From nobody Fri Jun 3 12:50:40 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: detnet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: detnet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D693A12D832 for ; Fri, 3 Jun 2016 12:50:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.62 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.62 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1Bw68nTgbVXi for ; Fri, 3 Jun 2016 12:50:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx0b-000fd501.pphosted.com (mx0b-000fd501.pphosted.com [67.231.152.235]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1AD2F12D7D7 for ; Fri, 3 Jun 2016 12:50:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pps.filterd (m0000695.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-000fd501.pphosted.com (8.16.0.11/8.16.0.11) with SMTP id u53JneBp003518 for ; Fri, 3 Jun 2016 12:50:34 -0700 Received: from dlb-xchpw04.dolby.net (124.187.216.67.in-addr.arpa [67.216.187.124] (may be forged)) by mx0b-000fd501.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2379462f3d-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Fri, 03 Jun 2016 12:50:34 -0700 Received: from DLB-XCHPW03.dolby.net (10.233.7.3) by DLB-XCHPW04.dolby.net (10.233.7.4) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1076.9; Fri, 3 Jun 2016 12:50:32 -0700 Received: from DLB-XCHPW03.dolby.net ([10.103.9.186]) by DLB-XCHPW03.dolby.net ([10.103.9.186]) with mapi id 15.00.1076.000; Fri, 3 Jun 2016 12:50:32 -0700 From: "Grossman, Ethan A." To: "detnet@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: DetNet Use Case Statements - DetNet consistency with 802 TSN Thread-Index: AdG90LWjaFZc9CyaRiOfKFFPyBztYg== Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 19:50:32 +0000 Message-ID: <95bfcd02bead40e1812fa3e5e17b5a20@DLB-XCHPW03.dolby.net> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [10.233.7.60] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_95bfcd02bead40e1812fa3e5e17b5a20DLBXCHPW03dolbynet_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:, , definitions=2016-06-03_10:, , signatures=0 Archived-At: Subject: [Detnet] DetNet Use Case Statements - DetNet consistency with 802 TSN X-BeenThere: detnet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions on Deterministic Networking BoF and Proposed WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2016 19:50:39 -0000 --_000_95bfcd02bead40e1812fa3e5e17b5a20DLBXCHPW03dolbynet_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Statement: DetNet consistency with 802 TSN - Hard or soft requirement? Discussion: We discussed this question at IETF 95 DetNet and Norm stated unequivocally = that he would make it his business to ensure that DetNet and TSN stayed in = sync. I take that to be decisive, i.e. it is a mandatory requirement. --_000_95bfcd02bead40e1812fa3e5e17b5a20DLBXCHPW03dolbynet_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Statement:
DetNet consistency with 802 TSN - Hard or soft requirement?
 
Discu= ssion:
We discussed this question at IETF 95 DetNet and Norm stated unequivoc= ally that he would make it his business to ensure that DetNet and TSN staye= d in sync. I take that to be decisive, i.e. it is a mandatory requirement.<= /div>
 
 
 
 --_000_95bfcd02bead40e1812fa3e5e17b5a20DLBXCHPW03dolbynet_-- From nobody Fri Jun 3 13:05:41 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: detnet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: detnet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D677912D5EB for ; Fri, 3 Jun 2016 13:05:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.62 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.62 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7clTimOCOrbo for ; Fri, 3 Jun 2016 13:05:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx0b-000fd501.pphosted.com (mx0b-000fd501.pphosted.com [67.231.152.235]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4CFD512D97C for ; Fri, 3 Jun 2016 13:04:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pps.filterd (m0000695.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-000fd501.pphosted.com (8.16.0.11/8.16.0.11) with SMTP id u53K2MP2010489 for ; Fri, 3 Jun 2016 13:04:49 -0700 Received: from dlb-xchpw03.dolby.net (124.187.216.67.in-addr.arpa [67.216.187.124] (may be forged)) by mx0b-000fd501.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2379462g3s-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Fri, 03 Jun 2016 13:04:49 -0700 Received: from DLB-XCHPW03.dolby.net (10.233.7.3) by DLB-XCHPW03.dolby.net (10.233.7.3) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1076.9; Fri, 3 Jun 2016 13:04:38 -0700 Received: from DLB-XCHPW03.dolby.net ([10.103.9.186]) by DLB-XCHPW03.dolby.net ([10.103.9.186]) with mapi id 15.00.1076.000; Fri, 3 Jun 2016 13:04:38 -0700 From: "Grossman, Ethan A." To: "detnet@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: DetNet Use Case Statements - Delay accuracy +/-8ns Thread-Index: AdG90ilLunIuHxeJTu6VwEuUSN09Hg== Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 20:04:38 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [10.233.7.60] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_c8f2faa15ef94f72b5006570bf228a9dDLBXCHPW03dolbynet_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:, , definitions=2016-06-03_10:, , signatures=0 Archived-At: Subject: [Detnet] DetNet Use Case Statements - Delay accuracy +/-8ns X-BeenThere: detnet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions on Deterministic Networking BoF and Proposed WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2016 20:05:40 -0000 --_000_c8f2faa15ef94f72b5006570bf228a9dDLBXCHPW03dolbynet_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Statement: Delay accuracy +/-8ns (jitter?) Text from (Cellular Radio) Use Case: Delay Accuracy: +-8ns (i.e. +-1/32 Tc, where Tc is the UMTS Chip time= of 1/3.84 MHz) resulting in a round trip accuracy of = +-16ns. The value is this low to meet the 3GPP Timing Alignment = Error (TAE) measurement requirements. Discussion: Jouni replied via email that yes this is a "jitter" value. The reason I am bringing it up is that 8ns appears to me to be a very small= time value compared to other time values that we have been discussing, i.e= . mostly in the millisecond range. Is there anything in DetNet architecture= that affects anything at this fine of a degree of timing? In other words, = does this need to be considered in (or guaranteed by) DetNet, and if not, s= hould this statement be dropped from the use case? --_000_c8f2faa15ef94f72b5006570bf228a9dDLBXCHPW03dolbynet_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Statement:
Delay accuracy +/-8ns (jitter?)
 
Text from (Cellular Radio) Use Case:
Delay Accuracy: +-8ns (i.e. +-1/32 Tc, where Tc is the UMTS Chip time= of 1/3.84 MHz) resulting in a round trip accuracy of   &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;    +-16ns. The value is this low to meet the 3GPP Timing Alignment Error (= TAE) measurement requirements.
 
Discu= ssion:
 Jouni replied via email that yes this is a “jitter” v= alue.
The reason I am bringing it up is that 8ns appears to me to be a very s= mall time value compared to other time values that we have been discussing,= i.e. mostly in the millisecond range. Is there anything in DetNet architecture that affects anything at this fine= of a degree of timing? In other words, does this need to be considered in = (or guaranteed by) DetNet, and if not, should this statement be dropped fro= m the use case?
 
 
 
 
 
 --_000_c8f2faa15ef94f72b5006570bf228a9dDLBXCHPW03dolbynet_-- From nobody Fri Jun 3 13:13:11 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: detnet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: detnet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA02412D983 for ; Fri, 3 Jun 2016 13:13:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.7 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=broadcom.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EBgLiwTTeGe9 for ; Fri, 3 Jun 2016 13:13:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vk0-x233.google.com (mail-vk0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 81AF212D981 for ; Fri, 3 Jun 2016 13:13:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-vk0-x233.google.com with SMTP id d127so129394355vkh.2 for ; Fri, 03 Jun 2016 13:13:07 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=broadcom.com; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc; bh=z5sBkzDm/eicBStUMg4jsdGTtnDzdsjPVSdKx9kVxEU=; b=WX6Okvu2pHZMj4dU7ECq3K/ANJHJBLqIy3kWsQKhpTI8ivN2N+XdYAJMa7q4MaE/JI al4ezs1RQJd0QVkmcUzuWkSRa9CHxU0jo7mQJ8NWEpBQZK/lQ7jOqYUKked9k+/MZgBS fObulCk9wBHK+S0UVNXCCNhZ7nJEE2ywp/ERM= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=z5sBkzDm/eicBStUMg4jsdGTtnDzdsjPVSdKx9kVxEU=; b=Sb9KwjhNybKfEKvxE7R6Asn7R3jCsQdR9ua4wLPZy0/L7I4gPJhX1il7F/YGH0bEmc C2P7DCGGmZ8gSwFD+piNfPfSJC5DGWE2hc3TJbtEG2fsxuzsZ6RfSDAlTxD9voGIzr/r Ey0QLd37ZwNV43smis2h7y5KX16omAtBKIK96wk+AH7uKB27yEq5xrgywiYtJCHUo1v6 OmzvZYz/VUIgtIZL2pnzFqYCuw6uAJ2kcIHRzOREWVYTR4hSYDok9AS6c+zJyJEIGWgj qZeE9+U80UlSRvK4FqAa69dTwhAXM/XE68VOqOjRyFXznE1mRBhenN90xo30A2JRMJen 7aBg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tLqQZsuPoWIE3Bu6z/oIeXU05PtwnoaG+PVVigQgnJHdGK3vh6qga9M9aFDBGxlTsIJu/Ty59CpVJtMbpdC MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.31.88.198 with SMTP id m189mr2580277vkb.127.1464984786469; Fri, 03 Jun 2016 13:13:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.103.138.199 with HTTP; Fri, 3 Jun 2016 13:13:06 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 13:13:06 -0700 Message-ID: From: Jouni Korhonen To: "Grossman, Ethan A." Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114e59becd0f9605346559f5 Archived-At: Cc: "detnet@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Detnet] DetNet Use Case Statements - Delay accuracy +/-8ns X-BeenThere: detnet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions on Deterministic Networking BoF and Proposed WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2016 20:13:10 -0000 --001a114e59becd0f9605346559f5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I practice one would have a jitter buffer at the 'listener' to buffer the jitter away and relax the requirement a quite bit. I have no good idea now how to put this into a use case text.. but I would argue against dropping the entire use case if it happens to have ugly numbers on paper. - Jouni On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 1:04 PM, Grossman, Ethan A. wrote= : > Statement: > Delay accuracy +/-8ns (jitter?) > > Text from (Cellular Radio) Use Case: > Delay Accuracy: +-8ns (i.e. +-1/32 Tc, where Tc is the UMTS Chip time of > 1/3.84 MHz) resulting in a round trip accuracy > of +-16ns. The value is this low to meet > the 3GPP Timing Alignment Error (TAE) measurement requirements. > > Discussion: > Jouni replied via email that yes this is a =E2=80=9Cjitter=E2=80=9D valu= e. > The reason I am bringing it up is that 8ns appears to me to be a very > small time value compared to other time values that we have been > discussing, i.e. mostly in the millisecond range. Is there anything in > DetNet architecture that affects anything at this fine of a degree of > timing? In other words, does this need to be considered in (or guaranteed > by) DetNet, and if not, should this statement be dropped from the use cas= e? > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > detnet mailing list > detnet@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet > > --=20 Jouni Korhonen, Broadcom Ltd. --001a114e59becd0f9605346559f5 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I practice one would have a jitter buffer at the 'list= ener' to buffer the jitter away and relax the requirement a quite bit. = I have no good idea now how to put this into a use case text.. but I would = argue against dropping the entire use case if it happens to have ugly numbe= rs on paper.

- Jouni

On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 1:04 PM, Grossman,= Ethan A. <eagros@dolby.com> wrote:
Statement:
Delay accuracy +/-8ns (jitter?)
=C2=A0
Text from (Cellular Radio) Use Case:
Delay Accuracy: +-8ns (i.e. +-1/32 Tc, where Tc is the UMTS Chip time of 1/3.84= MHz) resulting in a round trip accuracy of=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0= =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2= =A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0= =C2=A0=C2=A0 +-16ns. The value is this low to meet the 3GPP Timing Alignment Error (TAE)= measurement requirements.
=C2=A0
Discus= sion:
=C2=A0Jouni replied via email that yes this is a =E2=80=9Cjitter=E2=80= =9D value.
The reason I am bringing it up is that 8ns appears to me to be a very sm= all time value compared to other time values that we have been discussing, = i.e. mostly in the millisecond range. Is there anything in DetNet architecture that affects anything at this fine= of a degree of timing? In other words, does this need to be considered in = (or guaranteed by) DetNet, and if not, should this statement be dropped fro= m the use case?
=C2=A0
=C2=A0
=C2=A0
=C2=A0
=C2=A0

_______________________________________________
detnet mailing list
detnet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet




--
=
Jouni Korhonen, Broadcom Ltd.

--001a114e59becd0f9605346559f5-- From nobody Fri Jun 3 13:14:24 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: detnet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: detnet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7407812D988 for ; Fri, 3 Jun 2016 13:14:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.62 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.62 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id z8-CMwbQlrXI for ; Fri, 3 Jun 2016 13:14:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx0b-000fd501.pphosted.com (mx0b-000fd501.pphosted.com [67.231.152.235]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C96B612D983 for ; Fri, 3 Jun 2016 13:14:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pps.filterd (m0000695.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-000fd501.pphosted.com (8.16.0.11/8.16.0.11) with SMTP id u53KARMm015097 for ; Fri, 3 Jun 2016 13:14:19 -0700 Received: from dlb-xchpw04.dolby.net (124.187.216.67.in-addr.arpa [67.216.187.124] (may be forged)) by mx0b-000fd501.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2379462gtf-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Fri, 03 Jun 2016 13:14:19 -0700 Received: from DLB-XCHPW03.dolby.net (10.233.7.3) by DLB-XCHPW04.dolby.net (10.233.7.4) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1076.9; Fri, 3 Jun 2016 13:14:18 -0700 Received: from DLB-XCHPW03.dolby.net ([10.103.9.186]) by DLB-XCHPW03.dolby.net ([10.103.9.186]) with mapi id 15.00.1076.000; Fri, 3 Jun 2016 13:14:18 -0700 From: "Grossman, Ethan A." To: "detnet@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: DetNet Use Case Statements - Transport contrib to RF error +/- 2PPB (2ns) Thread-Index: AdG9065ITqB3JL00SfycdOeOvstprw== Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 20:14:18 +0000 Message-ID: <528bd8159f9848ce89ac4a38d43dc1e5@DLB-XCHPW03.dolby.net> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [10.233.7.60] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_528bd8159f9848ce89ac4a38d43dc1e5DLBXCHPW03dolbynet_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:, , definitions=2016-06-03_11:, , signatures=0 Archived-At: Subject: [Detnet] DetNet Use Case Statements - Transport contrib to RF error +/- 2PPB (2ns) X-BeenThere: detnet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions on Deterministic Networking BoF and Proposed WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2016 20:14:22 -0000 --_000_528bd8159f9848ce89ac4a38d43dc1e5DLBXCHPW03dolbynet_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Statement: Transport contrib to RF error +/- 2PPB (2ns) Text from (Cellular Radio) Use Case: Transport link contribution to radio frequency error: +-2 PPB. This value is considered to be "available" for the Fronthaul link = out of the total 50 PPB budget reserved for the radio interface. Note: the = reason that the transport link contributes to radio frequency error is as f= ollows. The current way of doing Fronthaul is from the radio unit to remote= radio head directly. The remote radio head is essentially a passive device= (without buffering etc.) The transport drives the antenna directly by feed= ing it with samples and everything the transport adds will be introduced to= radio as-is. So if the transport causes additional frequency error that sh= ows immediately on the radio as well. Discussion: The reason I am bringing this up is that "2PPB" (assuming this is a time er= ror value) seems like a small value, i.e. 2 nanoseconds (2 out of 10^9), wh= ich seems smaller than the nominally millisecond-range values the use cases= "typically" discuss. Is there anything in DetNet architecture that affec= ts anything at this fine of a degree of timing? In other words, does this n= eed to be considered in (or guaranteed by) DetNet, and if not, should this = statement be dropped from the use case, or somehow qualified that it is bey= ond scope of DetNet to guarantee this kind of timing? --_000_528bd8159f9848ce89ac4a38d43dc1e5DLBXCHPW03dolbynet_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Statement:
Transport contrib to RF error +/- 2PPB (2ns)
 
Text from (Cellular Radio) Use Case:
Transport link contribution to radio frequency error:=
+-2 PPB. This value is considered to be "ava= ilable" for the Fronthaul link out of the total 50 PPB budget reserved= for the radio interface. Note: the reason that the transport link contribu= tes to radio frequency error is as follows. The current way of doing Fronthaul is from the radio unit to remote radio head = directly. The remote radio head is essentially a passive device (without bu= ffering etc.) The transport drives the antenna directly by feeding it with = samples and everything the transport adds will be introduced to radio as-is. So if the transport causes addition= al frequency error that shows immediately on the radio as well.
 
Discu= ssion:
The reason I am bringing this up is that “2PPB” (assuming t= his is a time error value) seems like a small value, i.e. 2 nanoseconds (2 = out of 10^9), which seems smaller than the nominally millisecond-range values the use cases “typically” discuss.&nbs= p;  Is there anything in DetNet architecture that affects anything at = this fine of a degree of timing? In other words, does this need to be consi= dered in (or guaranteed by) DetNet, and if not, should this statement be dropped from the use case, or somehow qualified that it i= s beyond scope of DetNet to guarantee this kind of timing?
 
 
 
