redundancy is supported via packet replication, duplicate
elimination, and packet ordering functions (PREOF). A DetNet flow is
replicated and goes through multiple networks paths to avoid packet
loss caused by device or link failures. In general, current control
plane mechanisms that can be used to establish an explicit path,
whether distributed or centralized, support point-to-point (P2P) and
point-to-multipoint (P2MP) path establishment. PREOF requires the
ability to compute and establish a set of multiple paths (e.g.,
multiple LSP segments in an MPLS network) from the point(s) of packet
replication to the point(s) of packet merging and ordering. Mapping
of DetNet (member) flows to explicit path segments has to be ensured
as well. Protocol extensions will be required to support these new
features. Terminology will also be required to refer to this
coordinated set of path segments (such as an “LSP graph” in case of
DetNet MPLS data plane).
4.4. Data Plane specific considerations
4.4.1. DetNet in an MPLS Domain
For the purposes of this document, “traditional MPLS” is defined as
MPLS without the use of segment routing (see Section 4.4.3 for a
discussion of MPLS with segment routing) or MPLS-TP [RFC5960].
Malis, et al. Expires 6 January 2025 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft DetNet Controller Plane July 2024
In traditional MPLS domains, a dynamic control plane using
distributed signaling protocols is typically used for the
distribution of MPLS labels used for forwarding MPLS packets. The
dynamic signaling protocols most commonly used for label distribution
are LDP [RFC5036], RSVP-TE, and BGP [RFC8277] (which enables BGP/
MPLS-based Layer 3 VPNs [RFC4384] and Layer 2 VPNs [RFC7432]).
Any of these protocols could be used to distribute DetNet Service
Labels (S-Labels) and Aggregation Labels (A-Labels) [RFC8964]. As
discussed in [RFC8938], S-Labels are similar to other MPLS service
labels, such as pseudowire, L3 VPN, and L2 VPN labels, and could be
distributed in a similar manner, such as through the use of targeted
LDP or BGP. If these were to be used for DetNet, they would require
extensions to support DetNet-specific features such as PREOF,
aggregation (A-Labels), node resource allocation, and queue
placement.
However, as discussed in Section 3.1, distributed signaling protocols
may have difficulty meeting DetNet’s scalability requirements. MPLS
also allows SDN-like centralized label management and distribution as
an alternative to distributed signaling protocols, using protocols
such as PCEP and OpenFlow [OPENFLOW].
PCEP, particularly when used as a part of PCE-CC, is a possible
candidate protocol to use for centralized management of traditional
MPLS-based DetNet domains. However, PCE path calculation algorithms
would need to be extended to include the location determination for
PREOF nodes in a path, and the means to signal the necessary resource
reservation and PREOF function placement information to network
nodes. See ((?I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller)) for
further discussion of PCE-CC and PCEP for centralized control of an
MPLS domain.
4.4.2. DetNet in an IP Domain
For the purposes of this document, “traditional IP” is defined as IP
without the use of segment routing (see Section 4.4.3 for a
discussion of IP with segment routing). In a later revision of this
document, this section will discuss possible protocol extensions to
existing IP routing protocols such as OSPF, IS-IS, and BGP. It
should be noted that a DetNet IP data plane [RFC8939] is simpler than
a DetNet MPLS data plane [RFC8964], and doesn’t support PREOF, so
only one path per flow or flow aggregate is required.
Malis, et al. Expires 6 January 2025 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft DetNet Controller Plane July 2024
4.4.3. DetNet in a Segment Routing Domain
Segment Routing [RFC8402] is a scalable approach to building network
domains that provides explicit routing via source routing encoded in
packet headers and it is combined with centralized network control to
compute paths through the network. Forwarding paths are distributed
with associated policy to network edge nodes for use in packet
headers. As such, segment routing can be considered as a new data
plane for both MPLS and IP. It reduces the amount of network
signaling associated with distributed signaling protocols such as
RSVP-TE, and also reduces the amount of state in core nodes compared
with that required for traditional MPLS and IP routing, as the state
is now in the packets rather than in the routers. This could be
useful for DetNet, where a very large number of flows through a
network domain are expected, which would otherwise require the
instantiation of state for each flow traversing each node in the
network. However, further analysis is needed on the expected gain,
as DetNet flows may require various type of DetNet specific resources
as well.
In a later revision of this document, this section will discuss the
impact of DetNet on the Segment Routing Control and Management
planes. Note that the DetNet MPLS and IP data planes described in
[RFC8964] and [RFC8939] were constructed to be compatible with both
types of segment routing, SR-MPLS [RFC8660] and SRv6 [RFC8754].
However, as of this writing, traffic engineering and resource
reservation for segment routing are currently unsolved problems.
Editor’s note: this section may be collapsed to previous sections and
listing MPLS segment routing in the MPLS section as one of the
possible explicit routing techniques for MPLS, and do the same for
IP.
5. Management Plane Overview
The Management Plane includes the ability to statically provision
network nodes and to use OAM to monitor DetNet performance and detect
outages or other issues at the DetNet layer.
5.1. Provisioning
Static provisioning in a Detnet network nodes will be performed via
the use of appropriate YANG models, including [I-D.ietf-detnet-yang]
and [I-D.ietf-detnet-topology-yang].
Malis, et al. Expires 6 January 2025 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft DetNet Controller Plane July 2024
5.2. DetNet Operations, Administration and Maintenance (OAM)
This document covers the general considerations for OAM.
5.2.1. OAM for Performance Monitoring (PM)
5.2.1.1. Active PM
Active PM is performed by injecting OAM packets into the network to
estimate the performance of the network by measuring the performance
of the OAM packets. Adding extra traffic can affect the delay and
throughput performance of the network, and for this reason active PM
is not recommended for use in operational DetNet domains. However,
it is a useful test tool when commissioning a new network or during
troubleshooting.
5.2.1.2. Passive PM
Passive PM monitors the actual service traffic in a network domain in
order to measure its performance without having a detrimental affect
on the network. As compared to Active PM, Passive PM is much
preferred for use in DetNet domains.
5.2.2. OAM for Connectivity and Fault/Defect Management (CFM)
The detailed requirements for connectivity and fault/defect detection
and management in DetNet IP domain and DetNet MPLS domain are defined
in respectively in [I-D.ietf-detnet-ip-oam] and
[I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls-oam].
6. Multidomain Aspects
When there are multiple domains involved, one or multiple controller
plane functions (CFP) would have to collaborate to implement the
requests received from the flow management entity (FME, as defined in
[RFC8655]) as per-flow, per-hop behaviors installed in the DetNet
nodes for each individual flow. Adding multi-domain support might
require some support at the CPF. For example, CPFs of different
domains, e.g., PCEs need to discover each other, authenticate and
negotiate per-hop behaviors. Furthermore, in case of wireless
domains, the per-domain RAW specific functions like the PLRs have to
be also considered, e.g., in addition to the PCEs. Depending on the
multi-domain support provided by the application plane, the
controller plane might be relieved from some responsibilities (e.g.,
if the application plane takes care of splitting what needs to be
provided by each domain).
Malis, et al. Expires 6 January 2025 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft DetNet Controller Plane July 2024
7. Gap Analysis
In a later revision of this document, this section will contain a gap
analysis of existing IETF control and management plane protocols not
already discussed elsewhere in this document for their ability (or
inability) to satisfy the requirements in Section 2, and discuss
possible protocol extensions to existing protocols to fill the gaps,
if any.
8. IANA Considerations
This document has no actions for IANA.
Note to RFC Editor: this section may be removed on publication as an
RFC.
9. Security Considerations
Editor's note: This section needs more details.
The overall security considerations of DetNet are discussed in
[RFC8655] and [I-D.ietf-detnet-security]. For DetNet networks that
make use of Segment Routing (whether SR-MPLS or SRv6), the security
considerations in [RFC8402] also apply.
DetNet networks that make use of a centralized controller plane may
be threatened by the loss of connectivity (whether accidental or
malicious) between the central controller and the network nodes, and/
or the spoofing of control messages from the controller to the
network nodes. This is important since such networks depend on
centralized controllers to calculate flow paths and instantiate flow
state in the network nodes. For networks that use both DetNet and
Segment Routing with a centralized controller, this would also
include the calculation of SID lists and their installation in edge/
border routers.
In both cases, such threats may be mitigated through redundant
controllers, the use of authentication between the controller(s) and
the network nodes, and other mechanisms for protection against DOS
attacks. A mechanism for supporting one or more alternative central
controllers and the ability to fail over to such an alternative
controller will be required.
10. Acknowledgments
Thanks to Jim Guichard, Donald Eastlake, and Stewart Bryant for their
review comments.