 
 --_000_528bd8159f9848ce89ac4a38d43dc1e5DLBXCHPW03dolbynet_-- From nobody Fri Jun 3 13:22:09 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: detnet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: detnet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3599512D7FD for ; Fri, 3 Jun 2016 13:22:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.631 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.631 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTTPS_HTTP_MISMATCH=1.989, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IDX52oZIa6xT for ; Fri, 3 Jun 2016 13:22:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx0a-000fd501.pphosted.com (mx0a-000fd501.pphosted.com [67.231.144.242]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 667C212D807 for ; Fri, 3 Jun 2016 13:22:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pps.filterd (m0045961.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-000fd501.pphosted.com (8.16.0.11/8.16.0.11) with SMTP id u53KH5lM004647; Fri, 3 Jun 2016 13:22:04 -0700 Received: from dlb-xchpw04.dolby.net (124.187.216.67.in-addr.arpa [67.216.187.124] (may be forged)) by mx0a-000fd501.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2376ux2dm4-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 03 Jun 2016 13:22:04 -0700 Received: from DLB-XCHPW03.dolby.net (10.233.7.3) by DLB-XCHPW04.dolby.net (10.233.7.4) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1076.9; Fri, 3 Jun 2016 13:22:02 -0700 Received: from DLB-XCHPW03.dolby.net ([10.103.9.186]) by DLB-XCHPW03.dolby.net ([10.103.9.186]) with mapi id 15.00.1076.000; Fri, 3 Jun 2016 13:22:01 -0700 From: "Grossman, Ethan A." To: Jouni Korhonen Thread-Topic: [Detnet] DetNet Use Case Statements - Delay accuracy +/-8ns Thread-Index: AdG90ilLunIuHxeJTu6VwEuUSN09HgAPNoEAAA6Y08A= Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 20:22:01 +0000 Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [10.233.7.60] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_f3d7d219240b4dc6b2346b3333357ee5DLBXCHPW03dolbynet_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:, , definitions=2016-06-03_11:, , signatures=0 Archived-At: Cc: "detnet@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Detnet] DetNet Use Case Statements - Delay accuracy +/-8ns X-BeenThere: detnet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions on Deterministic Networking BoF and Proposed WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2016 20:22:08 -0000 --_000_f3d7d219240b4dc6b2346b3333357ee5DLBXCHPW03dolbynet_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 VGhhbmtzIEpvdW5pLCBhbmQgSeKAmW0gbm90IHN1Z2dlc3RpbmcgdGhlIHdob2xlIHVzZSBjYXNl IGJlIGRyb3BwZWQsIEnigJltIHNheWluZyB0aGF0IEkgd291bGQgbGlrZSB0aGUgdXNlIGNhc2Ug dG8gYmUgY2xlYXIgdGhhdCBpZiB0aGlzIGtpbmQgb2YgdGltaW5nIHJlcXVpcmVtZW50IGV4aXN0 cyB0aGF0IGl0IG5lZWRzIHRvIGJlIGRlYWx0IHdpdGggYnkgdGhlIGltcGxlbWVudGF0aW9uLCBm b3IgZXhhbXBsZSB1c2luZyBidWZmZXJpbmcgYXMgeW91IGFyZSBkZXNjcmliaW5nLiBBZ2FpbiBt eSBwb2ludCBoZXJlIGlzIHRvIG1ha2Ugc3VyZSB0aGF0IGFueXRoaW5nIHRoYXQgbmVlZHMgdG8g YmUgY29uc2lkZXJlZCBieSBEZXROZXQgYXJjaGl0ZWN0dXJlIGlzIGNvbnNpZGVyZWQsIGFuZCB0 aG9zZSB0aGluZ3MgdGhhdCBkb27igJl0IGRpcmVjdGx5IGFmZmVjdCBEZXROZXQgYXJjaGl0ZWN0 dXJlIG9yIGltcGxlbWVudGF0aW9uIGJlIGR1bHkgbm90ZWQgYXMgc3VjaCBpZiB0aGV5IGFyZSBk ZWVtZWQgdG8gYmUgcmVhbGx5IGltcG9ydGFudCB0byB0aGUgdXNlIGNhc2UsIG9yIHF1YWxpZmll ZCBvciBkcm9wcGVkIGVudGlyZWx5IGlmIHRoZXkgYXJlIG5vdCBkZWVtZWQgcmVhbGx5IGltcG9y dGFudCB0byB0aGUgdXNlIGNhc2UuDQpCdXQgSSB0aGluayB5b3UgaGF2ZSBhbnN3ZXJlZCB0aGUg cXVlc3Rpb24sIHdoaWNoIGlzIHRoYXQgd2XigJlkIGxpa2UgdG8ga2VlcCB0aGUgbnVtYmVyIGJ1 dCBhZGQgYSBxdWFsaWZ5aW5nIHN0YXRlbWVudCB0aGF0IGluIGFuIGltcGxlbWVudGF0aW9uLCBi dWZmZXJpbmcgaW4gdGhlIGhhcmR3YXJlIChvciBsb3dlciBsZXZlbCBzb2Z0d2FyZSkgd291bGQg YmUgZXhwZWN0ZWQgdG8gYmUgdXNlZCB0byBtaXRpZ2F0ZSBzdWNoIGZpbmUgdGltaW5nIHJlcXVp cmVtZW50cywgYW5kIHRodXMgdGhleSBhcmUgbm90IGV4cGVjdGVkIHRvIGJlIGFkZHJlc3NlZCBv ciBndWFyYW50ZWVkIGRpcmVjdGx5IGJ5IERldE5ldC4gIFJpZ2h0Pw0KVGhhbmtzLA0KRXRoYW4u DQpGcm9tOiBKb3VuaSBLb3Job25lbiBbbWFpbHRvOmpvdW5pLmtvcmhvbmVuQGJyb2FkY29tLmNv bV0NClNlbnQ6IEZyaWRheSwgSnVuZSAwMywgMjAxNiAxOjEzIFBNDQpUbzogR3Jvc3NtYW4sIEV0 aGFuIEEuDQpDYzogZGV0bmV0QGlldGYub3JnDQpTdWJqZWN0OiBSZTogW0RldG5ldF0gRGV0TmV0 IFVzZSBDYXNlIFN0YXRlbWVudHMgLSBEZWxheSBhY2N1cmFjeSArLy04bnMNCg0KSSBwcmFjdGlj ZSBvbmUgd291bGQgaGF2ZSBhIGppdHRlciBidWZmZXIgYXQgdGhlICdsaXN0ZW5lcicgdG8gYnVm ZmVyIHRoZSBqaXR0ZXIgYXdheSBhbmQgcmVsYXggdGhlIHJlcXVpcmVtZW50IGEgcXVpdGUgYml0 LiBJIGhhdmUgbm8gZ29vZCBpZGVhIG5vdyBob3cgdG8gcHV0IHRoaXMgaW50byBhIHVzZSBjYXNl IHRleHQuLiBidXQgSSB3b3VsZCBhcmd1ZSBhZ2FpbnN0IGRyb3BwaW5nIHRoZSBlbnRpcmUgdXNl IGNhc2UgaWYgaXQgaGFwcGVucyB0byBoYXZlIHVnbHkgbnVtYmVycyBvbiBwYXBlci4NCg0KLSBK b3VuaQ0KDQpPbiBGcmksIEp1biAzLCAyMDE2IGF0IDE6MDQgUE0sIEdyb3NzbWFuLCBFdGhhbiBB LiA8ZWFncm9zQGRvbGJ5LmNvbTxtYWlsdG86ZWFncm9zQGRvbGJ5LmNvbT4+IHdyb3RlOg0KU3Rh dGVtZW50Og0KRGVsYXkgYWNjdXJhY3kgKy8tOG5zIChqaXR0ZXI/KQ0KDQpUZXh0IGZyb20gKENl bGx1bGFyIFJhZGlvKSBVc2UgQ2FzZToNCkRlbGF5IEFjY3VyYWN5OiArLThucyAoaS5lLiArLTEv MzIgVGMsIHdoZXJlIFRjIGlzIHRoZSBVTVRTIENoaXAgdGltZSBvZiAxLzMuODQgTUh6KSByZXN1 bHRpbmcgaW4gYSByb3VuZCB0cmlwIGFjY3VyYWN5IG9mICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgKy0xNm5zLiBUaGUgdmFsdWUgaXMgdGhpcyBsb3cgdG8gbWVldCB0aGUgM0dQUCBU aW1pbmcgQWxpZ25tZW50IEVycm9yIChUQUUpIG1lYXN1cmVtZW50IHJlcXVpcmVtZW50cy4NCg0K RGlzY3Vzc2lvbjoNCiBKb3VuaSByZXBsaWVkIHZpYSBlbWFpbCB0aGF0IHllcyB0aGlzIGlzIGEg 4oCcaml0dGVy4oCdIHZhbHVlLg0KVGhlIHJlYXNvbiBJIGFtIGJyaW5naW5nIGl0IHVwIGlzIHRo YXQgOG5zIGFwcGVhcnMgdG8gbWUgdG8gYmUgYSB2ZXJ5IHNtYWxsIHRpbWUgdmFsdWUgY29tcGFy ZWQgdG8gb3RoZXIgdGltZSB2YWx1ZXMgdGhhdCB3ZSBoYXZlIGJlZW4gZGlzY3Vzc2luZywgaS5l LiBtb3N0bHkgaW4gdGhlIG1pbGxpc2Vjb25kIHJhbmdlLiBJcyB0aGVyZSBhbnl0aGluZyBpbiBE ZXROZXQgYXJjaGl0ZWN0dXJlIHRoYXQgYWZmZWN0cyBhbnl0aGluZyBhdCB0aGlzIGZpbmUgb2Yg YSBkZWdyZWUgb2YgdGltaW5nPyBJbiBvdGhlciB3b3JkcywgZG9lcyB0aGlzIG5lZWQgdG8gYmUg Y29uc2lkZXJlZCBpbiAob3IgZ3VhcmFudGVlZCBieSkgRGV0TmV0LCBhbmQgaWYgbm90LCBzaG91 bGQgdGhpcyBzdGF0ZW1lbnQgYmUgZHJvcHBlZCBmcm9tIHRoZSB1c2UgY2FzZT8NCg0KDQoNCg0K DQoNCl9fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fDQpkZXRu ZXQgbWFpbGluZyBsaXN0DQpkZXRuZXRAaWV0Zi5vcmc8bWFpbHRvOmRldG5ldEBpZXRmLm9yZz4N Cmh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmlldGYub3JnL21haWxtYW4vbGlzdGluZm8vZGV0bmV0PGh0dHBzOi8vdXJs ZGVmZW5zZS5wcm9vZnBvaW50LmNvbS92Mi91cmw/dT1odHRwcy0zQV9fd3d3LmlldGYub3JnX21h aWxtYW5fbGlzdGluZm9fZGV0bmV0JmQ9Q3dNRmFRJmM9bEk4WmI2VHpNM2QxdFg0aUV1N2JwZyZy PVpjSEM2d1hfZ0R3UERjZk1hRk5aaVEmbT1BNGhSYnJYUWMtMzUxcTd4c0d0RlBvSEpGSi1ENllf QUpiZ240SWQ4eGhjJnM9Ry1qOHBPbGJCOVUweWdUaUNmNmVQaTMzYUF6NzFqNXV6YjVWdjBUUDBM NCZlPT4NCg0KDQoNCi0tDQpKb3VuaSBLb3Job25lbiwgQnJvYWRjb20gTHRkLg0KDQo= --_000_f3d7d219240b4dc6b2346b3333357ee5DLBXCHPW03dolbynet_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 PGh0bWwgeG1sbnM6dj0idXJuOnNjaGVtYXMtbWljcm9zb2Z0LWNvbTp2bWwiIHhtbG5zOm89InVy bjpzY2hlbWFzLW1pY3Jvc29mdC1jb206b2ZmaWNlOm9mZmljZSIgeG1sbnM6dz0idXJuOnNjaGVt YXMtbWljcm9zb2Z0LWNvbTpvZmZpY2U6d29yZCIgeG1sbnM6bT0iaHR0cDovL3NjaGVtYXMubWlj cm9zb2Z0LmNvbS9vZmZpY2UvMjAwNC8xMi9vbW1sIiB4bWxucz0iaHR0cDovL3d3dy53My5vcmcv VFIvUkVDLWh0bWw0MCI+DQo8aGVhZD4NCjxtZXRhIGh0dHAtZXF1aXY9IkNvbnRlbnQtVHlwZSIg Y29udGVudD0idGV4dC9odG1sOyBjaGFyc2V0PXV0Zi04Ij4NCjxtZXRhIG5hbWU9IkdlbmVyYXRv ciIgY29udGVudD0iTWljcm9zb2Z0IFdvcmQgMTQgKGZpbHRlcmVkIG1lZGl1bSkiPg0KPHN0eWxl PjwhLS0NCi8qIEZvbnQgRGVmaW5pdGlvbnMgKi8NCkBmb250LWZhY2UNCgl7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6 Q2FsaWJyaTsNCglwYW5vc2UtMToyIDE1IDUgMiAyIDIgNCAzIDIgNDt9DQpAZm9udC1mYWNlDQoJ e2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OlRhaG9tYTsNCglwYW5vc2UtMToyIDExIDYgNCAzIDUgNCA0IDIgNDt9DQov KiBTdHlsZSBEZWZpbml0aW9ucyAqLw0KcC5Nc29Ob3JtYWwsIGxpLk1zb05vcm1hbCwgZGl2Lk1z b05vcm1hbA0KCXttYXJnaW46MGluOw0KCW1hcmdpbi1ib3R0b206LjAwMDFwdDsNCglmb250LXNp emU6MTIuMHB0Ow0KCWZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJUaW1lcyBOZXcgUm9tYW4iLCJzZXJpZiI7fQ0KYTps aW5rLCBzcGFuLk1zb0h5cGVybGluaw0KCXttc28tc3R5bGUtcHJpb3JpdHk6OTk7DQoJY29sb3I6 Ymx1ZTsNCgl0ZXh0LWRlY29yYXRpb246dW5kZXJsaW5lO30NCmE6dmlzaXRlZCwgc3Bhbi5Nc29I eXBlcmxpbmtGb2xsb3dlZA0KCXttc28tc3R5bGUtcHJpb3JpdHk6OTk7DQoJY29sb3I6cHVycGxl Ow0KCXRleHQtZGVjb3JhdGlvbjp1bmRlcmxpbmU7fQ0Kc3Bhbi5FbWFpbFN0eWxlMTcNCgl7bXNv LXN0eWxlLXR5cGU6cGVyc29uYWwtcmVwbHk7DQoJZm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IkNhbGlicmkiLCJzYW5z LXNlcmlmIjsNCgljb2xvcjojMUY0OTdEO30NCi5Nc29DaHBEZWZhdWx0DQoJe21zby1zdHlsZS10 eXBlOmV4cG9ydC1vbmx5Ow0KCWZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJDYWxpYnJpIiwic2Fucy1zZXJpZiI7fQ0K QHBhZ2UgV29yZFNlY3Rpb24xDQoJe3NpemU6OC41aW4gMTEuMGluOw0KCW1hcmdpbjoxLjBpbiAx LjBpbiAxLjBpbiAxLjBpbjt9DQpkaXYuV29yZFNlY3Rpb24xDQoJe3BhZ2U6V29yZFNlY3Rpb24x O30NCi0tPjwvc3R5bGU+PCEtLVtpZiBndGUgbXNvIDldPjx4bWw+DQo8bzpzaGFwZWRlZmF1bHRz IHY6ZXh0PSJlZGl0IiBzcGlkbWF4PSIxMDI2IiAvPg0KPC94bWw+PCFbZW5kaWZdLS0+PCEtLVtp ZiBndGUgbXNvIDldPjx4bWw+DQo8bzpzaGFwZWxheW91dCB2OmV4dD0iZWRpdCI+DQo8bzppZG1h cCB2OmV4dD0iZWRpdCIgZGF0YT0iMSIgLz4NCjwvbzpzaGFwZWxheW91dD48L3htbD48IVtlbmRp Zl0tLT4NCjwvaGVhZD4NCjxib2R5IGxhbmc9IkVOLVVTIiBsaW5rPSJibHVlIiB2bGluaz0icHVy cGxlIj4NCjxkaXYgY2xhc3M9IldvcmRTZWN0aW9uMSI+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj48 c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0iZm9udC1zaXplOjExLjBwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseTomcXVvdDtDYWxpYnJpJnF1 b3Q7LCZxdW90O3NhbnMtc2VyaWYmcXVvdDs7Y29sb3I6IzFGNDk3RCI+VGhhbmtzIEpvdW5pLCBh bmQgSeKAmW0gbm90IHN1Z2dlc3RpbmcgdGhlIHdob2xlIHVzZSBjYXNlIGJlIGRyb3BwZWQsIEni gJltIHNheWluZyB0aGF0IEkgd291bGQgbGlrZSB0aGUgdXNlIGNhc2UgdG8gYmUgY2xlYXIgdGhh dCBpZiB0aGlzIGtpbmQgb2YgdGltaW5nIHJlcXVpcmVtZW50DQogZXhpc3RzIHRoYXQgaXQgbmVl ZHMgdG8gYmUgZGVhbHQgd2l0aCBieSB0aGUgaW1wbGVtZW50YXRpb24sIGZvciBleGFtcGxlIHVz aW5nIGJ1ZmZlcmluZyBhcyB5b3UgYXJlIGRlc2NyaWJpbmcuIEFnYWluIG15IHBvaW50IGhlcmUg aXMgdG8gbWFrZSBzdXJlIHRoYXQgYW55dGhpbmcgdGhhdCBuZWVkcyB0byBiZSBjb25zaWRlcmVk IGJ5IERldE5ldCBhcmNoaXRlY3R1cmUgaXMgY29uc2lkZXJlZCwgYW5kIHRob3NlIHRoaW5ncyB0 aGF0IGRvbuKAmXQNCiBkaXJlY3RseSBhZmZlY3QgRGV0TmV0IGFyY2hpdGVjdHVyZSBvciBpbXBs ZW1lbnRhdGlvbiBiZSBkdWx5IG5vdGVkIGFzIHN1Y2ggaWYgdGhleSBhcmUgZGVlbWVkIHRvIGJl IHJlYWxseSBpbXBvcnRhbnQgdG8gdGhlIHVzZSBjYXNlLCBvciBxdWFsaWZpZWQgb3IgZHJvcHBl ZCBlbnRpcmVseSBpZiB0aGV5IGFyZSBub3QgZGVlbWVkIHJlYWxseSBpbXBvcnRhbnQgdG8gdGhl IHVzZSBjYXNlLg0KPG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+ PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9ImZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMS4wcHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6JnF1b3Q7Q2FsaWJyaSZx dW90OywmcXVvdDtzYW5zLXNlcmlmJnF1b3Q7O2NvbG9yOiMxRjQ5N0QiPkJ1dCBJIHRoaW5rIHlv dSBoYXZlIGFuc3dlcmVkIHRoZSBxdWVzdGlvbiwgd2hpY2ggaXMgdGhhdCB3ZeKAmWQgbGlrZSB0 byBrZWVwIHRoZSBudW1iZXIgYnV0IGFkZCBhIHF1YWxpZnlpbmcgc3RhdGVtZW50IHRoYXQgaW4g YW4gaW1wbGVtZW50YXRpb24sIGJ1ZmZlcmluZyBpbg0KIHRoZSBoYXJkd2FyZSAob3IgbG93ZXIg bGV2ZWwgc29mdHdhcmUpIHdvdWxkIGJlIGV4cGVjdGVkIHRvIGJlIHVzZWQgdG8gbWl0aWdhdGUg c3VjaCBmaW5lIHRpbWluZyByZXF1aXJlbWVudHMsIGFuZCB0aHVzIHRoZXkgYXJlIG5vdCBleHBl Y3RlZCB0byBiZSBhZGRyZXNzZWQgb3IgZ3VhcmFudGVlZCBkaXJlY3RseSBieSBEZXROZXQuICZu YnNwO1JpZ2h0Pw0KPG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+ PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9ImZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMS4wcHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6JnF1b3Q7Q2FsaWJyaSZx dW90OywmcXVvdDtzYW5zLXNlcmlmJnF1b3Q7O2NvbG9yOiMxRjQ5N0QiPlRoYW5rcyw8bzpwPjwv bzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0iZm9udC1z aXplOjExLjBwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseTomcXVvdDtDYWxpYnJpJnF1b3Q7LCZxdW90O3NhbnMtc2Vy aWYmcXVvdDs7Y29sb3I6IzFGNDk3RCI+RXRoYW4uPG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPg0KPHAg Y2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+PGI+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9ImZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMC4wcHQ7Zm9udC1m YW1pbHk6JnF1b3Q7VGFob21hJnF1b3Q7LCZxdW90O3NhbnMtc2VyaWYmcXVvdDsiPkZyb206PC9z cGFuPjwvYj48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0iZm9udC1zaXplOjEwLjBwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseTomcXVvdDtU YWhvbWEmcXVvdDssJnF1b3Q7c2Fucy1zZXJpZiZxdW90OyI+IEpvdW5pIEtvcmhvbmVuIFttYWls dG86am91bmkua29yaG9uZW5AYnJvYWRjb20uY29tXQ0KPGJyPg0KPGI+U2VudDo8L2I+IEZyaWRh eSwgSnVuZSAwMywgMjAxNiAxOjEzIFBNPGJyPg0KPGI+VG86PC9iPiBHcm9zc21hbiwgRXRoYW4g QS48YnI+DQo8Yj5DYzo8L2I+IGRldG5ldEBpZXRmLm9yZzxicj4NCjxiPlN1YmplY3Q6PC9iPiBS ZTogW0RldG5ldF0gRGV0TmV0IFVzZSBDYXNlIFN0YXRlbWVudHMgLSBEZWxheSBhY2N1cmFjeSAm IzQzOy8tOG5zPG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+PG86 cD4mbmJzcDs8L286cD48L3A+DQo8ZGl2Pg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+SSBwcmFjdGlj ZSBvbmUgd291bGQgaGF2ZSBhIGppdHRlciBidWZmZXIgYXQgdGhlICdsaXN0ZW5lcicgdG8gYnVm ZmVyIHRoZSBqaXR0ZXIgYXdheSBhbmQgcmVsYXggdGhlIHJlcXVpcmVtZW50IGEgcXVpdGUgYml0 LiBJIGhhdmUgbm8gZ29vZCBpZGVhIG5vdyBob3cgdG8gcHV0IHRoaXMgaW50byBhIHVzZSBjYXNl IHRleHQuLiBidXQgSSB3b3VsZCBhcmd1ZSBhZ2FpbnN0IGRyb3BwaW5nIHRoZSBlbnRpcmUgdXNl DQogY2FzZSBpZiBpdCBoYXBwZW5zIHRvIGhhdmUgdWdseSBudW1iZXJzIG9uIHBhcGVyLjxvOnA+ PC9vOnA+PC9wPg0KPGRpdj4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPjxvOnA+Jm5ic3A7PC9vOnA+ PC9wPg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8ZGl2Pg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+LSBKb3VuaTxvOnA+PC9v OnA+PC9wPg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjxkaXY+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj48bzpw PiZuYnNwOzwvbzpwPjwvcD4NCjxkaXY+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj5PbiBGcmksIEp1 biAzLCAyMDE2IGF0IDE6MDQgUE0sIEdyb3NzbWFuLCBFdGhhbiBBLiAmbHQ7PGEgaHJlZj0ibWFp bHRvOmVhZ3Jvc0Bkb2xieS5jb20iIHRhcmdldD0iX2JsYW5rIj5lYWdyb3NAZG9sYnkuY29tPC9h PiZndDsgd3JvdGU6PG86cD48L286cD48L3A+DQo8ZGl2Pg0KPGRpdj4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29O b3JtYWwiPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSJmb250LXNpemU6MTEuMHB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiZxdW90O0Nh bGlicmkmcXVvdDssJnF1b3Q7c2Fucy1zZXJpZiZxdW90OyI+U3RhdGVtZW50Og0KPG86cD48L286 cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8ZGl2Pg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+RGVsYXkg YWNjdXJhY3kgJiM0MzsvLThucyAoaml0dGVyPyk8c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0iZm9udC1zaXplOjExLjBw dDtmb250LWZhbWlseTomcXVvdDtDYWxpYnJpJnF1b3Q7LCZxdW90O3NhbnMtc2VyaWYmcXVvdDsi PjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD4NCjwvZGl2Pg0KPGRpdj4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3Jt YWwiPiZuYnNwOzxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSJmb250LXNpemU6MTEuMHB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiZxdW90 O0NhbGlicmkmcXVvdDssJnF1b3Q7c2Fucy1zZXJpZiZxdW90OyI+PG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+ PC9wPg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8ZGl2Pg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+VGV4dCBmcm9tIChDZWxs dWxhciBSYWRpbykgVXNlIENhc2U6PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9ImZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMS4wcHQ7Zm9udC1m YW1pbHk6JnF1b3Q7Q2FsaWJyaSZxdW90OywmcXVvdDtzYW5zLXNlcmlmJnF1b3Q7Ij48bzpwPjwv bzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjxkaXY+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj48c3Bh biBzdHlsZT0iY29sb3I6Izk5MzMwMCI+RGVsYXkgQWNjdXJhY3k6PC9zcGFuPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxl PSJjb2xvcjpibGFjayI+ICYjNDM7LThucyAoaS5lLiAmIzQzOy0xLzMyIFRjLCB3aGVyZSBUYyBp cyB0aGUgVU1UUyBDaGlwIHRpbWUgb2YgMS8zLjg0IE1IeikgcmVzdWx0aW5nIGluIGEgcm91bmQg dHJpcCBhY2N1cmFjeSBvZiZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNw OyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZu YnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNw OyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyAmIzQzOy0xNm5zLiBUaGUgdmFs dWUgaXMNCiB0aGlzIGxvdyB0byBtZWV0IHRoZSAzR1BQIFRpbWluZyBBbGlnbm1lbnQgRXJyb3Ig KFRBRSkgbWVhc3VyZW1lbnQgcmVxdWlyZW1lbnRzLg0KPC9zcGFuPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSJmb250 LXNpemU6MTEuMHB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiZxdW90O0NhbGlicmkmcXVvdDssJnF1b3Q7c2Fucy1z ZXJpZiZxdW90OyI+PG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8ZGl2Pg0KPHAgY2xh c3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+Jm5ic3A7PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9ImZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMS4wcHQ7Zm9udC1m YW1pbHk6JnF1b3Q7Q2FsaWJyaSZxdW90OywmcXVvdDtzYW5zLXNlcmlmJnF1b3Q7Ij48bzpwPjwv bzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjxkaXY+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj48c3Bh biBzdHlsZT0iZm9udC1zaXplOjEwLjBwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseTomcXVvdDtUYWhvbWEmcXVvdDss JnF1b3Q7c2Fucy1zZXJpZiZxdW90OyI+RGlzY3Vzc2lvbjoNCjwvc3Bhbj48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0i Zm9udC1zaXplOjExLjBwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseTomcXVvdDtDYWxpYnJpJnF1b3Q7LCZxdW90O3Nh bnMtc2VyaWYmcXVvdDsiPjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD4NCjwvZGl2Pg0KPGRpdj4NCjxw IGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPiZuYnNwO0pvdW5pIHJlcGxpZWQgdmlhIGVtYWlsIHRoYXQgeWVz IHRoaXMgaXMgYSDigJxqaXR0ZXLigJ0gdmFsdWUuIDxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSJmb250LXNpemU6MTEu MHB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiZxdW90O0NhbGlicmkmcXVvdDssJnF1b3Q7c2Fucy1zZXJpZiZxdW90 OyI+DQo8bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjxkaXY+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNv Tm9ybWFsIj5UaGUgcmVhc29uIEkgYW0gYnJpbmdpbmcgaXQgdXAgaXMgdGhhdCA4bnMgYXBwZWFy cyB0byBtZSB0byBiZSBhIHZlcnkgc21hbGwgdGltZSB2YWx1ZSBjb21wYXJlZCB0byBvdGhlciB0 aW1lIHZhbHVlcyB0aGF0IHdlIGhhdmUgYmVlbiBkaXNjdXNzaW5nLCBpLmUuIG1vc3RseSBpbiB0 aGUgbWlsbGlzZWNvbmQgcmFuZ2UuIElzIHRoZXJlIGFueXRoaW5nIGluIERldE5ldCBhcmNoaXRl Y3R1cmUgdGhhdCBhZmZlY3RzDQogYW55dGhpbmcgYXQgdGhpcyBmaW5lIG9mIGEgZGVncmVlIG9m IHRpbWluZz8gSW4gb3RoZXIgd29yZHMsIGRvZXMgdGhpcyBuZWVkIHRvIGJlIGNvbnNpZGVyZWQg aW4gKG9yIGd1YXJhbnRlZWQgYnkpIERldE5ldCwgYW5kIGlmIG5vdCwgc2hvdWxkIHRoaXMgc3Rh dGVtZW50IGJlIGRyb3BwZWQgZnJvbSB0aGUgdXNlIGNhc2U/DQo8c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0iZm9udC1z aXplOjExLjBwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseTomcXVvdDtDYWxpYnJpJnF1b3Q7LCZxdW90O3NhbnMtc2Vy aWYmcXVvdDsiPjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD4NCjwvZGl2Pg0KPGRpdj4NCjxwIGNsYXNz PSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPiZuYnNwOzxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSJmb250LXNpemU6MTEuMHB0O2ZvbnQtZmFt aWx5OiZxdW90O0NhbGlicmkmcXVvdDssJnF1b3Q7c2Fucy1zZXJpZiZxdW90OyI+PG86cD48L286 cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8ZGl2Pg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+Jm5ic3A7 PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9ImZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMS4wcHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6JnF1b3Q7Q2FsaWJyaSZx dW90OywmcXVvdDtzYW5zLXNlcmlmJnF1b3Q7Ij48bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+DQo8L2Rp dj4NCjxkaXY+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0iY29sb3I6Izk5MzMw MCI+Jm5ic3A7PC9zcGFuPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSJmb250LXNpemU6MTEuMHB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5 OiZxdW90O0NhbGlicmkmcXVvdDssJnF1b3Q7c2Fucy1zZXJpZiZxdW90OyI+PG86cD48L286cD48 L3NwYW4+PC9wPg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8ZGl2Pg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+PHNwYW4gc3R5 bGU9ImNvbG9yOiM5OTMzMDAiPiZuYnNwOzwvc3Bhbj48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0iZm9udC1zaXplOjEx LjBwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseTomcXVvdDtDYWxpYnJpJnF1b3Q7LCZxdW90O3NhbnMtc2VyaWYmcXVv dDsiPjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD4NCjwvZGl2Pg0KPGRpdj4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29O b3JtYWwiPiZuYnNwOzxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSJmb250LXNpemU6MTEuMHB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiZx dW90O0NhbGlicmkmcXVvdDssJnF1b3Q7c2Fucy1zZXJpZiZxdW90OyI+PG86cD48L286cD48L3Nw YW4+PC9wPg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiIHN0eWxlPSJtYXJn aW4tYm90dG9tOjEyLjBwdCI+PGJyPg0KX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX188YnI+DQpkZXRuZXQgbWFpbGluZyBsaXN0PGJyPg0KPGEgaHJlZj0ibWFp bHRvOmRldG5ldEBpZXRmLm9yZyI+ZGV0bmV0QGlldGYub3JnPC9hPjxicj4NCjxhIGhyZWY9Imh0 dHBzOi8vdXJsZGVmZW5zZS5wcm9vZnBvaW50LmNvbS92Mi91cmw/dT1odHRwcy0zQV9fd3d3Lmll dGYub3JnX21haWxtYW5fbGlzdGluZm9fZGV0bmV0JmFtcDtkPUN3TUZhUSZhbXA7Yz1sSThaYjZU ek0zZDF0WDRpRXU3YnBnJmFtcDtyPVpjSEM2d1hfZ0R3UERjZk1hRk5aaVEmYW1wO209QTRoUmJy WFFjLTM1MXE3eHNHdEZQb0hKRkotRDZZX0FKYmduNElkOHhoYyZhbXA7cz1HLWo4cE9sYkI5VTB5 Z1RpQ2Y2ZVBpMzNhQXo3MWo1dXpiNVZ2MFRQMEw0JmFtcDtlPSIgdGFyZ2V0PSJfYmxhbmsiPmh0 dHBzOi8vd3d3LmlldGYub3JnL21haWxtYW4vbGlzdGluZm8vZGV0bmV0PC9hPjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+ PC9wPg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj48YnI+DQo8YnIgY2xlYXI9ImFsbCI+ DQo8bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvcD4NCjxkaXY+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj48bzpwPiZuYnNw OzwvbzpwPjwvcD4NCjwvZGl2Pg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+LS0gPG86cD48L286cD48 L3A+DQo8ZGl2Pg0KPGRpdj4NCjxkaXY+DQo8ZGl2Pg0KPGRpdj4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3Jt YWwiPkpvdW5pIEtvcmhvbmVuLCBCcm9hZGNvbSBMdGQuPG86cD48L286cD48L3A+DQo8L2Rpdj4N CjxkaXY+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj48bzpwPiZuYnNwOzwvbzpwPjwvcD4NCjwvZGl2 Pg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjwvZGl2Pg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjwvZGl2Pg0KPC9ib2R5 Pg0KPC9odG1sPg0K --_000_f3d7d219240b4dc6b2346b3333357ee5DLBXCHPW03dolbynet_-- From nobody Fri Jun 3 13:37:56 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: detnet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: detnet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09BB312D978 for ; Fri, 3 Jun 2016 13:37:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.62 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.62 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VeVMbPDO6W-s for ; Fri, 3 Jun 2016 13:37:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx0a-000fd501.pphosted.com (mx0a-000fd501.pphosted.com [67.231.144.242]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A25A712D975 for ; Fri, 3 Jun 2016 13:37:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pps.filterd (m0045961.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-000fd501.pphosted.com (8.16.0.11/8.16.0.11) with SMTP id u53KbY5A017257 for ; Fri, 3 Jun 2016 13:37:53 -0700 Received: from dlb-xchpw04.dolby.net (124.187.216.67.in-addr.arpa [67.216.187.124] (may be forged)) by mx0a-000fd501.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2376ux2e66-2 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Fri, 03 Jun 2016 13:37:53 -0700 Received: from DLB-XCHPW03.dolby.net (10.233.7.3) by DLB-XCHPW04.dolby.net (10.233.7.4) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1076.9; Fri, 3 Jun 2016 13:37:41 -0700 Received: from DLB-XCHPW03.dolby.net ([10.103.9.186]) by DLB-XCHPW03.dolby.net ([10.103.9.186]) with mapi id 15.00.1076.000; Fri, 3 Jun 2016 13:37:41 -0700 From: "Grossman, Ethan A." To: "detnet@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: DetNet Use Case Statements - Security must allow for long leases Thread-Index: AdG91d9sB7V1WbfvTNKHQtPWqEBTbQ== Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 20:37:41 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [10.233.7.60] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_c3bc8e577f394691bd3a12c49f4f64eaDLBXCHPW03dolbynet_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:, , definitions=2016-06-03_11:, , signatures=0 Archived-At: Subject: [Detnet] DetNet Use Case Statements - Security must allow for long leases X-BeenThere: detnet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions on Deterministic Networking BoF and Proposed WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2016 20:37:55 -0000 --_000_c3bc8e577f394691bd3a12c49f4f64eaDLBXCHPW03dolbynet_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Statement: Security must allow for long leases (I am honestly not sure what I meant by this line - I think it is a referen= ce to the following, but I don't see what the question would be) Text from (Cellular Radio) Use Case: Establishing time-sensitive streams in the network entails reserving networ= king resources for long periods of time. It is important that these reserva= tion requests be authenticated to prevent malicious reservation attempts fr= om hostile nodes (or accidental misconfiguration). Discussion: I would imagine that any reservation of resources in a secure network would= require authentication, regardless of how long or short of an amount of ti= me the lease may be for. Is there anything specific to DetNet about this? --_000_c3bc8e577f394691bd3a12c49f4f64eaDLBXCHPW03dolbynet_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Statement:
Security must allow for long leases
(I am honestly not sure what I meant by this line – I think it is= a reference to the following, but I don’t see what the question woul= d be)
 
Text from (Cellular Radio) Use Case:
Establishing time-sensitive streams in the network entails reserving ne= tworking resources for long periods of time. It is important that these res= ervation requests be authenticated to prevent malicious reservation attempts from hostile nodes (or accidental mi= sconfiguration). 
 
Discu= ssion:
I would imagine that any reservation of resources in a secure network w= ould require authentication, regardless of how long or short of an amount o= f time the lease may be for. Is there anything specific to DetNet about this?
 
 
 
 
 
 
 --_000_c3bc8e577f394691bd3a12c49f4f64eaDLBXCHPW03dolbynet_-- From nobody Fri Jun 3 13:44:55 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: detnet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: detnet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6104712D979 for ; Fri, 3 Jun 2016 13:44:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.62 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.62 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CamWY-eh9pUo for ; Fri, 3 Jun 2016 13:44:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx0b-000fd501.pphosted.com (mx0b-000fd501.pphosted.com [67.231.152.235]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D536812D0D1 for ; Fri, 3 Jun 2016 13:44:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pps.filterd (m0000695.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-000fd501.pphosted.com (8.16.0.11/8.16.0.11) with SMTP id u53Kio5w001989 for ; Fri, 3 Jun 2016 13:44:51 -0700 Received: from dlb-xchpw03.dolby.net (124.187.216.67.in-addr.arpa [67.216.187.124] (may be forged)) by mx0b-000fd501.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2379462k0b-2 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Fri, 03 Jun 2016 13:44:51 -0700 Received: from DLB-XCHPW03.dolby.net (10.233.7.3) by DLB-XCHPW03.dolby.net (10.233.7.3) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1076.9; Fri, 3 Jun 2016 13:44:37 -0700 Received: from DLB-XCHPW03.dolby.net ([10.103.9.186]) by DLB-XCHPW03.dolby.net ([10.103.9.186]) with mapi id 15.00.1076.000; Fri, 3 Jun 2016 13:44:37 -0700 From: "Grossman, Ethan A." To: "detnet@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: =?Windows-1252?Q?DetNet_Use_Case_Statements_-_Data_plane_xport_std_=94uni?= =?Windows-1252?Q?fied_among_xhauls=94?= Thread-Index: AdG91+F+eUgEzBYARb222YopFsM69g== Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 20:44:37 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [10.233.7.60] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_a00b9bc6321a498f900c8db821fe0d1dDLBXCHPW03dolbynet_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:, , definitions=2016-06-03_11:, , signatures=0 Archived-At: Subject: [Detnet] =?windows-1252?q?DetNet_Use_Case_Statements_-_Data_plane?= =?windows-1252?q?_xport_std_=94unified_among_xhauls=94?= X-BeenThere: detnet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions on Deterministic Networking BoF and Proposed WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2016 20:44:53 -0000 --_000_a00b9bc6321a498f900c8db821fe0d1dDLBXCHPW03dolbynet_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Statement: Data plane xport std =94unified among xhauls=94 - Is there any special mean= ing to this for DetNet? Text from Cellular Radio Networks Asks: A standard for data plane transport specification which is: Unified among all xHauls Discussion: Jouni replied by email to clarify: =93This boils down to traffic and resource isolation i.e., different flows = with diverse "DetNet" requirements have to coexist in the same network and = traverse the same nodes without interfering with each other.=94 This certainly seems to be a requirement. --_000_a00b9bc6321a498f900c8db821fe0d1dDLBXCHPW03dolbynet_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Statement:
Data plane xport std =94unified among xhauls=94 - Is there any special= meaning to this for DetNet?
 
Text from Cellular Radio Networks Asks:
A standard for data plane transport specif= ication which is:
Unified among all xHauls
 
Discu= ssion:
 Jouni replied by email to clarify:
=93This boils down to traffic and resource isolation i.e., different f= lows with diverse "DetNet" requirements have to coexist in the sa= me network and traverse the same nodes without interfering with each other.= =94
 
This certainly seems to be a requirement.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 --_000_a00b9bc6321a498f900c8db821fe0d1dDLBXCHPW03dolbynet_-- From nobody Fri Jun 3 14:27:02 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: detnet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: detnet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE3B812D863 for ; Fri, 3 Jun 2016 14:27:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.62 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.62 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id guEEGbu3Waf6 for ; Fri, 3 Jun 2016 14:26:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx0a-000fd501.pphosted.com (mx0a-000fd501.pphosted.com [67.231.144.242]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 57C3612D84E for ; Fri, 3 Jun 2016 14:26:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pps.filterd (m0045961.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-000fd501.pphosted.com (8.16.0.11/8.16.0.11) with SMTP id u53LQxTG017612 for ; Fri, 3 Jun 2016 14:26:59 -0700 Received: from dlb-xchpw04.dolby.net (124.187.216.67.in-addr.arpa [67.216.187.124] (may be forged)) by mx0a-000fd501.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2376ux2fyv-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Fri, 03 Jun 2016 14:26:59 -0700 Received: from DLB-XCHPW03.dolby.net (10.233.7.3) by DLB-XCHPW04.dolby.net (10.233.7.4) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1076.9; Fri, 3 Jun 2016 14:26:47 -0700 Received: from DLB-XCHPW03.dolby.net ([10.103.9.186]) by DLB-XCHPW03.dolby.net ([10.103.9.186]) with mapi id 15.00.1076.000; Fri, 3 Jun 2016 14:26:47 -0700 From: "Grossman, Ethan A." To: "detnet@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: DetNet Use Case Statements - Schedule for Responses Thread-Index: AdG925L7LMrxNsUQQcapV8vjzM9C7Q== Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 21:26:47 +0000 Message-ID: <35d3fdb8810145558369735bda65bdd4@DLB-XCHPW03.dolby.net> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [10.233.7.60] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_35d3fdb8810145558369735bda65bdd4DLBXCHPW03dolbynet_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:, , definitions=2016-06-03_11:, , signatures=0 Archived-At: Subject: [Detnet] DetNet Use Case Statements - Schedule for Responses X-BeenThere: detnet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions on Deterministic Networking BoF and Proposed WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2016 21:27:01 -0000 --_000_35d3fdb8810145558369735bda65bdd4DLBXCHPW03dolbynet_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Folks, I have just sent the last in my set of emails stating my current understand= ing of each of my questions from the IETF 95 Use Cases preso. My intent is = that interested DetNet parties will respond to these threads, and that even= tually each of these threads will have some resolution, and that I will pre= sent these resolutions at IETF 96. You can find these emails by searching t= he titles for "DetNet Use Case Statements" since each of them use that phra= se. My schedule is such that I have to finish the IETF 96 Use Cases preso by Fr= iday July 1, which means that I have to base the preso on the information I= have from the threads as of Wednesday June 29. I won't be able to attend I= ETF 96 in person so I will make the presentation remotely. So if you have any input (which I just know you do :-) I would sincerely ap= preciate it if you would please reply to the relevant thread(s) by June 29. Thank you for your contributions to DetNet, Ethan. --_000_35d3fdb8810145558369735bda65bdd4DLBXCHPW03dolbynet_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Folks,
I have just sent the last in my set of emails stating my current under= standing of each of my questions from the IETF 95 Use Cases preso. My inten= t is that interested DetNet parties will respond to these threads, and that= eventually each of these threads will have some resolution, and that I will present these resolutions at IET= F 96. You can find these emails by searching the titles for “DetNet U= se Case Statements” since each of them use that phrase.
 
My schedule is such that I have to finish the IETF 96 Use Cases preso = by Friday July 1, which means that I have to base the preso on the informat= ion I have from the threads as of Wednesday June 29. I won’t be able = to attend IETF 96 in person so I will make the presentation remotely.
 
So if you have any input (which I just know you do :-) I would sincere= ly appreciate it if you would please reply to the relevant thread(s) by Jun= e 29.
 
Thank you for your contributions to DetNet,
Ethan.
 