Malis, et al. Expires 6 January 2025 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft DetNet Controller Plane July 2024
11. Contributors
Fengwei Qin
China Mobile
Email: [email protected]
12. References
12.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-detnet-flow-information-model]
Varga, B., Farkas, J., Cummings, R., Jiang, Y., and D.
Fedyk, "DetNet Flow Information Model", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-detnet-flow-information-model-
10, 15 May 2020, <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
draft-ietf-detnet-flow-information-model-10.txt>.
[I-D.ietf-detnet-ip-oam]
Mirsky, G., Chen, M., and D. L. Black, "Operations,
Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) for Deterministic
Networks (DetNet) with IP Data Plane", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-detnet-ip-oam-13, 14 February
2024, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-
detnet-ip-oam-13>.
[I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls-oam]
Mirsky, G., Chen, M., and B. Varga, "Operations,
Administration and Maintenance (OAM) for Deterministic
Networks (DetNet) with MPLS Data Plane", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-oam-15, 12 January
2024, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-
detnet-mpls-oam-15>.
[I-D.ietf-detnet-security]
Mizrahi, T. and E. Grossman, "Deterministic Networking
(DetNet) Security Considerations", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-detnet-security-10, 30 May
2020, <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-
detnet-security-10.txt>.
[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>.
Malis, et al. Expires 6 January 2025 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft DetNet Controller Plane July 2024
[RFC7426] Haleplidis, E., Ed., Pentikousis, K., Ed., Denazis, S.,
Hadi Salim, J., Meyer, D., and O. Koufopavlou, "Software-
Defined Networking (SDN): Layers and Architecture
Terminology", RFC 7426, DOI 10.17487/RFC7426, January
2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7426>.
[RFC8174] "".
[RFC8402] Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L.,
Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment
Routing Architecture", RFC 8402, DOI 10.17487/RFC8402,
July 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8402>.
[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>.
[RFC8939] Varga, B., Ed., Farkas, J., Berger, L., Fedyk, D., and S.
Bryant, "Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Data Plane:
IP", RFC 8939, DOI 10.17487/RFC8939, November 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8939>.
[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>.
[RFC9016] Varga, B., Farkas, J., Cummings, R., Jiang, Y., and D.
Fedyk, "Flow and Service Information Model for
Deterministic Networking (DetNet)", RFC 9016,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9016, March 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9016>.
[RFC9023] Varga, B., Ed., Farkas, J., Malis, A., and S. Bryant,
"Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Data Plane: IP over
IEEE 802.1 Time-Sensitive Networking (TSN)", RFC 9023,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9023, June 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9023>.
Malis, et al. Expires 6 January 2025 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft DetNet Controller Plane July 2024
[RFC9024] Varga, B., Ed., Farkas, J., Malis, A., Bryant, S., and D.
Fedyk, "Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Data Plane: IEEE
802.1 Time-Sensitive Networking over MPLS", RFC 9024,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9024, June 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9024>.
[RFC9025] Varga, B., Ed., Farkas, J., Berger, L., Malis, A., and S.
Bryant, "Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Data Plane:
MPLS over UDP/IP", RFC 9025, DOI 10.17487/RFC9025, April
2021, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9025>.
[RFC9037] Varga, B., Ed., Farkas, J., Malis, A., and S. Bryant,
"Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Data Plane: MPLS over
IEEE 802.1 Time-Sensitive Networking (TSN)", RFC 9037,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9037, June 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9037>.
[RFC9056] Varga, B., Ed., Berger, L., Fedyk, D., Bryant, S., and J.
Korhonen, "Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Data Plane:
IP over MPLS", RFC 9056, DOI 10.17487/RFC9056, October
2021, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9056>.
[RFC9320] Finn, N., Le Boudec, J.-Y., Mohammadpour, E., Zhang, J.,
and B. Varga, "Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Bounded
Latency", RFC 9320, DOI 10.17487/RFC9320, November 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9320>.
12.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-detnet-topology-yang]
Geng, X., Chen, M., Li, Z., and R. Rahman, "Deterministic
Networking (DetNet) Topology YANG Model", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-detnet-topology-yang-
00, 25 January 2019, <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
draft-ietf-detnet-topology-yang-00.txt>.
[I-D.ietf-detnet-yang]
Geng, X., Chen, M., Ryoo, Y., Li, Z., Rahman, R., and D.