 --_000_35d3fdb8810145558369735bda65bdd4DLBXCHPW03dolbynet_-- From nobody Tue Jun 7 12:21:49 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: detnet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: detnet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C5DA12D127 for ; Tue, 7 Jun 2016 12:21:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -15.947 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.947 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oPYq0lN_jL-v for ; Tue, 7 Jun 2016 12:21:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from alln-iport-7.cisco.com (alln-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.142.94]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1BF6212B02B for ; Tue, 7 Jun 2016 12:21:47 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2870; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1465327306; x=1466536906; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:content-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=TLW7UbmR320ncyiIfcneS8AQY+vsUlDEigVdjxpoGkc=; b=f7xEnw+7xx3DRDN/t/UNUbh7zhZLt82DDwzWVAGXaO3WvuvuHnSmMiCU EJ3VaNB44IdESIBPYJhNZLCy/58GUzmYYBX+15WEHVhAaCCGCVEGI4sqU hhm4mXgioQU6qfOE7M4nwstm6zvlTDs4HyR6qF9ALeM3jTTCrtfW+Pjwz 8=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0D+AQB2HldX/51dJa1cgz6BWbpmgXmGM?= =?us-ascii?q?YEmOBQBAQEBAQEBZRwLhEwjEVcBGggCJgIEMBUCEASIQpwEj2KRGwEBCAEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?jgQGFJohdgzGCWQWYSwGBMIx2jyCPXgEeNoNuiTlFfwEBAQ?= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.26,434,1459814400"; d="scan'208";a="282779346" Received: from rcdn-core-6.cisco.com ([173.37.93.157]) by alln-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 07 Jun 2016 19:21:46 +0000 Received: from XCH-ALN-017.cisco.com (xch-aln-017.cisco.com [173.36.7.27]) by rcdn-core-6.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u57JLkPf010986 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Tue, 7 Jun 2016 19:21:46 GMT Received: from xch-rcd-018.cisco.com (173.37.102.28) by XCH-ALN-017.cisco.com (173.36.7.27) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Tue, 7 Jun 2016 14:21:45 -0500 Received: from xch-rcd-018.cisco.com ([173.37.102.28]) by XCH-RCD-018.cisco.com ([173.37.102.28]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.009; Tue, 7 Jun 2016 14:21:45 -0500 From: "Norman Finn (nfinn)" To: "detnet@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: Terminology resolution Thread-Index: AQHRwPHUBFXyZ+EYWU+ZRlk0ce6Gkg== Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 19:21:45 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.6.4.160422 x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1 x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [10.154.250.70] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-ID: <8FBF3DEE832B404E972E74706C018EA5@emea.cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Subject: [Detnet] Terminology resolution X-BeenThere: detnet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions on Deterministic Networking BoF and Proposed WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2016 19:21:48 -0000 SeKAmXZlIHRyaWVkIHR3aWNlIHRvIHNlbmQgdGhpcyBzaW5jZSBNYXkgMTkuICBUaGlzIHRpbWUg Zm9yIHN1cmUuDQoNCkNsZWFybHksIEkgaGF2ZW7igJl0IGdvdHRlbiB0aGUgRGV0TmV0IGFyY2hp dGVjdHVyZSBvdXQgdG8gZXZlcnlvbmUsIHlldC4NCkkgaGF2ZSBjaXJjdWxhdGVkIGEgbmV3IHZl cnNpb24gdG8gc29tZSBwZW9wbGUuICBJbiB0aGVyZSBtZWFudGltZSwgaGVyZQ0KaXMgYQ0KcHJv cG9zYWwgZm9yIGNvbW1vbiB0ZXJtaW5vbG9neS4gIElmIHdlIGNhbiBhZ3JlZSBvbiB0aGlzLCB0 aGUNCmFyY2hpdGVjdHVyZSBjYW4gY29uZm9ybSB0byBpdC4NCg0KICAgICBTdWdnZXN0ZWQgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgaXMvd2FzDQogICBUZXJtIG9mIGNob2ljZSAgICAgICAg ICAgIGZyb20gICAgICAgICBlbHNld2hlcmUgICAgICAgICAgIGNvbW1lbnRzDQoNCmRldGVybWlu aXN0aWMgZmxvdyAgICAgICAgICBkcC1hbHQNCihEZXROZXQpIGVuZCBzeXN0ZW0gICAgICAgICBh cmNoDQooRGV0TmV0KSBuZXR3b3JrIG5vZGUgICAgICAgZHAtYWx0ICAgICAgICByZWxheSBzeXN0 ZW0NCiAgIChEZXROZXQpIGVkZ2Ugbm9kZSAgICAgICBkcC1hbHQgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgb25lIGtpbmQgb2YNCm5ldHdvcmsgbm9kZQ0KRGV0TmV0IG5vZGUgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgIGFyY2ggICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICBlbmQgc3lzdGVtLA0KbmV0 d29yayBub2RlLCBvciBlZGdlIG5vZGUNCihEZXROZXQpIHNvdXJjZSAgICAgICAgICAgICBhcmNo ICAgICAgICAgIFRhbGtlcg0KKERldE5ldCkgZGVzdGluYXRpb24gICAgICAgIGFyY2ggICAgICAg ICAgTGlzdGVuZXINCihEZXROZXQpIG1lbWJlciBmbG93ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIE1l bWJlciBTdHJlYW0gICAgICAgb25seSB3aGVuDQpuZWVkZWQsIG9ubHkgcmVsYXRpdmUgdG8gY29t cG91bmQgZmxvdw0KKERldE5ldCkgY29tcG91bmQgZmxvdyAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgQ29t cG91bmQgU3RyZWFtICAgICBvbmx5IHdoZW4NCm5lZWRlZCwgb25seSByZWxhdGl2ZSB0byBtZW1i ZXIgZmxvdw0KKERldE5ldCkgbGluayAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIGFsbCAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICBjYW4gYmUNCnNpbXBsZSBvciBjb21wbGV4IChlLmcuLCBFdGhlci1vdmVy LXh5eikNCihEZXROZXQpIGRvbWFpbiAgICAgICAgICAgICBkcC1hbHQgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgbWF5IG5vdCBuZWVkDQp0aGlzIGluIG5leHQgYXJjaCBkcmFmdA0KKERldE5l dCkgcmVzZXJ2YXRpb24gICAgICAgIGFyY2ggICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICB0 aWVzDQp0b2dldGhlciBmbG93IHNwZWMsIFRzcGVjLCBldGMuDQpleHBsaWNpdCByb3V0ZXMgICAg ICAgICAgICAgZHAtYWx0ICAgICAgICBwaW5uZWQgcGF0aHMNCnBhY2tldCByZXBsaWNhdGlvbnMg ICAgICAgICBhcmNoLCBkcC1hbHQgIHBhY2tldCByZXBsaWNhdGlvbiAgUGFzY2FsDQpyZWFsbHkg bGlrZXMgdGhpcyB0ZXJtLiAgSeKAmW0gZ29vZCB3aXRoIGl0Lg0KICAgIGFuZCBlbGltaW5hdGlv biAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICBhbmQgZGVsZXRpb24NCg0KVGVybXMgdG8gb21p dDogICAgIGZyb20gICAgICAgcmVhc29uDQoNCihEZXROZXQpIHN1Ym5ldCAgICBkcC1hbHQgICAg IEnigJlkIGFyZ3VlIHRoYXQsIGJldHdlZW4gZG9tYWluIGFuZCBsaW5rLCB3ZQ0KaGF2ZSB0aGlz IGNvdmVyZWQuDQoNCk5PVEU6DQoNCkNvdWxkIGRvIERldE5ldCBub2RlID0gbmV0d29yayBub2Rl IG9yIGVkZ2Ugbm9kZSwgYnV0IHRoYXQgaW1wbGllcyBuZXR3b3JrDQpub2RlICE9IGVkZ2Ugbm9k ZSwgYW5kIHRoZW4gd2hhdCBkbyB5b3UgY2FsbCBhIGRldmljZSB0aGF0IGlzIG1vc3RseSBhDQpu ZXR3b3JrIG5vZGUgYnV0IGhhcyBzb21lIGVkZ2UgcG9ydHM/ICBGcmFua2x5LCBJ4oCZZCBwcmVm ZXIgdG8gbm90IHVzZSB0aGUNCnRlcm0gZWRnZSBub2RlLCBhbmQgdGFsayBhYm91dCBlZGdlIHBv cnRzIGluIG5ldHdvcmsgbm9kZXMuDQoNCuKAlCBOb3JtDQoNCg0KDQoNCg== From nobody Tue Jun 7 12:42:38 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: detnet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: detnet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7715212D14D for ; Tue, 7 Jun 2016 12:42:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -15.946 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.946 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id V-834faWn4tp for ; Tue, 7 Jun 2016 12:42:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com [173.37.86.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B39E612B00C for ; Tue, 7 Jun 2016 12:42:34 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=17080; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1465328554; x=1466538154; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:mime-version; bh=HrzRahv65WjIG41zg8gSOTORCtepaRtLw0f5YD/VhIg=; b=FNa2ZBWunFhUjIH+GngpND8n3oxeV5THxVGJGgvKkQB1shEY4YCif7CW P6FUWXL2sdB2nUteVYCtX4ITaMfekBkOmhbHuP+BY/iwnGokYp05KB2TC r0s63lepqE9yOZH8S5k/Ogewpdxbi5/58Dn754xHLX6yiKc8xOiXthOLl 8=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0DAAgDtIldX/5pdJa1SCg6CYk5WfQa1a?= =?us-ascii?q?YR+gXkihXECHIEmOBQBAQEBAQEBZSeERQEBAQICIwpMEgEIEQECAQIoAwIEMBQ?= =?us-ascii?q?DBgoEAQ0FiC8Oq0qRGwEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBARcFhieETYQYNhIWg?= =?us-ascii?q?kuCWQWYSwGGA4gjjyCPXgEeNoMzO24BiQ9/AQEB?= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.26,434,1459814400"; d="scan'208,217";a="110479090" Received: from rcdn-core-3.cisco.com ([173.37.93.154]) by rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 07 Jun 2016 19:42:33 +0000 Received: from XCH-ALN-016.cisco.com (xch-aln-016.cisco.com [173.36.7.26]) by rcdn-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u57JgXea019785 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 7 Jun 2016 19:42:33 GMT Received: from xch-rcd-018.cisco.com (173.37.102.28) by XCH-ALN-016.cisco.com (173.36.7.26) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Tue, 7 Jun 2016 14:42:33 -0500 Received: from xch-rcd-018.cisco.com ([173.37.102.28]) by XCH-RCD-018.cisco.com ([173.37.102.28]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.009; Tue, 7 Jun 2016 14:42:32 -0500 From: "Norman Finn (nfinn)" To: "mohamed.boucadair@orange.com" , Tim Chown Thread-Topic: detnet architecture, and privacy considerations Thread-Index: AQHRwPS7FC2sfBXT/0a/aBwTqWBtoA== Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 19:42:32 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.6.4.160422 x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1 x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [10.154.250.70] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D37C6EB64E9E2nfinnciscocom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Cc: "detnet@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Detnet] detnet architecture, and privacy considerations X-BeenThere: detnet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions on Deterministic Networking BoF and Proposed WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2016 19:42:36 -0000 --_000_D37C6EB64E9E2nfinnciscocom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 R29vZCBwb2ludHMuICBJIHNob3VsZCBhZGQgYSBzZWN0aW9uIG9uIHByaXZhY3kgY29uc2lkZXJh dGlvbnMuICBQb2ludHMgdG8gbWFrZSBpbiB0aGF0IHNlY3Rpb24gd291bGQgaW5jbHVkZSAodGhp cyBpcyBub3QgcHJvcG9zZWQgdGV4dCk6DQoNCiAxLiBEZXROZXQgaXMgYWltZWQgYXQgZW50ZXJw cmlzZS1zaXplZCBuZXR3b3JrcyB1bmRlciBhIHNpbmdsZSBhZG1pbmlzdHJhdGlvbiwgbm90IHNl cnZpY2UgcHJvdmlkZXIgb3IgQmlnLUkgSW50ZXJuZXQgc2l0dWF0aW9ucy4gIE1vc3QgdXNlIGNh c2VzIChpbmR1c3RyaWFsLCBhdXRvbW90aXZlLCBBViBzdHVkaW8pIGludm9sdmUgcGxhbm5lZCwg ZW5naW5lZXJlZCwgd29yay1vcmllbnRlZCBkYXRhIGZsb3dzIHdoZXJlIHByaXZhY3kgaXMgbm90 IGFuIGlzc3VlLiAgSW4gcGFydGljdWxhciwgc3RyZWFtaW5nIGNvbnRlbnQgZGVsaXZlcnkgdG8g aW5kaXZpZHVhbHMgaXMgbm90IGEgdGFyZ2V0IGZvciBEZXROZXQuDQogMi4gSG93ZXZlciwgdGhl IHJlcXVpcmVtZW50IGZvciBldmVyeSBub2RlIGFsb25nIHRoZSBwYXRoIHRvIGlkZW50aWZ5IHRo ZSBzdHJlYW0gY2VydGFpbmx5IGRvZXMgc2VlbSB0byBjb25mbGljdCB3aXRoIHJhbmRvbSBhZGRy ZXNzIGNoYW5nZXMsIGFzIGRvIGxvbmctbGl2ZWQgZmxvd3MsIGluIGdlbmVyYWwuICBUaGlzIG1h eSB3ZWxsIHByZXNlbnQgYW4gYWRkaXRpb25hbCBhdHRhY2sgc3VyZmFjZSBmb3IgcHJpdmFjeSwg c2hvdWxkIHRoZSBEZXROZXQgcGFyYWRpZ20gYmUgZm91bmQgdXNlZnVsIGluIGJyb2FkZXIgZW52 aXJvbm1lbnRzLg0KDQpBbnkgb3RoZXIgcG9pbnRzIHRoYXQgc2hvdWxkIGJlIG1hZGU/DQoNCuKA lCBOb3JtDQoNCkZyb206IGRldG5ldCA8ZGV0bmV0LWJvdW5jZXNAaWV0Zi5vcmc8bWFpbHRvOmRl dG5ldC1ib3VuY2VzQGlldGYub3JnPj4gb24gYmVoYWxmIG9mICJtb2hhbWVkLmJvdWNhZGFpckBv cmFuZ2UuY29tPG1haWx0bzptb2hhbWVkLmJvdWNhZGFpckBvcmFuZ2UuY29tPiIgPG1vaGFtZWQu Ym91Y2FkYWlyQG9yYW5nZS5jb208bWFpbHRvOm1vaGFtZWQuYm91Y2FkYWlyQG9yYW5nZS5jb20+ Pg0KRGF0ZTogV2VkbmVzZGF5LCBBcHJpbCA2LCAyMDE2IGF0IDA5OjU4IEFNDQpUbzogVGltIENo b3duIDxUaW0uQ2hvd25AamlzYy5hYy51azxtYWlsdG86VGltLkNob3duQGppc2MuYWMudWs+Piwg ImRldG5ldEBpZXRmLm9yZzxtYWlsdG86ZGV0bmV0QGlldGYub3JnPiIgPGRldG5ldEBpZXRmLm9y ZzxtYWlsdG86ZGV0bmV0QGlldGYub3JnPj4NClN1YmplY3Q6IFtEZXRuZXRdIE9GRkxJU1QgUkU6 IGRldG5ldCBhcmNoaXRlY3R1cmUsIGFuZCBwcml2YWN5IGNvbnNpZGVyYXRpb25zDQoNCkhpIFRp bSwNCg0KSSBkbyBmdWxseSBhZ3JlZSB3aXRoIHRoaXMgY29tbWVudC4NCg0KRldJVywgdGhlcmUg YXJlIHNvbWUgY29uc2lkZXJhdGlvbnMgdGhhdCBhcmUgZGlzY3Vzc2VkIGluIGh0dHBzOi8vdG9v bHMuaWV0Zi5vcmcvaHRtbC9yZmM3Mjk3I3NlY3Rpb24tMy44IHRoYXQgbWF5IGJlIHJldXNlZCBp biB0aGUgY29udGV4dCBvZiBkZXRuZXQuDQoNCklNSE8sIHRoZSBwcml2YWN5IHJlcXVpcmVtZW50 IHNob3VsZCBiZSBleHBsaWNpdGx5IGNhcHR1cmVkIGluIHRoZSB1c2UgY2FzZSBkcmFmdCwgYnV0 IGFzIHRoYXQgZHJhZnQgaXMgY3VycmVudGx5IHNjb3BlZCwgaXQgaXMgaGFyZCB0byBzZWUgaG93 IHJlcXVpcmVtZW50cyBhcmUgZGVyaXZlZCBmcm9tIHRoZSB1c2UgY2FzZXMuDQoNCkNoZWVycywN Ck1lZA0KDQpEZSA6IGRldG5ldCBbbWFpbHRvOmRldG5ldC1ib3VuY2VzQGlldGYub3JnXSBEZSBs YSBwYXJ0IGRlIFRpbSBDaG93bg0KRW52b3nDqSA6IG1hcmRpIDUgYXZyaWwgMjAxNiAxMzo0Mw0K w4AgOiBkZXRuZXRAaWV0Zi5vcmc8bWFpbHRvOmRldG5ldEBpZXRmLm9yZz4NCk9iamV0IDogW0Rl dG5ldF0gZGV0bmV0IGFyY2hpdGVjdHVyZSwgYW5kIHByaXZhY3kgY29uc2lkZXJhdGlvbnMNCg0K SGksDQoNClRoZSBxdWVzdGlvbiBJIGFza2VkIGF0IHRoZSBtaWMgdG9kYXkgd2FzIGRyaXZlbiBi eSBzZWVpbmcgYW4gYXJjaGl0ZWN0dXJlIHRleHQgKGRyYWZ0LWZpbm4tZGV0bmV0LWFyY2hpdGVj dHVyZS0wNCkgd2hlcmUgdGhlcmXigJlzIG5vIGV4cGxpY2l0IG1lbnRpb24gb2YgcHJpdmFjeSBo YW5kbGluZywgYW5kIGJlaW5nIGF3YXJlIHRoYXQgc2luY2UgUkZDIDcyNTggd2FzIHB1Ymxpc2hl ZCB3ZSBzaG91bGQgYmUgdGhpbmtpbmcgYWJvdXQgYXBwcm9wcmlhdGUgcHJpdmFjeSBjb25zaWRl cmF0aW9ucyBpbiBzdWNoIGRvY3VtZW50cy4NCg0KU28sIGZvciBleGFtcGxlLCBvbmUg4oCYb3Bl biBpc3N1ZScgc2xpZGUgaW4gTm9ybWFu4oCZcyB0YWxrIGFza2VkIGFib3V0IGlkZW50aWZ5aW5n IHN0cmVhbXMsIGFuZCBMMiBhZGRyZXNzZXMgb3IgdGhlIDUtdHVwbGUgd2VyZSBtZW50aW9uZWQs IGJ1dCBpbiBhIHdvcmxkIHdoZXJlIEwyIGFkZHJlc3NlcyBhcmUgcmFuZG9taXNlZCBvdmVyIHRp bWUsIGFuZCBlbmNyeXB0aW9uIGlzIG1vcmUgd2lkZXNwcmVhZCwgb3RoZXIgbWVjaGFuaXNtcyBt YXkgYmUgcmVxdWlyZWQsIG9uZXMgdGhhdCBvbmUgbWlnaHQgYXJndWUgc2hvdWxkIGJlIG9wYXF1 ZSB0byB0aGUgbmV0d29yayBvcGVyYXRvci4NCg0KV2VhcmluZyBteSBkbnNzZCBXRyBjaGFpciBo YXQsIHdl4oCZdmUgZGlzY3Vzc2VkIHNpbWlsYXIgaXNzdWVzIHRoaXMgd2Vlaywgc3BlY2lmaWNh bGx5IGhvdyB5b3UgbWlnaHQgZG8gZGV2aWNlIG5hbWluZyBhbmQgc2VydmljZSBkaXNjb3Zlcnkg d2l0aCBwcml2YWN5LCB3aGlsZSB1c2luZyDigJhicm9hZGNhc3TigJkgcHJvdG9jb2xzIHN1Y2gg YXMgbUROUyBhbmQgRE5TLVNEIChzZWUgaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuaWV0Zi5vcmcvcHJvY2VlZGluZ3Mv OTUvc2xpZGVzL3NsaWRlcy05NS1kbnNzZC0wLnBkZiwgaWYgaW50ZXJlc3RlZCkuDQoNCldoYXRl dmVyIHByaXZhY3kgY29uc2lkZXJhdGlvbnMgYXJlIHB1dCBpbnRvIHRoZSBhcmNoaXRlY3R1cmUs IEkgdGhpbmsgd2Ugc2hvdWxkIGF0IGxlYXN0IGVuc3VyZSB3ZSBkaXNjdXNzIHRoZW0sIG5vdGlu ZyB0aGF0IHdoaWxlIGRldG5ldCBpcyBzY29wZWQgYnkgY2hhcnRlciB0byBpbml0aWFsbHkgb25s eSBiZSBhcHBsaWNhYmxlIHdpdGhpbiBhIHNpbmdsZSBhZG1pbmlzdHJhdGl2ZSBkb21haW4sIHVz ZSBvZiB0aGUgd29yZCDigJhpbml0aWFsbHnigJkgaW1wbGllcyBpdHMgc2NvcGUgbWF5L3dpbGwg Z3JvdyBsYXRlci4NCg0KVGltDQoNCg0KDQo= --_000_D37C6EB64E9E2nfinnciscocom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-ID: <361A415395D7EF4CB3411A4F4C1CCE34@emea.cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 PGh0bWw+DQo8aGVhZD4NCjxtZXRhIGh0dHAtZXF1aXY9IkNvbnRlbnQtVHlwZSIgY29udGVudD0i dGV4dC9odG1sOyBjaGFyc2V0PXV0Zi04Ij4NCjwvaGVhZD4NCjxib2R5IHN0eWxlPSJ3b3JkLXdy YXA6IGJyZWFrLXdvcmQ7IC13ZWJraXQtbmJzcC1tb2RlOiBzcGFjZTsgLXdlYmtpdC1saW5lLWJy ZWFrOiBhZnRlci13aGl0ZS1zcGFjZTsgY29sb3I6IHJnYigwLCAwLCAwKTsgZm9udC1zaXplOiAx NHB4OyBmb250LWZhbWlseTogQ29uc29sYXMsIHNhbnMtc2VyaWY7Ij4NCjxkaXY+R29vZCBwb2lu dHMuICZuYnNwO0kgc2hvdWxkIGFkZCBhIHNlY3Rpb24gb24gcHJpdmFjeSBjb25zaWRlcmF0aW9u cy4gJm5ic3A7UG9pbnRzIHRvIG1ha2UgaW4gdGhhdCBzZWN0aW9uIHdvdWxkIGluY2x1ZGUgKHRo aXMgaXMgbm90IHByb3Bvc2VkIHRleHQpOjwvZGl2Pg0KPGRpdj48YnI+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjxkaXY+ Jm5ic3A7MS4gRGV0TmV0IGlzIGFpbWVkIGF0IGVudGVycHJpc2Utc2l6ZWQgbmV0d29ya3MgdW5k ZXIgYSBzaW5nbGUgYWRtaW5pc3RyYXRpb24sIG5vdCBzZXJ2aWNlIHByb3ZpZGVyIG9yIEJpZy1J IEludGVybmV0IHNpdHVhdGlvbnMuICZuYnNwO01vc3QgdXNlIGNhc2VzIChpbmR1c3RyaWFsLCBh dXRvbW90aXZlLCBBViBzdHVkaW8pIGludm9sdmUgcGxhbm5lZCwgZW5naW5lZXJlZCwgd29yay1v cmllbnRlZCBkYXRhIGZsb3dzIHdoZXJlIHByaXZhY3kgaXMNCiBub3QgYW4gaXNzdWUuICZuYnNw O0luIHBhcnRpY3VsYXIsIHN0cmVhbWluZyBjb250ZW50IGRlbGl2ZXJ5IHRvIGluZGl2aWR1YWxz IGlzIG5vdCBhIHRhcmdldCBmb3IgRGV0TmV0LjwvZGl2Pg0KPGRpdj4mbmJzcDsyLiBIb3dldmVy LCB0aGUgcmVxdWlyZW1lbnQgZm9yIGV2ZXJ5IG5vZGUgYWxvbmcgdGhlIHBhdGggdG8gaWRlbnRp ZnkgdGhlIHN0cmVhbSBjZXJ0YWlubHkgZG9lcyBzZWVtIHRvIGNvbmZsaWN0IHdpdGggcmFuZG9t IGFkZHJlc3MgY2hhbmdlcywgYXMgZG8gbG9uZy1saXZlZCBmbG93cywgaW4gZ2VuZXJhbC4gJm5i c3A7VGhpcyBtYXkgd2VsbCBwcmVzZW50IGFuIGFkZGl0aW9uYWwgYXR0YWNrIHN1cmZhY2UgZm9y IHByaXZhY3ksIHNob3VsZCB0aGUNCiBEZXROZXQgcGFyYWRpZ20gYmUgZm91bmQgdXNlZnVsIGlu IGJyb2FkZXIgZW52aXJvbm1lbnRzLjwvZGl2Pg0KPGRpdj48YnI+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjxkaXY+QW55 IG90aGVyIHBvaW50cyB0aGF0IHNob3VsZCBiZSBtYWRlPzwvZGl2Pg0KPGRpdj48YnI+DQo8L2Rp dj4NCjxkaXY+4oCUIE5vcm08L2Rpdj4NCjxkaXY+PGJyPg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8c3BhbiBpZD0iT0xL X1NSQ19CT0RZX1NFQ1RJT04iPg0KPGRpdiBzdHlsZT0iZm9udC1mYW1pbHk6Q2FsaWJyaTsgZm9u dC1zaXplOjExcHQ7IHRleHQtYWxpZ246bGVmdDsgY29sb3I6YmxhY2s7IEJPUkRFUi1CT1RUT006 IG1lZGl1bSBub25lOyBCT1JERVItTEVGVDogbWVkaXVtIG5vbmU7IFBBRERJTkctQk9UVE9NOiAw aW47IFBBRERJTkctTEVGVDogMGluOyBQQURESU5HLVJJR0hUOiAwaW47IEJPUkRFUi1UT1A6ICNi NWM0ZGYgMXB0IHNvbGlkOyBCT1JERVItUklHSFQ6IG1lZGl1bSBub25lOyBQQURESU5HLVRPUDog M3B0Ij4NCjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSJmb250LXdlaWdodDpib2xkIj5Gcm9tOiA8L3NwYW4+ZGV0bmV0 ICZsdDs8YSBocmVmPSJtYWlsdG86ZGV0bmV0LWJvdW5jZXNAaWV0Zi5vcmciPmRldG5ldC1ib3Vu Y2VzQGlldGYub3JnPC9hPiZndDsgb24gYmVoYWxmIG9mICZxdW90OzxhIGhyZWY9Im1haWx0bzpt b2hhbWVkLmJvdWNhZGFpckBvcmFuZ2UuY29tIj5tb2hhbWVkLmJvdWNhZGFpckBvcmFuZ2UuY29t PC9hPiZxdW90OyAmbHQ7PGEgaHJlZj0ibWFpbHRvOm1vaGFtZWQuYm91Y2FkYWlyQG9yYW5nZS5j b20iPm1vaGFtZWQuYm91Y2FkYWlyQG9yYW5nZS5jb208L2E+Jmd0Ozxicj4NCjxzcGFuIHN0eWxl PSJmb250LXdlaWdodDpib2xkIj5EYXRlOiA8L3NwYW4+V2VkbmVzZGF5LCBBcHJpbCA2LCAyMDE2 IGF0IDA5OjU4IEFNPGJyPg0KPHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9ImZvbnQtd2VpZ2h0OmJvbGQiPlRvOiA8L3Nw YW4+VGltIENob3duICZsdDs8YSBocmVmPSJtYWlsdG86VGltLkNob3duQGppc2MuYWMudWsiPlRp bS5DaG93bkBqaXNjLmFjLnVrPC9hPiZndDssICZxdW90OzxhIGhyZWY9Im1haWx0bzpkZXRuZXRA aWV0Zi5vcmciPmRldG5ldEBpZXRmLm9yZzwvYT4mcXVvdDsgJmx0OzxhIGhyZWY9Im1haWx0bzpk ZXRuZXRAaWV0Zi5vcmciPmRldG5ldEBpZXRmLm9yZzwvYT4mZ3Q7PGJyPg0KPHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9 ImZvbnQtd2VpZ2h0OmJvbGQiPlN1YmplY3Q6IDwvc3Bhbj5bRGV0bmV0XSBPRkZMSVNUIFJFOiBk ZXRuZXQgYXJjaGl0ZWN0dXJlLCBhbmQgcHJpdmFjeSBjb25zaWRlcmF0aW9uczxicj4NCjwvZGl2 Pg0KPGRpdj48YnI+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjxibG9ja3F1b3RlIGlkPSJNQUNfT1VUTE9PS19BVFRSSUJV VElPTl9CTE9DS1FVT1RFIiBzdHlsZT0iQk9SREVSLUxFRlQ6ICNiNWM0ZGYgNSBzb2xpZDsgUEFE RElORzowIDAgMCA1OyBNQVJHSU46MCAwIDAgNTsiPg0KPGRpdiB4bWxuczp2PSJ1cm46c2NoZW1h cy1taWNyb3NvZnQtY29tOnZtbCIgeG1sbnM6bz0idXJuOnNjaGVtYXMtbWljcm9zb2Z0LWNvbTpv ZmZpY2U6b2ZmaWNlIiB4bWxuczp3PSJ1cm46c2NoZW1hcy1taWNyb3NvZnQtY29tOm9mZmljZTp3 b3JkIiB4bWxuczptPSJodHRwOi8vc2NoZW1hcy5taWNyb3NvZnQuY29tL29mZmljZS8yMDA0LzEy L29tbWwiIHhtbG5zPSJodHRwOi8vd3d3LnczLm9yZy9UUi9SRUMtaHRtbDQwIj4NCjxtZXRhIG5h bWU9IkdlbmVyYXRvciIgY29udGVudD0iTWljcm9zb2Z0IFdvcmQgMTQgKGZpbHRlcmVkIG1lZGl1 bSkiPg0KPHN0eWxlPjwhLS0NCi8qIEZvbnQgRGVmaW5pdGlvbnMgKi8NCkBmb250LWZhY2UNCgl7 Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6Q2FsaWJyaTsNCglwYW5vc2UtMToyIDE1IDUgMiAyIDIgNCAzIDIgNDt9DQpA Zm9udC1mYWNlDQoJe2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OlRhaG9tYTsNCglwYW5vc2UtMToyIDExIDYgNCAzIDUg NCA0IDIgNDt9DQovKiBTdHlsZSBEZWZpbml0aW9ucyAqLw0KcC5Nc29Ob3JtYWwsIGxpLk1zb05v cm1hbCwgZGl2Lk1zb05vcm1hbA0KCXttYXJnaW46MGNtOw0KCW1hcmdpbi1ib3R0b206LjAwMDFw dDsNCglmb250LXNpemU6MTIuMHB0Ow0KCWZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJUaW1lcyBOZXcgUm9tYW4iLCJz ZXJpZiI7fQ0KYTpsaW5rLCBzcGFuLk1zb0h5cGVybGluaw0KCXttc28tc3R5bGUtcHJpb3JpdHk6 OTk7DQoJY29sb3I6Ymx1ZTsNCgl0ZXh0LWRlY29yYXRpb246dW5kZXJsaW5lO30NCmE6dmlzaXRl ZCwgc3Bhbi5Nc29IeXBlcmxpbmtGb2xsb3dlZA0KCXttc28tc3R5bGUtcHJpb3JpdHk6OTk7DQoJ Y29sb3I6cHVycGxlOw0KCXRleHQtZGVjb3JhdGlvbjp1bmRlcmxpbmU7fQ0Kc3Bhbi5FbWFpbFN0 eWxlMTcNCgl7bXNvLXN0eWxlLXR5cGU6cGVyc29uYWwtcmVwbHk7DQoJZm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IkNv dXJpZXIgTmV3IjsNCgljb2xvcjpibGFjazsNCglmb250LXdlaWdodDpub3JtYWw7DQoJZm9udC1z dHlsZTpub3JtYWw7fQ0KLk1zb0NocERlZmF1bHQNCgl7bXNvLXN0eWxlLXR5cGU6ZXhwb3J0LW9u bHk7DQoJZm9udC1zaXplOjEwLjBwdDt9DQpAcGFnZSBXb3JkU2VjdGlvbjENCgl7c2l6ZTo2MTIu MHB0IDc5Mi4wcHQ7DQoJbWFyZ2luOjcwLjg1cHQgNzAuODVwdCA3MC44NXB0IDcwLjg1cHQ7fQ0K ZGl2LldvcmRTZWN0aW9uMQ0KCXtwYWdlOldvcmRTZWN0aW9uMTt9DQotLT48L3N0eWxlPjwhLS1b aWYgZ3RlIG1zbyA5XT48eG1sPg0KPG86c2hhcGVkZWZhdWx0cyB2OmV4dD0iZWRpdCIgc3BpZG1h eD0iMTAyNiIgLz4NCjwveG1sPjwhW2VuZGlmXS0tPjwhLS1baWYgZ3RlIG1zbyA5XT48eG1sPg0K PG86c2hhcGVsYXlvdXQgdjpleHQ9ImVkaXQiPg0KPG86aWRtYXAgdjpleHQ9ImVkaXQiIGRhdGE9 IjEiIC8+DQo8L286c2hhcGVsYXlvdXQ+PC94bWw+PCFbZW5kaWZdLS0+DQo8ZGl2IGxhbmc9IkZS IiBsaW5rPSJibHVlIiB2bGluaz0icHVycGxlIj4NCjxkaXYgY2xhc3M9IldvcmRTZWN0aW9uMSI+ DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0iZm9udC1zaXplOjEwLjBwdDtmb250 LWZhbWlseTomcXVvdDtDb3VyaWVyIE5ldyZxdW90Oztjb2xvcjpibGFjayI+SGkgVGltLDxvOnA+ PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSJmb250 LXNpemU6MTAuMHB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiZxdW90O0NvdXJpZXIgTmV3JnF1b3Q7O2NvbG9yOmJs YWNrIj48bzpwPiZuYnNwOzwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj48 c3BhbiBsYW5nPSJFTi1VUyIgc3R5bGU9ImZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMC4wcHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6JnF1 b3Q7Q291cmllciBOZXcmcXVvdDs7Y29sb3I6YmxhY2siPkkgZG8gZnVsbHkgYWdyZWUgd2l0aCB0 aGlzIGNvbW1lbnQuDQo8bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFs Ij48c3BhbiBsYW5nPSJFTi1VUyIgc3R5bGU9ImZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMC4wcHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6 JnF1b3Q7Q291cmllciBOZXcmcXVvdDs7Y29sb3I6YmxhY2siPjxvOnA+Jm5ic3A7PC9vOnA+PC9z cGFuPjwvcD4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPjxzcGFuIGxhbmc9IkVOLVVTIiBzdHlsZT0i Zm9udC1zaXplOjEwLjBwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseTomcXVvdDtDb3VyaWVyIE5ldyZxdW90Oztjb2xv cjpibGFjayI+RldJVywgdGhlcmUgYXJlIHNvbWUgY29uc2lkZXJhdGlvbnMgdGhhdCBhcmUgZGlz Y3Vzc2VkIGluDQo8YSBocmVmPSJodHRwczovL3Rvb2xzLmlldGYub3JnL2h0bWwvcmZjNzI5NyNz ZWN0aW9uLTMuOCI+aHR0cHM6Ly90b29scy5pZXRmLm9yZy9odG1sL3JmYzcyOTcjc2VjdGlvbi0z Ljg8L2E+IHRoYXQgbWF5IGJlIHJldXNlZCBpbiB0aGUgY29udGV4dCBvZiBkZXRuZXQuPG86cD48 L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+PHNwYW4gbGFuZz0iRU4tVVMi IHN0eWxlPSJmb250LXNpemU6MTAuMHB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiZxdW90O0NvdXJpZXIgTmV3JnF1 b3Q7O2NvbG9yOmJsYWNrIj48bzpwPiZuYnNwOzwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0i TXNvTm9ybWFsIj48c3BhbiBsYW5nPSJFTi1VUyIgc3R5bGU9ImZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMC4wcHQ7Zm9u dC1mYW1pbHk6JnF1b3Q7Q291cmllciBOZXcmcXVvdDs7Y29sb3I6YmxhY2siPklNSE8sIHRoZSBw cml2YWN5IHJlcXVpcmVtZW50IHNob3VsZCBiZSBleHBsaWNpdGx5IGNhcHR1cmVkIGluIHRoZSB1 c2UgY2FzZSBkcmFmdCwgYnV0IGFzIHRoYXQgZHJhZnQgaXMgY3VycmVudGx5IHNjb3BlZCwgaXQg aXMgaGFyZCB0byBzZWUgaG93IHJlcXVpcmVtZW50cw0KIGFyZSBkZXJpdmVkIGZyb20gdGhlIHVz ZSBjYXNlcy48bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj48c3Bh biBsYW5nPSJFTi1VUyIgc3R5bGU9ImZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMC4wcHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6JnF1b3Q7 Q291cmllciBOZXcmcXVvdDs7Y29sb3I6YmxhY2siPjxvOnA+Jm5ic3A7PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwv cD4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPjxzcGFuIGxhbmc9IkVOLVVTIiBzdHlsZT0iZm9udC1z aXplOjEwLjBwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseTomcXVvdDtDb3VyaWVyIE5ldyZxdW90Oztjb2xvcjpibGFj ayI+Q2hlZXJzLDxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPjxz cGFuIGxhbmc9IkVOLVVTIiBzdHlsZT0iZm9udC1zaXplOjEwLjBwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseTomcXVv dDtDb3VyaWVyIE5ldyZxdW90Oztjb2xvcjpibGFjayI+TWVkPG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9w Pg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+PHNwYW4gbGFuZz0iRU4tVVMiIHN0eWxlPSJmb250LXNp emU6MTAuMHB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiZxdW90O0NvdXJpZXIgTmV3JnF1b3Q7O2NvbG9yOmJsYWNr Ij48bzpwPiZuYnNwOzwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+DQo8ZGl2IHN0eWxlPSJib3JkZXI6bm9uZTti b3JkZXItbGVmdDpzb2xpZCBibHVlIDEuNXB0O3BhZGRpbmc6MGNtIDBjbSAwY20gNC4wcHQiPg0K PGRpdj4NCjxkaXYgc3R5bGU9ImJvcmRlcjpub25lO2JvcmRlci10b3A6c29saWQgI0I1QzRERiAx LjBwdDtwYWRkaW5nOjMuMHB0IDBjbSAwY20gMGNtIj4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPjxi PjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSJmb250LXNpemU6IDEwcHQ7IGZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiBUYWhvbWEsIHNhbnMt c2VyaWY7Ij5EZSZuYnNwOzo8L3NwYW4+PC9iPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSJmb250LXNpemU6IDEwcHQ7 IGZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiBUYWhvbWEsIHNhbnMtc2VyaWY7Ij4gZGV0bmV0IFs8YSBocmVmPSJtYWls dG86ZGV0bmV0LWJvdW5jZXNAaWV0Zi5vcmciPm1haWx0bzpkZXRuZXQtYm91bmNlc0BpZXRmLm9y ZzwvYT5dDQo8Yj5EZSBsYSBwYXJ0IGRlPC9iPiBUaW0gQ2hvd248YnI+DQo8Yj5FbnZvecOpJm5i c3A7OjwvYj4gbWFyZGkgNSBhdnJpbCAyMDE2IDEzOjQzPGJyPg0KPGI+w4AmbmJzcDs6PC9iPiA8 YSBocmVmPSJtYWlsdG86ZGV0bmV0QGlldGYub3JnIj5kZXRuZXRAaWV0Zi5vcmc8L2E+PGJyPg0K PGI+T2JqZXQmbmJzcDs6PC9iPiBbRGV0bmV0XSBkZXRuZXQgYXJjaGl0ZWN0dXJlLCBhbmQgcHJp dmFjeSBjb25zaWRlcmF0aW9uczxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD4NCjwvZGl2Pg0KPC9kaXY+ DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj48bzpwPiZuYnNwOzwvbzpwPjwvcD4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJN c29Ob3JtYWwiPkhpLCA8bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvcD4NCjxkaXY+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFs Ij48bzpwPiZuYnNwOzwvbzpwPjwvcD4NCjwvZGl2Pg0KPGRpdj4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3Jt YWwiPlRoZSBxdWVzdGlvbiBJIGFza2VkIGF0IHRoZSBtaWMgdG9kYXkgd2FzIGRyaXZlbiBieSBz ZWVpbmcgYW4gYXJjaGl0ZWN0dXJlIHRleHQgKGRyYWZ0LWZpbm4tZGV0bmV0LWFyY2hpdGVjdHVy ZS0wNCkgd2hlcmUgdGhlcmXigJlzIG5vIGV4cGxpY2l0IG1lbnRpb24gb2YgcHJpdmFjeSBoYW5k bGluZywgYW5kIGJlaW5nIGF3YXJlIHRoYXQgc2luY2UgUkZDIDcyNTggd2FzIHB1Ymxpc2hlZCB3 ZSBzaG91bGQgYmUgdGhpbmtpbmcNCiBhYm91dCBhcHByb3ByaWF0ZSBwcml2YWN5IGNvbnNpZGVy YXRpb25zIGluIHN1Y2ggZG9jdW1lbnRzLjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9wPg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8ZGl2Pg0K PHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+PG86cD4mbmJzcDs8L286cD48L3A+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjxkaXY+ DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj5TbywgZm9yIGV4YW1wbGUsIG9uZSDigJhvcGVuIGlzc3Vl JyBzbGlkZSBpbiBOb3JtYW7igJlzIHRhbGsgYXNrZWQgYWJvdXQgaWRlbnRpZnlpbmcgc3RyZWFt cywgYW5kIEwyIGFkZHJlc3NlcyBvciB0aGUgNS10dXBsZSB3ZXJlIG1lbnRpb25lZCwgYnV0IGlu IGEgd29ybGQgd2hlcmUgTDIgYWRkcmVzc2VzIGFyZSByYW5kb21pc2VkIG92ZXIgdGltZSwgYW5k IGVuY3J5cHRpb24gaXMgbW9yZSB3aWRlc3ByZWFkLCBvdGhlcg0KIG1lY2hhbmlzbXMgbWF5IGJl IHJlcXVpcmVkLCBvbmVzIHRoYXQgb25lIG1pZ2h0IGFyZ3VlIHNob3VsZCBiZSBvcGFxdWUgdG8g dGhlIG5ldHdvcmsgb3BlcmF0b3IuJm5ic3A7PG86cD48L286cD48L3A+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjxkaXY+ DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj48bzpwPiZuYnNwOzwvbzpwPjwvcD4NCjwvZGl2Pg0KPGRp dj4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPldlYXJpbmcgbXkgZG5zc2QgV0cgY2hhaXIgaGF0LCB3 ZeKAmXZlIGRpc2N1c3NlZCBzaW1pbGFyIGlzc3VlcyB0aGlzIHdlZWssIHNwZWNpZmljYWxseSBo b3cgeW91IG1pZ2h0IGRvIGRldmljZSBuYW1pbmcgYW5kIHNlcnZpY2UgZGlzY292ZXJ5IHdpdGgg cHJpdmFjeSwgd2hpbGUgdXNpbmcg4oCYYnJvYWRjYXN04oCZIHByb3RvY29scyBzdWNoIGFzIG1E TlMgYW5kIEROUy1TRCAoc2VlJm5ic3A7PGEgaHJlZj0iaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuaWV0Zi5vcmcvcHJv Y2VlZGluZ3MvOTUvc2xpZGVzL3NsaWRlcy05NS1kbnNzZC0wLnBkZiI+aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuaWV0 Zi5vcmcvcHJvY2VlZGluZ3MvOTUvc2xpZGVzL3NsaWRlcy05NS1kbnNzZC0wLnBkZjwvYT4sDQog aWYgaW50ZXJlc3RlZCkuPG86cD48L286cD48L3A+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjxkaXY+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0i TXNvTm9ybWFsIj48bzpwPiZuYnNwOzwvbzpwPjwvcD4NCjwvZGl2Pg0KPGRpdj4NCjxwIGNsYXNz PSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPldoYXRldmVyIHByaXZhY3kgY29uc2lkZXJhdGlvbnMgYXJlIHB1dCBpbnRv IHRoZSBhcmNoaXRlY3R1cmUsIEkgdGhpbmsgd2Ugc2hvdWxkIGF0IGxlYXN0IGVuc3VyZSB3ZSBk aXNjdXNzIHRoZW0sIG5vdGluZyB0aGF0IHdoaWxlIGRldG5ldCBpcyBzY29wZWQgYnkgY2hhcnRl ciB0byBpbml0aWFsbHkgb25seSBiZSBhcHBsaWNhYmxlIHdpdGhpbiBhIHNpbmdsZSBhZG1pbmlz dHJhdGl2ZSBkb21haW4sIHVzZSBvZg0KIHRoZSB3b3JkIOKAmGluaXRpYWxseeKAmSBpbXBsaWVz IGl0cyBzY29wZSBtYXkvd2lsbCBncm93IGxhdGVyLjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9wPg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8 ZGl2Pg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+PG86cD4mbmJzcDs8L286cD48L3A+DQo8ZGl2Pg0K PGRpdj4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPlRpbTxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9wPg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8 ZGl2Pg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+PG86cD4mbmJzcDs8L286cD48L3A+DQo8L2Rpdj4N CjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPjxvOnA+Jm5ic3A7PC9vOnA+PC9wPg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8cCBj bGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj48bzpwPiZuYnNwOzwvbzpwPjwvcD4NCjwvZGl2Pg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8 L2Rpdj4NCjwvZGl2Pg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8L2Jsb2NrcXVvdGU+DQo8L3NwYW4+DQo8L2JvZHk+DQo8 L2h0bWw+DQo= --_000_D37C6EB64E9E2nfinnciscocom_-- From nobody Tue Jun 7 13:25:04 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: detnet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: detnet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8143412D0A8 for ; Tue, 7 Jun 2016 13:25:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.701 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.701 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=broadcom.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2NNjTNnDExzE for ; Tue, 7 Jun 2016 13:25:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pa0-x22b.google.com (mail-pa0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::22b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 77A8812D5CC for ; Tue, 7 Jun 2016 13:25:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pa0-x22b.google.com with SMTP id bz2so49026803pad.1 for ; Tue, 07 Jun 2016 13:25:01 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=broadcom.com; s=google; h=reply-to:subject:references:to:cc:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=7NGBB2+eONDvoJW8xcQ025XKJYijm7x9BkL8e2Rlkkk=; b=LRaDcRmNj6W3KEztt0JthoDueriwDH2W40ep0VVpJ7FsG4vYHhEMkKkODZUpfgTe0x EBwLmIHfov9F4fkwsCBnx7icuW3ZAbR5madVCH3XHm3BOLZCxzabs8b8oFzUxIUYw81S oIdxAmcMjh++vMM+4mzH+YywZwqvcAaLDs7YY= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:reply-to:subject:references:to:cc:from :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=7NGBB2+eONDvoJW8xcQ025XKJYijm7x9BkL8e2Rlkkk=; b=gIeMaXGdK9PJczAI/RoEI70UxjqavrkZW0os4b4t8mqVQsSwL2iCvCBi8oKgbq75P1 0CMut/fDAsll4Gk2m4XMrSjeFSLXmyeRpxYv3o325C3DpM0IRwb17n1u5TS5YWYzirVX mlVVN2E4jXELQLg3BndzqEPXVZrv8E5bltXOM19nuSR5P+td3N8rs/VbE282OE5+U6bK 6oMMTc5jVDLCdmX6WN8grlKYI96LRwoplC9A057P/PFdDA7xadPID0NVt4RvKNxMiQVW 1q8/3ZGaInpm4MK4/RcQbT+niY3CQxCPK8gZl0gW7fDzMpHU7XbS8EvFZEi3GgU67Cfx 0zrg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tKJq6FAI4palkr/UzA5WDX0/BgTlg/+8H/BKMj7ZWbCLagfcHWBGmaC0O/DxOr0YBAp X-Received: by 10.66.166.176 with SMTP id zh16mr1347704pab.42.1465331100797; Tue, 07 Jun 2016 13:25:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.16.65.15] (5520-maca-inet1-outside.broadcom.com. [216.31.211.11]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id s124sm37232010pfb.63.2016.06.07.13.24.58 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 07 Jun 2016 13:24:59 -0700 (PDT) References: To: "Grossman, Ethan A." From: Jouni Korhonen Message-ID: <58a5f211-db2c-ffbd-3444-c895e46db97a@broadcom.com> Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 13:24:50 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.1.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Archived-At: Cc: "detnet@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Detnet] DetNet Use Case Statements - Delay accuracy +/-8ns X-BeenThere: detnet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list Reply-To: jouni.korhonen@broadcom.com List-Id: Discussions on Deterministic Networking BoF and Proposed WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2016 20:25:03 -0000 Hi Ethan, 6/3/2016, 1:22 PM, Grossman, Ethan A. kirjoitti: > Thanks Jouni, and I’m not suggesting the whole use case be dropped, I’m > saying that I would like the use case to be clear that if this kind of > timing requirement exists that it needs to be dealt with by the > implementation, for example using buffering as you are describing. Again > my point here is to make sure that anything that needs to be considered > by DetNet architecture is considered, and those things that don’t > directly affect DetNet architecture or implementation be duly noted as > such if they are deemed to be really important to the use case, or > qualified or dropped entirely if they are not deemed really important to > the use case. > > But I think you have answered the question, which is that we’d like to > keep the number but add a qualifying statement that in an > implementation, buffering in the hardware (or lower level software) > would be expected to be used to mitigate such fine timing requirements, > and thus they are not expected to be addressed or guaranteed directly by > DetNet. Right? Right. I could agree with that. - Jouni > > Thanks, > > Ethan. > > *From:*Jouni Korhonen [mailto:jouni.korhonen@broadcom.com] > *Sent:* Friday, June 03, 2016 1:13 PM > *To:* Grossman, Ethan A. > *Cc:* detnet@ietf.org > *Subject:* Re: [Detnet] DetNet Use Case Statements - Delay accuracy +/-8ns > > > > I practice one would have a jitter buffer at the 'listener' to buffer > the jitter away and relax the requirement a quite bit. I have no good > idea now how to put this into a use case text.. but I would argue > against dropping the entire use case if it happens to have ugly numbers > on paper. > > > > - Jouni > > > > On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 1:04 PM, Grossman, Ethan A. > wrote: > > Statement: > > Delay accuracy +/-8ns (jitter?) > > > > Text from (Cellular Radio) Use Case: > > Delay Accuracy:+-8ns (i.e. +-1/32 Tc, where Tc is the UMTS Chip time of > 1/3.84 MHz) resulting in a round trip accuracy > of +-16ns. The value is this low to meet > the 3GPP Timing Alignment Error (TAE) measurement requirements. > > > > Discussion: > > Jouni replied via email that yes this is a “jitter” value. > > The reason I am bringing it up is that 8ns appears to me to be a very > small time value compared to other time values that we have been > discussing, i.e. mostly in the millisecond range. Is there anything in > DetNet architecture that affects anything at this fine of a degree of > timing? In other words, does this need to be considered in (or > guaranteed by) DetNet, and if not, should this statement be dropped from > the use case? > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > detnet mailing list > detnet@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet > > > > > > > -- > > Jouni Korhonen, Broadcom Ltd. > > > From nobody Tue Jun 7 13:39:52 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: detnet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: detnet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56A6C12D859 for ; Tue, 7 Jun 2016 13:39:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.7 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=broadcom.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NrD3g-hMUzLW for ; Tue, 7 Jun 2016 13:39:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vk0-x22e.google.com (mail-vk0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 515EC12D841 for ; Tue, 7 Jun 2016 13:39:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-vk0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id d127so259832095vkh.2 for ; Tue, 07 Jun 2016 13:39:48 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=broadcom.com; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc; bh=iv4sn2wf5THvNJgBmc7M8JkaN1aoBKhGOwvRQ7yi4Jk=; b=VD2Q+3UvKpr7xRAVN+PauYTq53IDw/v1/gmZc9KTf9qyqj2FGckPFlPYDavMaC+5+J fRekA3eRxykydEGzz4xw5kVPtlyJK3o7eck9YEcbSNPGaN/b1TaBiYhL2NHcL1prs+F8 dFWi6L7Xvo6xQTaKsKhPgvwHq7efRVZuKcJ0s= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=iv4sn2wf5THvNJgBmc7M8JkaN1aoBKhGOwvRQ7yi4Jk=; b=KqjYjVgPzZ3M16lKQ83UrjozSfTUuk/vRaJLG8/ErUZXn/2SiuSAUXvRLu5CPPyBrA lL4n77Fm97g7Cj3jL4DvGDTnlR9l+SJi6LYja1UJhK6pk0bz96QK+QaKVupPGnh+Zzx6 I9OrmBtqZPmD3m7ETWrs7zrXAjTGOQWvN0nOZo+X19jjxRZGGyXbEEWM4yptZ41HxF2W oX9YfNJ8pJXUD8YB2UXNtI0JCMKEtoslYrnPLRwj7c71YnbWx7PydOWUNqj82SNZhLvq /i4Y8uwt37+T2mz0a4Cv9ZISX+CIA2+kRvCc81HogIs1d07BaaZwsgplmZdr+m6uqiV0 j10w== X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tJ2BI90ieDGCXdul6USBRVxa7J5LiT8gJcynXoGaIKhl5bxu2tZZLDMbiXiBBD9N8PE9ECLh6vtg8NZVdwO MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.176.5.68 with SMTP id 62mr666393uax.45.1465331987208; Tue, 07 Jun 2016 13:39:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.103.138.199 with HTTP; Tue, 7 Jun 2016 13:39:47 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 13:39:47 -0700 Message-ID: From: Jouni Korhonen To: "Grossman, Ethan A." Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c124b12940c460534b630f2 Archived-At: Cc: "detnet@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Detnet] DetNet Use Case Statements - Security must allow for long leases X-BeenThere: detnet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions on Deterministic Networking BoF and Proposed WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2016 20:39:50 -0000 --94eb2c124b12940c460534b630f2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Ethan, I think I am not the original author of this text but anyway. You are correct the security framework would be the same for all uses. I don't think there is anything DetNet specific per se.. just that there are use cases (like the cellular) where "exceptionally long" lease expiration times are potentially practiced. One could hog the resources with far less rogue/hostile reservations compared to a deployment where lease times are capped (not authorized beyond some number). I would argue that the authentication does not protect against "lease misconfiguration", when the security happens to be configured properly. Authorization step might help here, though. - Jouni On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 1:37 PM, Grossman, Ethan A. wrote= : > Statement: > Security must allow for long leases > (I am honestly not sure what I meant by this line =E2=80=93 I think it is= a > reference to the following, but I don=E2=80=99t see what the question wou= ld be) > > Text from (Cellular Radio) Use Case: > Establishing time-sensitive streams in the network entails reserving > networking resources for long periods of time. It is important that these > reservation requests be authenticated to prevent malicious reservation > attempts from hostile nodes (or accidental misconfiguration). > > Discussion: > I would imagine that any reservation of resources in a secure network > would require authentication, regardless of how long or short of an amoun= t > of time the lease may be for. Is there anything specific to DetNet about > this? > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > detnet mailing list > detnet@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet > > --=20 Jouni Korhonen, Broadcom Ltd. --94eb2c124b12940c460534b630f2 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Ethan,