Fedyk, "Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Configuration
YANG Model", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-
detnet-yang-06, 11 June 2020, <http://www.ietf.org/
internet-drafts/draft-ietf-detnet-yang-06.txt>.
Malis, et al. Expires 6 January 2025 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft DetNet Controller Plane July 2024
[IEEE.802.1QBV_2015]
IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area
networks -- Bridges and Bridged Networks - Amendment 25:
Enhancements for Scheduled Traffic", IEEE 802.1Qbv-2015,
DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2016.7572858, 18 March 2016,
<http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/servlet/
opac?punumber=7572858>.
[OPENFLOW] Open Networking Foundation, "OpenFlow Switch
Specification, Version 1.5.1 (Protocol version 0x06)",
ONF TS-025, March 2015, <https://www.opennetworking.org/
wp-content/uploads/2014/10/openflow-switch-v1.5.1.pdf>.
[RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
Tunnels", RFC 3209, DOI 10.17487/RFC3209, December 2001,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3209>.
[RFC4384] Meyer, D., "BGP Communities for Data Collection", BCP 114,
RFC 4384, DOI 10.17487/RFC4384, February 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4384>.
[RFC5036] Andersson, L., Ed., Minei, I., Ed., and B. Thomas, Ed.,
"LDP Specification", RFC 5036, DOI 10.17487/RFC5036,
October 2007, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5036>.
[RFC5439] Yasukawa, S., Farrel, A., and O. Komolafe, "An Analysis of
Scaling Issues in MPLS-TE Core Networks", RFC 5439,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5439, February 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5439>.
[RFC5960] Frost, D., Ed., Bryant, S., Ed., and M. Bocci, Ed., "MPLS
Transport Profile Data Plane Architecture", RFC 5960,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5960, August 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5960>.
[RFC6020] Bjorklund, M., Ed., "YANG - A Data Modeling Language for
the Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)", RFC 6020,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6020, October 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6020>.
[RFC6241] Enns, R., Ed., Bjorklund, M., Ed., Schoenwaelder, J., Ed.,
and A. Bierman, Ed., "Network Configuration Protocol
(NETCONF)", RFC 6241, DOI 10.17487/RFC6241, June 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6241>.
Malis, et al. Expires 6 January 2025 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft DetNet Controller Plane July 2024
[RFC7432] Sajassi, A., Ed., Aggarwal, R., Bitar, N., Isaac, A.,
Uttaro, J., Drake, J., and W. Henderickx, "BGP MPLS-Based
Ethernet VPN", RFC 7432, DOI 10.17487/RFC7432, February
2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7432>.
[RFC7752] Gredler, H., Ed., Medved, J., Previdi, S., Farrel, A., and
S. Ray, "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and
Traffic Engineering (TE) Information Using BGP", RFC 7752,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7752, March 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7752>.
[RFC8277] Rosen, E., "Using BGP to Bind MPLS Labels to Address
Prefixes", RFC 8277, DOI 10.17487/RFC8277, October 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8277>.
[RFC8283] Farrel, A., Ed., Zhao, Q., Ed., Li, Z., and C. Zhou, "An
Architecture for Use of PCE and the PCE Communication
Protocol (PCEP) in a Network with Central Control",
RFC 8283, DOI 10.17487/RFC8283, December 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8283>.
[RFC8660] Bashandy, A., Ed., Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S.,
Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment
Routing with the MPLS Data Plane", RFC 8660,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8660, December 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8660>.
[RFC8754] Filsfils, C., Dukes, D., Previdi, S., Leddy, J.,
Matsushima, S., and D. Voyer, "IPv6 Segment Routing Header
(SRH)", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-6man-
segment-routing-header-26, 22 October 2019,
<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-6man-
segment-routing-header-26.txt>.
Authors' Addresses
Andrew G. Malis
Independent
Email: [email protected]
Xuesong Geng
Huawei
Email: [email protected]
Mach (Guoyi) Chen
Huawei
Malis, et al. Expires 6 January 2025 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft DetNet Controller Plane July 2024
Email: [email protected]
Balazs Varga
Ericsson
Email: [email protected]
Carlos J. Bernardos
Universidad Carlos III de Madrid
Av. Universidad, 30
28911 Leganes, Madrid
Spain
Phone: +34 91624 6236
Email: [email protected]
URI: http://www.it.uc3m.es/cjbc/
Malis, et al. Expires 6 January 2025 [Page 19]