I think I am not the original= author of this text but anyway. You are correct the security framework wou= ld be the same for all uses. I don't think there is anything DetNet spe= cific per se.. just that there are use cases (like the cellular) where &quo= t;exceptionally long" lease expiration times are potentially practiced= . One could hog the resources with far less rogue/hostile reservations comp= ared to a deployment where lease times are capped (not authorized beyond so= me number).

I would argue that the authentication = does not protect against "lease misconfiguration", when the secur= ity happens to be configured properly. Authorization step might help here, = though.

- Jouni

On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 1:37 PM, Grossman= , Ethan A. <eagros@dolby.com> wrote:
Statement:
Security must allow for long leases
(I am honestly not sure what I meant by this line =E2=80=93 I think it i= s a reference to the following, but I don=E2=80=99t see what the question w= ould be)
=C2=A0
Text from (Cellular Radio) Use Case:
Establishing time-sensitive streams in the network entails reserving net= working resources for long periods of time. It is important that these rese= rvation requests be authenticated to prevent malicious reservation attempts from hostile nodes (or accidental mi= sconfiguration).=C2=A0
=C2=A0
Discus= sion:
I would imagine that any reservation of resources in a secure network wo= uld require authentication, regardless of how long or short of an amount of= time the lease may be for. Is there anything specific to DetNet about this?
=C2=A0
=C2=A0
=C2=A0
=C2=A0
=C2=A0
=C2=A0

_______________________________________________
detnet mailing list
detnet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet




--
=
Jouni Korhonen, Broadcom Ltd.

--94eb2c124b12940c460534b630f2-- From nobody Tue Jun 7 13:52:46 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: detnet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: detnet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0CA612D1A5 for ; Tue, 7 Jun 2016 13:52:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.7 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=broadcom.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5-PZbKtwgGF9 for ; Tue, 7 Jun 2016 13:52:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vk0-x231.google.com (mail-vk0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 849D412D105 for ; Tue, 7 Jun 2016 13:52:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-vk0-x231.google.com with SMTP id d127so260282548vkh.2 for ; Tue, 07 Jun 2016 13:52:42 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=broadcom.com; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc; bh=DZegBdkiDGblKyejCTOmoGAsfshpAbMYQh24W36TprE=; b=CK9APd0wk2nTCBk10WCM85kB6ic/moF2w8TCTg81cyMDIo4Sq2awYXnrGlyHw0CpP+ ntMUw0f6ndut6dOPwjuAg4mv0n5ubCzqEcKlT6ev2Jqhbjhvs9F/CQ8VYM9y56/X/q9a ERTaBrdHFmfjQKmF/tBKKIyIuIFsGULeRpk4w= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=DZegBdkiDGblKyejCTOmoGAsfshpAbMYQh24W36TprE=; b=YytFaUCedxgn2aey2Mkyol2vgNvaHuD3De8pFfGFBsfZSj+iOsSvGUYfihhRMzpowF AajxMG1/hcO32/PvDmpZYXJIlyXMorPVVXice+V3FWCUfNhnGaLW7ALLp0/ZXrPied5g 28Xn8AdbiBh42uhSYSMKrNqZAYctOnJqUqjEq6wuVdomADGv3Bvfggz9GWgQfzEIKCLu F/jEoP1AxZJBM10tRCTnyXLEtMkwxsJLjtHrB52PQnvM/dlKbavyudWyWl8jnnkc5Djy w/Bqu4Fi5JAuLFp0WQvuhwkm2Ovmhe509I4ZmQ/2B3/bVrlYBaAzfxzNyvgKa8m7Y6XQ 1f3w== X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tJmygwOB5MOpQGbwUKk4d16v58LWstsnwtuOVfspjldYTeXS7aR9ZVZIsS4YsuhEcRsNV1n9Cww7l0pzcwb MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.31.88.198 with SMTP id m189mr675178vkb.127.1465332761316; Tue, 07 Jun 2016 13:52:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.103.138.199 with HTTP; Tue, 7 Jun 2016 13:52:41 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <528bd8159f9848ce89ac4a38d43dc1e5@DLB-XCHPW03.dolby.net> References: <528bd8159f9848ce89ac4a38d43dc1e5@DLB-XCHPW03.dolby.net> Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 13:52:41 -0700 Message-ID: From: Jouni Korhonen To: "Grossman, Ethan A." Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114e59beb7ff7e0534b65ee1 Archived-At: Cc: "detnet@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Detnet] DetNet Use Case Statements - Transport contrib to RF error +/- 2PPB (2ns) X-BeenThere: detnet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions on Deterministic Networking BoF and Proposed WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2016 20:52:45 -0000 --001a114e59beb7ff7e0534b65ee1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Ethan, I would response similarly as to the delay accuracy question. While the numbers are ugly it is imho good for people to realize in what kinds of environments DetNet might be deployed. In practice the system level requirement is the one that defines the acceptable boundaries (e.g., 50ppb) and the final transport requirements are a moving target at the moment. The number shown here is from the pathetic end of the spectrum. I am tempted to say that it is beyond Detnet to guarantee this kind of timing requirement. The burden is more put on the time distribution solution and all the tweaks needed in that domain to guarantee desired error boundaries. - JOuni On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 1:14 PM, Grossman, Ethan A. wrote= : > Statement: > Transport contrib to RF error +/- 2PPB (2ns) > > Text from (Cellular Radio) Use Case: > Transport link contribution to radio frequency error: > +-2 PPB. This value is considered to be "available" for the Fronthaul lin= k > out of the total 50 PPB budget reserved for the radio interface. Note: th= e > reason that the transport link contributes to radio frequency error is as > follows. The current way of doing Fronthaul is from the radio unit to > remote radio head directly. The remote radio head is essentially a passiv= e > device (without buffering etc.) The transport drives the antenna directly > by feeding it with samples and everything the transport adds will be > introduced to radio as-is. So if the transport causes additional frequenc= y > error that shows immediately on the radio as well. > > Discussion: > The reason I am bringing this up is that =E2=80=9C2PPB=E2=80=9D (assuming= this is a time > error value) seems like a small value, i.e. 2 nanoseconds (2 out of 10^9)= , > which seems smaller than the nominally millisecond-range values the use > cases =E2=80=9Ctypically=E2=80=9D discuss. Is there anything in DetNet = architecture that > affects anything at this fine of a degree of timing? In other words, does > this need to be considered in (or guaranteed by) DetNet, and if not, shou= ld > this statement be dropped from the use case, or somehow qualified that it > is beyond scope of DetNet to guarantee this kind of timing? > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > detnet mailing list > detnet@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet > > --=20 Jouni Korhonen, Broadcom Ltd. --001a114e59beb7ff7e0534b65ee1 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Ethan,

I would response similarly as= to the delay accuracy question. While the numbers are ugly it is imho good= for people to realize in what kinds of environments DetNet might be deploy= ed. In practice the system level requirement is the one that defines the ac= ceptable boundaries (e.g., 50ppb) and the final transport requirements are = a moving target at the moment. The number shown here is from the pathetic e= nd of the spectrum. I am tempted to say that it is beyond Detnet to guarant= ee this kind of timing requirement. The burden is more put on the time dist= ribution solution and all the tweaks needed in that domain to guarantee des= ired error boundaries.

- JOuni



On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 1:14 PM, Grossman, Ethan A. &= lt;eagros@dolby.com> wrote:
Statement:
Transport contrib to RF error +/- 2PPB (2ns)
=C2=A0
Text from (Cellular Radio) Use Case:
Transport link contribution to radio frequency error:<= br> +-2 PPB. This value is considered to be "availab= le" for the Fronthaul link out of the total 50 PPB budget reserved for= the radio interface. Note: the reason that the transport link contributes = to radio frequency error is as follows. The current way of doing Fronthaul is from the radio unit to remote radio head = directly. The remote radio head is essentially a passive device (without bu= ffering etc.) The transport drives the antenna directly by feeding it with = samples and everything the transport adds will be introduced to radio as-is. So if the transport causes addition= al frequency error that shows immediately on the radio as well.
=C2=A0
Discus= sion:
The reason I am bringing this up is that =E2=80=9C2PPB=E2=80=9D (assumin= g this is a time error value) seems like a small value, i.e. 2 nanoseconds = (2 out of 10^9), which seems smaller than the nominally millisecond-range values the use cases =E2=80=9Ctypically=E2=80=9D discuss.= =C2=A0=C2=A0 Is there anything in DetNet architecture that affects anything= at this fine of a degree of timing? In other words, does this need to be c= onsidered in (or guaranteed by) DetNet, and if not, should this statement be dropped from the use case, or somehow qualified that it i= s beyond scope of DetNet to guarantee this kind of timing?
=C2=A0
=C2=A0
=C2=A0
=C2=A0

_______________________________________________
detnet mailing list
detnet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet




--
=
Jouni Korhonen, Broadcom Ltd.

--001a114e59beb7ff7e0534b65ee1-- From nobody Wed Jun 8 08:53:30 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: detnet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: detnet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA72212D772 for ; Wed, 8 Jun 2016 08:53:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.652 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.652 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DATE_IN_PAST_12_24=1.049, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=broadcom.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RZEeSai67gi6 for ; Wed, 8 Jun 2016 08:53:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pa0-x232.google.com (mail-pa0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 69FE512D776 for ; Wed, 8 Jun 2016 08:53:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pa0-x232.google.com with SMTP id hl6so3645753pac.2 for ; Wed, 08 Jun 2016 08:53:28 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=broadcom.com; s=google; h=reply-to:subject:references:to:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=OxKmV5zTHA6AH7nhqEPzQqK3jj/x9bAKpLAcG9Vtfgk=; b=BwP695ws2DGXz3sUm03FcdVUPEsOSn5raRjA+/705xVsTgRKrAmXgvI5IyEsjZ2xlO tLLDmV4PiZodl2M3lK7C68EBUAmKxuvplYy9qwZHfdQN0QSZJawebUpfkTi7hEj8UM5R M3ikiLKcMVEDdxqnrFoQWnI8eWa3XT5z7xydY= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:reply-to:subject:references:to:from:message-id :date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=OxKmV5zTHA6AH7nhqEPzQqK3jj/x9bAKpLAcG9Vtfgk=; b=CeO65aocWd1SGR91kPFbrJPC1+zanAFVaJrMEgQheo7YC0m0KuJfC8Cl9kVwQNY10g BObnnD3aUDNHuSzU4BKiGakYV2RS2VLC1II86KAoaZB1APfls7pEwEZ+1SCXo7oq5g0H vs1jvHR5efkJP9OERLILUuHHTu4mZ0zrV1V7F7h6YIDauI9Gs7Tv7L8wR+z3m/dVlWpO dt7G8p4U49nahm9/iRwNZ5ToI97dRSJJHPgimkiQhUfJlhXSbjyAkH5rWT4H7qYhPkaB wanF77T8+FMHTca/QYP8YDe/WLiMOk6IweG9VJXBytea5JjB7RsKNLLaw0kI71IksDPU 1lDg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tLG9ZfebJNGl4R1S9HE3SmnoJv8ar2ihwvEgGw3ThFXKb59vPF/7ypKYB3j1ziObUt0 X-Received: by 10.66.63.98 with SMTP id f2mr6496025pas.123.1465401207595; Wed, 08 Jun 2016 08:53:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.16.65.15] (5520-maca-inet1-outside.broadcom.com. [216.31.211.11]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id w190sm3388519pfd.58.2016.06.08.08.53.26 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 08 Jun 2016 08:53:26 -0700 (PDT) References: To: "Grossman, Ethan A." , "detnet@ietf.org" From: Jouni Korhonen Message-ID: Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 13:30:14 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.1.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Detnet] DetNet Use Case Statements - Security must allow for long leases X-BeenThere: detnet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list Reply-To: jouni.korhonen@broadcom.com List-Id: Discussions on Deterministic Networking BoF and Proposed WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2016 15:53:30 -0000 Hi Ethan, I think I am not the original author of this piece of text but anyway.. 6/3/2016, 1:37 PM, Grossman, Ethan A. kirjoitti: > Statement: > Security must allow for long leases > (I am honestly not sure what I meant by this line I think it is a > reference to the following, but I dont see what the question would be) > > Text from (Cellular Radio) Use Case: > Establishing time-sensitive streams in the network entails reserving > networking resources for long periods of time. It is important that > these reservation requests be authenticated to prevent malicious > reservation attempts from hostile nodes (or accidental misconfiguration). > > Discussion: > I would imagine that any reservation of resources in a secure network > would require authentication, regardless of how long or short of an > amount of time the lease may be for. Is there anything specific to > DetNet about this? Nothing really specific to Detnet. The security framework in that sense should be the same for everyone. I guess the intention here was to indicate that some use cases (cellular for example) would most likely to ask for a lease that has 'exceptionally long validity time' and the security policy should be configurable for such. > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > detnet mailing list > detnet@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet > From nobody Wed Jun 8 19:05:00 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: detnet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: detnet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2218012D1A1 for ; Wed, 8 Jun 2016 19:04:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.002 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.002 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (768-bit key) header.d=labn.net Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Kfbq1oZlszZQ for ; Wed, 8 Jun 2016 19:04:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gproxy2-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com (gproxy2-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com [69.89.18.3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 49CA412D10D for ; Wed, 8 Jun 2016 19:04:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 22888 invoked by uid 0); 9 Jun 2016 02:04:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cmgw2) (10.0.90.83) by gproxy2.mail.unifiedlayer.com with SMTP; 9 Jun 2016 02:04:56 -0000 Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]) by cmgw2 with id 4S4o1t00y2SSUrH01S4rkf; Wed, 08 Jun 2016 20:04:54 -0600 X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.1 cv=ff4+lSgF c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=h1BC+oY+fLhyFmnTBx92Jg==:117 a=N659UExz7-8A:10 a=-NfooI8aBGcA:10 a=uEJ9t1CZtbIA:10 a=pD_ry4oyNxEA:10 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=z9tbli-vAAAA:8 a=j5J5hKwCAAAA:8 a=Qj5-ALhIbHOwSBzTSgcA:9 a=VRN7S9T9n53CjP8D:21 a=V1AstCraN75-FnH5:21 a=pILNOxqGKmIA:10 a=w1C3t2QeGrPiZgrLijVG:22 a=RmrFvp9qXTL7MAzcxlte:22 a=2W0QC_tBQg4gaoMZECZt:22 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=labn.net; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version :Date:Message-ID:From:Cc:References:To:Subject; bh=z4J2aNha/WQ1kzrg0+Kc0AM1YwrhFrPU/q1lC5YL6A0=; b=t+yJy7SijTr78/wPqJl/xgbcQd +zTtjkzfrX53cygFXqP4ZUia4RCi8gmWAcLgGV86EX1xDhQwHs7IrToBzSiaJyufXWE9Mb0TApnGh pnTBY38lQbhRsnm8l3OSyEWuE; Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]:53039 helo=[127.0.0.1]) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bApL0-0005Gw-M9; Wed, 08 Jun 2016 20:04:50 -0600 To: "Norman Finn (nfinn)" , "mohamed.boucadair@orange.com" , Tim Chown References: From: Lou Berger Message-ID: <966d4358-df7a-149a-0975-56bf59b18d3d@labn.net> Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 22:04:45 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.1.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Identified-User: {1038:box313.bluehost.com:labnmobi:labn.net} {sentby:smtp auth 69.89.31.113 authed with lberger@labn.net} Archived-At: Cc: "detnet@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Detnet] detnet architecture, and privacy considerations X-BeenThere: detnet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions on Deterministic Networking BoF and Proposed WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2016 02:04:59 -0000 Can someone send me a copy of the latest arch doc? bitbucket says the account has hit it's user limit. Why not just use github? Thanks, Lou On 6/7/2016 3:42 PM, Norman Finn (nfinn) wrote: > Good points. I should add a section on privacy considerations. > Points to make in that section would include (this is not proposed text): > > 1. DetNet is aimed at enterprise-sized networks under a single > administration, not service provider or Big-I Internet situations. > Most use cases (industrial, automotive, AV studio) involve planned, > engineered, work-oriented data flows where privacy is not an issue. > In particular, streaming content delivery to individuals is not a > target for DetNet. > 2. However, the requirement for every node along the path to identify > the stream certainly does seem to conflict with random address > changes, as do long-lived flows, in general. This may well present an > additional attack surface for privacy, should the DetNet paradigm be > found useful in broader environments. > > Any other points that should be made? > > Norm > > From: detnet > on behalf of > "mohamed.boucadair@orange.com " > > > Date: Wednesday, April 6, 2016 at 09:58 AM > To: Tim Chown >, > "detnet@ietf.org " > > Subject: [Detnet] OFFLIST RE: detnet architecture, and privacy > considerations > > Hi Tim, > > > > I do fully agree with this comment. > > > > FWIW, there are some considerations that are discussed in > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7297#section-3.8 that may be reused > in the context of detnet. > > > > IMHO, the privacy requirement should be explicitly captured in the > use case draft, but as that draft is currently scoped, it is hard > to see how requirements are derived from the use cases. > > > > Cheers, > > Med > > > > *De :*detnet [mailto:detnet-bounces@ietf.org] *De la part de* Tim > Chown > *Envoy :* mardi 5 avril 2016 13:43 > * :* detnet@ietf.org > *Objet :* [Detnet] detnet architecture, and privacy considerations > > > > Hi, > > > > The question I asked at the mic today was driven by seeing an > architecture text (draft-finn-detnet-architecture-04) where > theres no explicit mention of privacy handling, and being aware > that since RFC 7258 was published we should be thinking about > appropriate privacy considerations in such documents. > > > > So, for example, one open issue' slide in Normans talk asked > about identifying streams, and L2 addresses or the 5-tuple were > mentioned, but in a world where L2 addresses are randomised over > time, and encryption is more widespread, other mechanisms may be > required, ones that one might argue should be opaque to the > network operator. > > > > Wearing my dnssd WG chair hat, weve discussed similar issues this > week, specifically how you might do device naming and service > discovery with privacy, while using broadcast protocols such as > mDNS and DNS-SD > (see https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/95/slides/slides-95-dnssd-0.pdf, > if interested). > > > > Whatever privacy considerations are put into the architecture, I > think we should at least ensure we discuss them, noting that while > detnet is scoped by charter to initially only be applicable within > a single administrative domain, use of the word initially > implies its scope may/will grow later. > > > > Tim > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > detnet mailing list > detnet@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet From nobody Wed Jun 8 21:11:37 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: detnet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: detnet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B561012B05F for ; Wed, 8 Jun 2016 21:11:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.701 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.701 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=broadcom.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FbCg6NElVvNT for ; Wed, 8 Jun 2016 21:11:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pf0-x233.google.com (mail-pf0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E892612B01B for ; Wed, 8 Jun 2016 21:11:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pf0-x233.google.com with SMTP id 62so9166916pfd.1 for ; Wed, 08 Jun 2016 21:11:29 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=broadcom.com; s=google; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id:references :to; bh=13cOK2P1jSFjyNQt7EtRtn158d+m22/x0j4Lrx8bP9A=; b=CMO0IGH/32GFn/oG8WT8/54El7JuIo3/swe85gT/dWNkDpjspikv0ScpPG1Hlu6i/I mRg7nubEkiX+o9l9CgEpVjQBp4u7hrVhzQN1G+x5qpYA9R4etqUkl+BOV1iTOemIGx1S yGFjf984MR73KU82gJ4YreYKQMEeGdXjz07iI= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :message-id:references:to; bh=13cOK2P1jSFjyNQt7EtRtn158d+m22/x0j4Lrx8bP9A=; b=TKo2LTE0PJZKcY9B8cpyltY2pMrXTZa8TSrksV6ieO1FaTHdQ+airL9C5MZQPHwj8w brtl5EtpGWD7TCQ3QdisOXjtZ/fLCJ4r1x432TsHrGcHtJMrVrua5yPJtlAtmYSM37JL QF0D1TM9kvVUD/uUELRx89Cf7jCoXyGr09+bFRuXTf+We8JbDcT4yAZ1SLUYnRKHh6T4 Vhigo9zwKZ2nFy06lWejWqzMqlChESqBUapYaKpOE9yNCbJFUj4wtWahklg6QMVQePfm WR2X9+iCkU/gmedFhM3F2YS3HQMzgZDbgDHxvidtJn7wYLP/7aodCaKROgfyEPkU+PXR Yh+Q== X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tKpzJkWDTQhNYdDlSo9g1KVfsONI+l7w3nBLncPMSrwIazvF06OrEvaN2vOEMzcGscH X-Received: by 10.98.21.210 with SMTP id 201mr2298890pfv.51.1465445489187; Wed, 08 Jun 2016 21:11:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2601:b00:c580:31d0:5897:a3dd:17d7:6564? ([2601:b00:c580:31d0:5897:a3dd:17d7:6564]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id x67sm1102638pfa.56.2016.06.08.21.11.27 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 08 Jun 2016 21:11:27 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_3CE27F4F-0F89-4424-8F22-68C7AD916830" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2104\)) From: Jouni Korhonen In-Reply-To: <966d4358-df7a-149a-0975-56bf59b18d3d@labn.net> Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 21:11:23 -0700 Message-Id: <74F55CF7-BA44-493A-9698-3B6B0212C8CC@broadcom.com> References: <966d4358-df7a-149a-0975-56bf59b18d3d@labn.net> To: Lou Berger X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2104) Archived-At: Cc: Tim Chown , "detnet@ietf.org" , "mohamed.boucadair@orange.com" , Norman Finn Subject: Re: [Detnet] detnet architecture, and privacy considerations X-BeenThere: detnet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions on Deterministic Networking BoF and Proposed WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2016 04:11:36 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_3CE27F4F-0F89-4424-8F22-68C7AD916830 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 attached. --Apple-Mail=_3CE27F4F-0F89-4424-8F22-68C7AD916830 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=draft-finn-detnet-architecture-05.txt Content-Type: text/plain; name="draft-finn-detnet-architecture-05.txt" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable DetNet N. Finn Internet-Draft P. Thubert Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Expires: December 4, 2016 M. Johas Teener Broadcom June 2, 2016 Deterministic Networking Architecture draft-finn-detnet-architecture-05 Abstract 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. Techniques used include: 1) reserving data plane resources for individual (or aggregated) DetNet flows in some or all of the relay nodes (bridges or routers) along the path of the flow; 2) providing fixed paths for DetNet flows that do not rapidly change with the network topology; and 3) sequentializing, replicating, tracing and eliminating duplicate packets at various points to ensure the availability of at least one path. The capabilities can be managed by configuration, or by manual or automatic network management. 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 http://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 December 4, 2016. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. Finn, et al. Expires December 4, 2016 [Page 1] =0C Internet-Draft Deterministic Networking Architecture June 2016 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.1. Terms used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.2. IEEE 802 TSN to DetNet dictionary . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. Providing the DetNet Quality of Service . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.1. Zero Congestion Loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.2. Pinned paths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.3. Jitter Reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.4. Packet Replication and Elimination . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4. DetNet Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.1. Traffic Engineering for DetNet . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.1.1. The Application Plane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.1.2. The Controller Plane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.1.3. The Network Plane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4.2. DetNet flows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 4.2.1. Source guarantees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 4.2.2. Incomplete Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 4.3. Queuing, Shaping, Scheduling, and Preemption . . . . . . 15 4.4. Coexistence with normal traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 4.5. Fault Mitigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 4.6. Protocol Stack Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 4.7. Exporting flow identification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 4.8. Advertising resources, capabilities and adjacencies . . . 21 4.9. Provisioning model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 4.9.1. Centralized Path Computation and Installation . . . . 22 4.9.2. Distributed Path Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 4.10. Scaling to larger networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 4.11. Connected islands vs. networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 5. Compatibility with Layer-2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 6. Open Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 6.1. Data plane shapers and schedulers . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 6.2. DetNet flow identification and sequencing . . . . . . . . 24 6.3. Flat vs. hierarchical control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 6.4. Peer-to-peer reservation protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 6.5. Wireless media interactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Finn, et al. Expires December 4, 2016 [Page 2] =0C Internet-Draft Deterministic Networking Architecture June 2016 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 10. Access to IEEE 802.1 documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 11. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 1. Introduction Deterministic Networking (DetNet) is a service that can be offered by a network to data flows (DetNet flows) that that are limited, at their source, to a maximum data rate specified by that source. DetNet provides these flows extremely low packet loss rates and assured maximum end-to-end delivery latency. This is accomplished by dedicating network resources such as link bandwidth and buffer space to DetNet flows and/or classes of DetNet flows. Unused reserved resources are available to non-DetNet packets. The Deterministic Networking Problem Statement [I-D.finn-detnet-problem-statement] introduces Deterministic Networking, and Deterministic Networking Use Cases [I-D.ietf-detnet-use-cases] summarizes the need for it. A goal of DetNet is a converged network in all respects. That is, the presence of DetNet flows does not preclude non-DetNet flows, and the benefits offered DetNet flows should not, except in extreme cases, prevent existing QoS mechanisms from operating in a normal fashion, subject to the bandwidth required for the DetNet flows. A single source-destination pair can trade both DetNet and non-DetNet flows. End systems and applications need not instantiate special interfaces for DetNet flows. Networks are not restricted to certain topologies; connectivity is not restricted. Any application that generates a data flow that can be usefully characterized as having a maximum bandwidth should be able to take advantage of DetNet, as long as the necessary resources can be reserved. Reservations can be made by the application itself, via network management, by an applications controller, or by other means. Many applications of interest to Deterministic Networking require the ability to synchronize the clocks in end systems to a sub-microsecond accuracy. Some of the queue control techniques defined in Section 4.3 also require time synchronization among relay nodes. The means used to achieve time synchronization are not addressed in this document. DetNet should accommodate various synchronization techniques and profiles that are defined elsewhere to solve exchange time in different market segments. The present document is an individual contribution, but it is intended by the authors for adoption by the DetNet working group. Finn, et al. Expires December 4, 2016 [Page 3] =0C Internet-Draft Deterministic Networking Architecture June 2016 2. Terminology 2.1. Terms used in this document The following special terms are used in this document in order to avoid the assumption that a given element in the architecture does or does not have Internet Protocol stack, functions as a router, bridge, firewall, or otherwise plays a particular role at Layer-2 or higher. destination An end system capable of sinking a DetNet flow. DetNet domain The portion of a network that is DetNet aware. It includes end systems and other DetNet nodes. DetNet flow A DetNet flow is a sequence of packets from a single source, through some number of relay nodes to one or more destinations, that is limited by the source in its maximum packet size and transmission rate, and can thus be ensured the DetNet Quality of Service (QoS) from the network. DetNet compound flow and DetNet member flow A DetNet compound flow is a DetNet flow that has been separated into multiple duplicate DetNet member flows, which are eventually merged back into a single DetNet compound flow. "Compound" and "member" are strictly relative to each other, not absolutes; a DetNet compound flow comprising multiple DetNet member flows can, in turn, be a member of a higher-order compound. DetNet node A DetNet aware end system or relay node. "DetNet" may be omitted in some text. DetNet edge node An instance of a DetNet node that includes a proxy function for one or more source end systems, analogous to a Label Edge Router (LER). end system Commonly called a "host" or "node" in IETF documents, and an "end station" is IEEE 802 documents. End systems of interest to this document are either sources or destinations of L2 and/or L3 DatNet streams. link Finn, et al. Expires December 4, 2016 [Page 4] =0C Internet-Draft Deterministic Networking Architecture June 2016 A connection between two DetNet nodes. It may be composed of a physical link or a sub-network technology that can provide appropriate traffic delivery for DetNet flows. relay node A router, transit node, bridge, Label Switch Router (LSR), firewall, or any other system that forwards packets from one interface to another. reservation A trail of configuration between source to destination(s) through relay nodes associated with a DetNet flow, required to deliver the benefits of DetNet. source An end system capable of sourcing a DetNet flow. 2.2. IEEE 802 TSN to DetNet dictionary This section also serves as a dictionary for translating from the terms used by the IEEE 802 Time-Sensitive Networking (TSN) Task Group to those of the DetNet WG. Listener The IEEE 802 term for a destination of a DetNet flow. relay system The IEEE 802 term for a DetNet node. Stream The IEEE 802 term for a DetNet flow. Talker The IEEE 802 term for the source of a DetNet flow. 3. Providing the DetNet Quality of Service The DetNet Quality of Service can be expressed in terms of: o Minimum and maximum end-to-end latency from source to destination; timely delivery and jitter avoidance derive from these constraints o Probability of loss of a packet, under various assumptions as to the operational states of the relay nodes and links. A derived property is whether it is acceptable to deliver a duplicate packet, which is an inherent risk in highly reliable and/or broadcast transmissions Finn, et al. Expires December 4, 2016 [Page 5] =0C Internet-Draft Deterministic Networking Architecture June 2016 It is a distinction of DetNet that it is concerned solely with worst- case values for the end-to-end latency. Average, mean, or typical values are of no interest, because they do not affect the ability of a real-time system to perform its tasks. In general, a trivial priority-based queuing scheme will give better average latency to a data flow than DetNet, but of course, the worst-case latency can be essentially unbounded. Three techniques are used by DetNet to provide these qualities of service: o Bandwidth reservation and enforcement (Section 3.1). o Pinned paths (Section 3.2). o Packet replication and elimination (Section 3.4). The DetNet techniques are meant to address both of the DetNet QoS requirements (latency and packet loss). Given that relay nodes have a finite amount of buffer space, zero congestion loss necessarily results in a maximum end-to-end latency. It also addresses the largest contribution to packet loss, which is buffer congestion. Packet replication and elimination mitigates the second most important contributions to packet loss, namely random media errors and equipment failure. These three techniques can be applied independently, giving eight possible combinations, including none (no DetNet), although some combinations are of wider utility than others. This separation keeps the protocol stack coherent and maximizes interoperability with existing and developing standards in this (IETF) and other Standards Development Organizations. Some examples of typical expected combinations: o Pinned paths (a) plus packet replication (b) are exactly the techniques employed by [HSR-PRP]. Pinned paths are achieved by limiting the physical topology of the network, and the sequentialization, replication, and duplicate elimination are facilitated by packet tags added at the front or the end of Ethernet frames. o Zero congestion loss (a) alone is is offered by IEEE 802.1 Audio Video bridging [IEEE802.1BA-2011]. As long as the network suffers no failures, zero congestion loss can be achieved through the use of a reservation protocol (MSRP), shapers in every relay node (bridge), and a bit of network calculus. o Using all three together gives maximum protection. Finn, et al. Expires December 4, 2016 [Page 6] =0C Internet-Draft Deterministic Networking Architecture June 2016 There are, of course, simpler methods available (and employed, today) to achieve levels of latency and packet loss that are satisfactory for many applications. Prioritization and over-provisioning is one such technique. However, these methods generally work best in the absence of any significant amount of non-critical traffic in the network (if, indeed, such traffic is supported at all), or work only if the critical traffic constitutes only a small portion of the network's theoretical capacity, or work only if all systems are functioning properly, or in the absence of actions by end systems that disrupt the network's operations. There are any number of methods in use, defined, or in progress for accomplishing each of the above techniques. It is expected that this DetNet Architecture will assist various vendors, users, and/or "vertical" Standards Development Organizations (dedicated to a single industry) to make selections among the available means of implementing DetNet networks. 3.1. Zero Congestion Loss The primary means by which DetNet achieves its QoS assurances is to completely eliminate congestion at an output port as a cause of packet loss. Given that a DetNet flow cannot be throttled, this can be achieved only by the provision of sufficient buffer storage at each hop through the network to ensure that no packets are dropped due to a lack of buffer storage. Ensuring adequate buffering requires, in turn, that the source, and every relay system along the path to the destination (or nearly every relay node -- see Section 4.2.2) be careful to regulate its output to not exceed the data rate for any DetNet flow, except for brief periods when making up for interfering traffic. Any packet sent ahead of its time potentially adds to the number of buffers required by the next hop, and may thus exceed the resources allocated for a particular DetNet flow. The low-level mechanisms described in Section 4.3 provide the necessary regulation of transmissions by an edge system or relay node to ensure zero congestion loss. The reservation of the bandwidth and buffers for a DetNet flow requires the provisioning described in Section 4.9. A DetNet node may have other resources requiring allocation and/or scheduling, that might otherwise be over-subscribed and trigger the rejection of a reservation. Finn, et al. Expires December 4, 2016 [Page 7] =0C Internet-Draft Deterministic Networking Architecture June 2016 3.2. Pinned paths In networks controlled by typical peer-to-peer protocols such as IEEE 802.1 ISIS bridged networks or IETF OSPF routed networks, a network topology event in one part of the network can impact, at least briefly, the delivery of data in parts of the network remote from the failure or recovery event. Thus, even redundant paths through a network, if controlled by the typical peer-to-peer protocols, do not eliminate the chances of brief losses of contact. Many real-time networks rely on physical rings or chains of two-port devices, with a relatively simple ring control protocol. This supports redundant paths with a minimum of wiring. As an additional benefit, ring topologies can often utilize different topology management protocols than those used for a mesh network, with a consequent reduction in the response time to topology changes. Of course, this comes at some cost in terms of increased hop count, and thus latency, for the typical path. In order to get the advantages of low hop count and still ensure against even very brief losses of connectivity, DetNet employs pinned paths, where the path taken by a given DetNet flow does not change, at least immediately, and likely not at all, in response to network topology events. When combined with packet replication and elimination (Section 3.4), this results in a high likelihood of continuous connectivity. Pinned paths are commonly used in MPLS TE LSPs. 3.3. Jitter Reduction A core objective of DetNet is to enable the convergence of Non-IP networks onto a common network infrastructure. This requires the accurate emulation of currently deployed mission-specific networks, which typically rely on point-to-point analog (e.g. 4-20mA modulation) and serial-digital cables (or buses) for highly reliable, synchronized and jitter-free communications. While the latency of analog transmissions is basically the speed of light, legacy serial links are usually slow (in the order of Kbps) compared to, say, GigE, and some latency is usually acceptable. What is not acceptable is the introduction of excessive jitter, which may, for instance, affect the stability of control systems. Applications that are designed to operate on serial links usually do not provide services to recover the jitter, because jitter simply does not exists there. Streams of information are expected to be delivered in-order and the precise time of reception influences the processes. In order to converge such existing applications, there is a desire to emulate all properties of the serial cable, such as clock Finn, et al. Expires December 4, 2016 [Page 8] =0C Internet-Draft Deterministic Networking Architecture June 2016 transportation, perfect flow isolation and fixed latency. While minimal jitter (in the form of specifying minimum, as well as maximum, end-to-end latency) is supported by DetNet, there are practical limitations on packet-based networks in this regard. In general, users are encouraged to use, instead of, "do this when you get the packet," a combination of: o Sub-microsecond time synchronization among all source and destination end systems, and o Time-of-execution fields in the application packets. 3.4. Packet Replication and Elimination After congestion loss has been eliminated, the most important causes of packet loss are random media and/or memory faults, and equipment failures. Both causes of packet loss can be greatly reduced by sending the same packets over multiple paths. Packet replication and elimination, also known as seamless redundancy [HSR-PRP], or 1+1 hitless protection, involves three capabilities: o Replicating these packets into multiple DetNet member flows and, typically, sending them along at least two different paths to the destination(s), e.g. over the pinned paths of Section 3.2. o Providing sequencing information, once, at or near the source, to the packets of a DetNet compound flow. This may be done by adding a sequence number or time stamp as part of DetNet, or may be inherent in the packet, e.g. in a transport protocol, or associated to other physical properties such as the precise time (and radio channel) of reception of the packet. o Eliminating duplicated packets. This may be done at any step along the path to save network resources further down, in particular if multiple Replication points exist. But the most common case is to perform this operation at the very edge of the DetNet network, preferably in or near the receiver. This function is a "hitless" version of, e.g., the 1+1 linear protection in [RFC6372]. That is, instead of switching from one flow to the other when a failure of a flow is detected, DetNet combines both flows, and performs a packet-by-packet selection of which to discard, based on sequence number. In the simplest case, this amounts to replicating each packet in a source that has two interfaces, and conveying them through the network, along separate paths, to the similarly dual-homed Finn, et al. Expires December 4, 2016 [Page 9] =0C Internet-Draft Deterministic Networking Architecture June 2016 destinations, that discard the extras. This ensures that one path (with zero congestion loss) remains, even if some relay node fails. The sequence numbers can also be used for loss detection and for re- ordering. Alternatively, relay nodes in the network can provide replication and elimination facilities at various points in the network, so that multiple failures can be accommodated. This is shown in the following figure, where the two relay nodes each replicate (R) the DetNet flow on input, sending the DetNet member flows to both the other relay node and to the end system, and eliminate duplicates (E) on the output interface to the right-hand end system. Any one link in the network can fail, and the Detnet compound flow can still get through. Furthermore, two links can fail, as long as they are in different segments of the network. > > > > > > > > relay > > > > > > > > > /------------+ R system E +------------\ > > / v + ^ \ > end R + v | ^ + E end system + v | ^ + system > \ v + ^ / > > \------------+ R relay E +------------/ > > > > > > > > > system > > > > > > > > Figure 1 Note that packet replication and elimination does not react to and correct failures; it is entirely passive. Thus, intermittent failures, mistakenly created packet filters, or misrouted data is handled just the same as the equipment failures that are detected handled by typical routing and bridging protocols. When combining member flows that take different-length paths through the network, and which are also guaranteed a worst-case latency by packet shaping, a merge point may require extra buffering to equalize the delays over the different paths. This equalization ensures that the resultant compound flow will not exceed its contracted bandwidth even after one or the other of the paths is restored after a failure. 4. DetNet Architecture 4.1. Traffic Engineering for DetNet Traffic Engineering Architecture and Signaling (TEAS) [TEAS] defines traffic-engineering architectures for generic applicability across packet and non-packet networks. =46rom TEAS perspective, Traffic Finn, et al. Expires December 4, 2016 [Page 10] =0C Internet-Draft Deterministic Networking Architecture June 2016 Engineering (TE) refers to techniques that enable operators to control how specific traffic flows are treated within their networks. Because if its very nature of establishing pinned optimized paths, Deterministic Networking can be seen as a new, specialized branch of Traffic Engineering, and inherits its architecture with a separation into planes. The Deterministic Networking architecture is thus composed of three planes, a (User) Application Plane, a Controller Plane, and a Network Plane, which echoes that of Figure 1 of Software-Defined Networking (SDN): Layers and Architecture Terminology [RFC7426].: 4.1.1. The Application Plane Per [RFC7426], the Application Plane includes both applications and services. In particular, the Application Plane incorporates the User Agent, a specialized application that interacts with the end user / operator and performs requests for Deterministic Networking services via an abstract Flow Management Entity, (FME) which may or may not be collocated with (one of) the end systems. At the Application Plane, a management interface enables the negotiation of flows between end systems. An abstraction of the flow called a Traffic Specification (TSpec) provides the representation. This abstraction is used to place a reservation over the (Northbound) Service Interface and within the Application plane. It is associated with an abstraction of location, such as IP addresses and DNS names, to identify the end systems and eventually specify intermediate relay nodes. 4.1.2. The Controller Plane The Controller Plane corresponds to the aggregation of the Control and Management Planes in [RFC7426], though Common Control and Measurement Plane (CCAMP) [CCAMP] makes an additional distinction between management and measurement. When the logical separation of the Control, Measurement and other Management entities is not relevant, the term Controller Plane is used for simplicity to represent them all, and the term controller refers to any device operating in that plane, whether is it a Path Computation entity or a Network Management entity (NME). The Path Computation Element (PCE) [PCE] is a core element of a controller, in charge of computing Deterministic paths to be applied in the Network Plane. A (Northbound) Service Interface enables applications in the Application Plane to communicate with the entities in the Controller Plane. Finn, et al. Expires December 4, 2016 [Page 11] =0C Internet-Draft Deterministic Networking Architecture June 2016 One or more PCE(s) collaborate to implement the requests from the FME as Per-fFlow Per-Hop Behaviors installed in the relay nodes for each individual flow. The PCEs place each flow along a deterministic sequence of relay nodes so as to respect per-flow constraints such as security and latency, and optimize the overall result for metrics such as an abstract aggregated cost. The deterministic sequence can typically be more complex than a direct sequence and include redundancy path, with one or more packet replication and elimination points. 4.1.3. The Network Plane The Network Plane represents the network devices and protocols as a whole, regardless of the Layer at which the network devices operate. It includes Forwarding Plane (data plane), Application, and Operational Plane (control plane) aspects. The network Plane comprises the Network Interface Cards (NIC) in the end systems, which are typically IP hosts, and relay nodes, which are typically IP routers and switches. Network-to-Network Interfaces such as used for Traffic Engineering path reservation in [RFC5921], as well as User-to-Network Interfaces (UNI) such as provided by the Local Management Interface (LMI) between network and end systems, are both part of the Network Plane, both in the control plane and the data plane. A Southbound (Network) Interface enables the entities in the Controller Plane to communicate with devices in the Network Plane. This interface leverages and extends TEAS to describe the physical topology and resources in the Network Plane. Finn, et al. Expires December 4, 2016 [Page 12] =0C Internet-Draft Deterministic Networking Architecture June 2016 Flow Management Entity End End System System -+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Northbound -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- PCE PCE PCE PCE -+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Southbound -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- Relay Relay Relay Relay System System System System NIC NIC Relay Relay Relay Relay System System System System Figure 2 The relay nodes (and eventually the end systems NIC) expose their capabilities and physical resources to the controller (the PCE), and update the PCE with their dynamic perception of the topology, across the Southbound Interface. In return, the PCE(s) set the per-flow paths up, providing a Flow Characterization that is more tightly coupled to the relay node Operation than a TSpec. At the Network plane, relay nodes may exchange information regarding the state of the paths, between adjacent systems and eventually with the end systems, and forward packets within constraints associated to each flow, or, when unable to do so, perform a last resort operation such as drop or declassify. This specification focuses on the Southbound interface and the operation of the Network Plane. 4.2. DetNet flows 4.2.1. Source guarantees DetNet flows can by synchronous or asynchronous. In synchronous DetNet flows, at least the relay nodes (and possibly the end systems) are closely time synchronized, typically to better than 1 microsecond. By transmitting packets from different DetNet flows or classes of DetNet flows at different times, using repeating schedules synchronized among the relay nodes, resources such as buffers and link bandwidth can be shared over the time domain among different DetNet flows. There is a tradeoff among techniques for synchronous Finn, et al. Expires December 4, 2016 [Page 13] =0C Internet-Draft Deterministic Networking Architecture June 2016 DetNet flows between the burden of fine-grained scheduling and the benefit of reducing the required resources, especially buffer space. In contrast, asynchronous DetNet flows are not coordinated with a fine-grained schedule, so relay and end systems must assume worst- case interference among DetNet flows contending for buffer resources. Asynchronous DetNet flows are characterized by: o A maximum packet size; o An observation interval; and o A maximum number of transmissions during that observation interval. These parameters, together with knowledge of the protocol stack used (and thus the size of the various headers added to a packet), limit the number of bit times per observation interval that the DetNet flow can occupy the physical medium. The source promises that these limits will not be exceeded. If the source transmits less data than this limit allows, the unused resources such as link bandwidth can be made available by the system to non-DetNet packets. However, making those resources available to DetNet packets in other DetNet flows would serve no purpose. Those other DetNet flows have their own dedicated resources, on the assumption that all DetNet flows can use all of their resources over a long period of time. Note that there is no provision in DetNet for throttling DetNet flows (reducing the transmission rate via feedback); the assumption is that a DetNet flow, to be useful, must be delivered in its entirety. That is, while any useful application is written to expect a certain number of lost packets, the real-time applications of interest to DetNet demand that the loss of data due to the network is extraordinarily infrequent. Although DetNet strives to minimize the changes required of an application to allow it to shift from a special-purpose digital network to an Internet Protocol network, one fundamental shift in the behavior of network applications is impossible to avoid: the reservation of resources before the application starts. In the first place, a network cannot deliver finite latency and practically zero packet loss to an arbitrarily high offered load. Secondly, achieving practically zero packet loss for unthrottled (though bandwidth limited) DetNet flows means that bridges and routers have to dedicate buffer resources to specific DetNet flows or to classes of DetNet flows. The requirements of each reservation have to be translated Finn, et al. Expires December 4, 2016 [Page 14] =0C Internet-Draft Deterministic Networking Architecture June 2016 into the parameters that control each system's queuing, shaping, and scheduling functions and delivered to the hosts, bridges, and routers. 4.2.2. Incomplete Networks The presence in the network of relay nodes that are not fully capable of offering DetNet services complicates the ability of the relay nodes and/or controller to allocate resources, as extra buffering, and thus extra latency, must be allocated at points downstream from the non-DetNet relay node for a DetNet flow. 4.3. Queuing, Shaping, Scheduling, and Preemption As described above, DetNet achieves its aims by reserving bandwidth and buffer resources at every hop along the path of the DetNet flow. The reservation itself is not sufficient, however. Implementors and users of a number of proprietary and standard real-time networks have found that standards for specific data plane techniques are required to enable these assurances to be made in a multi-vendor network. The fundamental reason is that latency variation in one system results in the need for extra buffer space in the next-hop system(s), which in turn, increases the worst-case per-hop latency. Standard queuing and transmission selection algorithms allow a central controller to compute the latency contribution of each relay node to the end-to-end latency, to compute the amount of buffer space required in each relay node for each incremental DetNet flow, and most importantly, to translate from a flow specification to a set of values for the managed objects that control each relay or end system. The IEEE 802 has specified (and is specifying) a set of queuing, shaping, and scheduling algorithms that enable each relay node (bridge or router), and/or a central controller, to compute these values. These algorithms include: o A credit-based shaper [IEEE802.1Q-2014] Clause 34. o Time-gated queues governed by a rotating time schedule, synchronized among all relay nodes [IEEE802.1Qbv]. o Synchronized double (or triple) buffers driven by synchronized time ticks. [IEEE802.1Qch]. o Pre-emption of an Ethernet packet in transmission by a packet with a more stringent latency requirement, followed by the resumption of the preempted packet [IEEE802.1Qbu], [IEEE802.3br]. Finn, et al. Expires December 4, 2016 [Page 15] =0C Internet-Draft Deterministic Networking Architecture June 2016 While these techniques are currently embedded in Ethernet and bridging standards, we can note that they are all, except perhaps for packet preemption, equally applicable to other media than Ethernet, and to routers as well as bridges. 4.4. Coexistence with normal traffic A DetNet network supports the dedication of a high proportion (e.g. 75%) of the network bandwidth to DetNet flows. But, no matter how much is dedicated for DetNet flows, it is a goal of DetNet to coexist with with existing Class of Service schemes (e.g., DiffServ). It is also important that non-DetNet traffic not disrupt the DetNet flow, of course (see Section 4.5 and Section 7). For these reasons: o Bandwidth (transmission opportunities) not utilized by a DetNet flow are available to non-DetNet packets (though not to other DetNet flows). o DetNet flows can be shaped or scheduled, in order to ensure that the highest-priority non-DetNet packet also is ensured a worst- case latency (at any given hop). o When transmission opportunities for DetNet flows are scheduled in detail, then the algorithm constructing the schedule should leave sufficient opportunities for non-DetNet packets to satisfy the needs of the users of the network. Detailed scheduling can also permit the time-shared use of buffer resources by different DetNet flows. Ideally, the net effect of the presence of DetNet flows in a network on the non-DetNet packets is primarily a reduction in the available bandwidth. 4.5. Fault Mitigation One key to building robust real-time systems is to reduce the infinite variety of possible failures to a number that can be analyzed with reasonable confidence. DetNet aids in the process by providing filters and policers to detect DetNet packets received on the wrong interface, or at the wrong time, or in too great a volume, and to then take actions such as discarding the offending packet, shutting down the offending DetNet flow, or shutting down the offending interface. It is also essential that filters and service remarking be employed at the network edge to prevent non-DetNet packets from being mistaken for DetNet packets, and thus impinging on the resources allocated to DetNet packets. Finn, et al. Expires December 4, 2016 [Page 16] =0C Internet-Draft Deterministic Networking Architecture June 2016 There exist techniques, at present and/or in various stages of standardization, that can perform these fault mitigation tasks that deliver a high probability that misbehaving systems will have zero impact on well-behaved DetNet flows, except of course, for the receiving interface(s) immediately downstream of the misbehaving device. 4.6. Protocol Stack Model Figure 3 illustrates the DetNet data plane layering model. One may compare it to that in [IEEE802.1CB], Annex C, a work in progress. DetNet data plane protocol stack | packets going | ^ packets coming ^ v down the stack v | up the stack | +-------------+-------------+ +-------------+-------------+ | source | OAM | | destination | OAM | +-------------+-------------+ +-------------+-------------+ | Packet sequencing | | Duplicate elimination | +---------------------------+ +---------------------------+ | DetNet flow duplication | | DetNet flow merging | +---------------------------+ +---------------------------+ | | | DetNet flow monitoring | +---------------------------+ +---------------------------+ | Sequence encoding | | Sequence decoding | +---------------------------+ +---------------------------+ | DetNet flow encoding | | DetNet flow decoding | +---------------------------+ +---------------------------+ |Queuing shaping scheduling | | | +---------------------------+ +---------------------------+ | Lower layers | | Lower layers | +---------------------------+ +---------------------------+ v ^ \_______________________________/ Figure 3 Not all layers are required for any given application, or even for any given network. The layers are, from top to bottom: Application Shown as "source" and "destination" in the diagram. OAM Operations, Administration, and Maintenance leverages in-band and out-of-and signaling that validates whether the service is effectively obtained within QoS constraints. It is shown Finn, et al. Expires December 4, 2016 [Page 17] =0C Internet-Draft Deterministic Networking Architecture June 2016 in parallel with the user's application, OAM makes use of the same DetNet services. OAM can involve specific tagging added in the packets for tracing implementation or network configuration errors; traceability enables to find whether a packet is a replica, which node performed the replication, and which segment was intended for the replica. Packet sequencing Supplies the sequence number for packet replication and elimination (Section 3.4) for packets going down the stack. Peers with packet elimination. This layer is not needed if a higher-layer transport protocol is expected to perform any packet elimination required by the DetNet flow duplication. Duplicate elimination Based on the sequenced number supplied by its peer, packet sequencing, packet elimination discards any duplicate packets generated by DetNet flow duplication. The duplication may also be inferred from other information such as the precise time of reception in a scheduled network. The duplicate elimination layer may also perform resequencing of packets to restore packet order in a flow that was disrupted by the loss of packets on one or another of the multiple paths taken. DetNet flow monitoring Many DetNet applications, and particularly those in which multiple applications (e.g. different machine tools) are sharing the same network infrastructure, or even the same physical links, it is critical that a misbehaving DetNet flow does not interfere with the timely delivery of packets belonging to other DetNet flows. The DetNet flow monitoring layer monitors DetNet flows entering a DetNet node and enforces bandwidth and/or sequencing restrictions, taking appropriate action if a misbehaving flow is detected. See Section 4.5. This function is shown in the stack at the point where it can operate on individual DetNet member flows before they are merged into a DetNet compound flow, but in fact, it may be present in different forms in multiple places in the stack to ensure against interference errors. DetNet flow duplication Replicates packets going down the stack, that belong to a DetNet compound flow, into two or more DetNet member flows. Note that this function is separate from packet sequencing. Flow duplication can be an explicit duplication and remarking of packets, or can be performed by, for example, techniques similar to ordinary multicast replication. Peers with DetNet flow merging. Finn, et al. Expires December 4, 2016 [Page 18] =0C Internet-Draft Deterministic Networking Architecture June 2016 DetNet flow merging Merges DetNet member flows together for packets coming up the stack belonging to a specific DetNet compound flow. Peers with DetNet flow duplication. DetNet flow merging, together with packet sequencing, duplicate elimination, DetNet flow duplication, and DetNet flow merging, performs packet replication and elimination (Section 3.4). Sequence encoding Encodes the sequence number into packets going down the stack. This function may or may not be a null transformation of the packet, and for some protocols, is not explicitly present, being included in the DetNet flow encoding layer, below. Peers with sequence decoding. Sequence decoding Extracts the sequence number from packets coming up the stack for use by the duplicate elimination layer. This function may or may not be a null transformation of the packet, and for some protocols, is not explicitly present, being included in the DetNet flow decoding layer, below. Peers with sequence encoding. DetNet flow encoding Encapsulates packets going down the stack, based on the packet's locally-significant DetNet flow identifier, in order to identify to which DetNet flow the packet belongs. This may be a null transformation or might be an explicit encapsulation (e.g., altering the VLAN and destination MAC address). DetNet flow identification is the basis for packet replication and elimination, for assigning per-flow resources (if any) to packets and for defense against misbehaving systems (Section 4.5). When DetNet flows are assigned to pinned paths, this layer can be indistinguishable from the data forwarding layer(s). Peers with DetNet flow decoding. See Section 4.7 for an explanation of why DetNet flow encoding is not necessarily a part of normal packet transport. DetNet flow decoding Extracts a locally-significant DetNet flow identifier from packets coming up the stack, in order to identify to which DetNet flow the packet belongs. This may be a null transformation or might be an explicit decapsulation (e.g., altering the VLAN and destination MAC address). Peers with DetNet flow encoding. See also Section 4.7. Queuing shaping scheduling Finn, et al. Expires December 4, 2016 [Page 19] =0C Internet-Draft Deterministic Networking Architecture June 2016 This layer provides the latency and congestion loss parts of the DetNet QoS. See Section 4.3. Note that additional shaping elements may be provided for DetNet edge nodes in order to precondition potentially malformed DetNet flows from a source end system. The reader is likely to notice that Figure 3 does not specify the relationship between the DetNet layers, the IP layers, and the link layers. This is intentional, because they can usefully be placed different places in the stack, and even in multiple places, depending on where their peers are placed. 4.7. Exporting flow identification An interesting feature of DetNet, and one that invites implementations that can be accused of "layering violations", is the need for lower layers to be aware of specific flows at higher layers, in order to provide specific queuing and shaping services for specific flows. For example: o A non-IP, strictly L2 source end system X may be sending multiple flows to the same L2 destination end system Y. Those flows may include DetNet flows with different QoS requirements, and may include non-DetNet flows. o A router may be sending any number of flows to another router. Again, those flows may include DetNet flows with different QoS requirements, and may include non-DetNet flows. o Two routers may be separated by bridges. For these bridges to perform any required per-flow queuing and shaping, they must be able to identify the individual flows. o A Label Edge Router (LERs) may have a abel Switched Path (LSP) set up for handling traffic destined for a particular IP address carrying only non-DetNet flows. If a DetNet flow to that same address is requested, a separate LSP may be needed, in order that all of the Label Switch Routers (LSRs) along the path to the destination give that flow special queuing and shaping. The need for a lower-level DetNet node to be aware of individual higher-layer flows is not unique to DetNet. But, given the endless complexity of layering and relayering over tunnels that is available to network designers, DetNet needs to provide a model for flow identification that is at least somewhat better than deep packet inspection. That is not to say that deep inspection will not be used, or the capability standardized; but, there are alternatives. Finn, et al. Expires December 4, 2016 [Page 20] =0C Internet-Draft Deterministic Networking Architecture June 2016 The main alternative is the sequence encode/decode and, particularly, the DetNet flow encoding/decoding layers shown in Figure 3. In this model, at the time a DetNet flow is established and the resources for it reserved, an alternate encapsulation of the DetNet flow at the lower layer is requested and established. For example: o A single unicast DetNet flow passing from router A through a bridged network to router B may be assigned a {VLAN, multicast destination MAC address} pair that is unique within that bridged network. The bridges can then identify the flow without accessing higher-layer headers. Of course, the receiving router must recognize and accept that multicast MAC address. o A DetNet flow passing from LSR A to LSR B may be assigned a different label than that used for other flows to the same IP destination. The DetNet flow encoding/decoding layers shown in Figure 3 perform the required alternate encapsulations. For example, one could place a DetNet flow encoding shim between the Address Resolution Protocol (ARP) layer and the MAC layer, which alters the {VLAN, MAC address} pair to identify particular streams going up and down the stack, so that the layers above the shim need no alteration to service DetNet flows. In any of the above cases, it is possible that an existing DetNet flow can be used as a carrier for multiple DetNet sub-flows. (Not to be confused with DetNet compound vs. member flows.) Of course, this requires that the aggregate DetNet flow be provisioned properly to carry the sub-flows. Thus, rather than deep packet inspection, there is the option to export higher-layer information to the lower layer. The requirement to support one or the other method for flow identification (or both) is the essential complexity that DetNet brings to existing control plane models. 4.8. Advertising resources, capabilities and adjacencies There are three classes of information that a central controller or decentralized control plane needs to know that can only be obtained from the end systems and/or relay nodes in the network. When using a peer-to-peer control plane, some of this information may be required by a system's neighbors in the network. o Details of the system's capabilities that are required in order to accurately allocate that system's resources, as well as other systems' resources. This includes, for example, which specific Finn, et al. Expires December 4, 2016 [Page 21] =0C Internet-Draft Deterministic Networking Architecture June 2016 queuing and shaping algorithms are implemented (Section 4.3), the number of buffers dedicated for DetNet allocation, and the worst- case forwarding delay. o The dynamic state of an end or relay node's DetNet resources. o The identity of the system's neighbors, and the characteristics of the link(s) between the systems, including the length (in nanoseconds) of the link(s). 4.9. Provisioning model 4.9.1. Centralized Path Computation and Installation A centralized routing model, such as provided with a PCE (RFC 4655 [RFC4655]), enables global and per-flow optimizations. (See Section 4.1.) The model is attractive but a number of issues are left to be solved. In particular: o Whether and how the path computation can be installed by 1) an end device or 2) a Network Management entity, o And how the path is set up, either by installing state at each hop with a direct interaction between the forwarding device and the PCE, or along a path by injecting a source-routed request at one end of the path. 4.9.2. Distributed Path Setup Whether a distributed alternative without a PCE can be valuable should be studied as well. Such an alternative could for instance inherit from the Resource ReSerVation Protocol [RFC3209] (RSVP-TE) flows. In a Layer-2 only environment, or as part of a layered approach to a mixed environment, IEEE 802.1 also has work, either completed or in progress. [IEEE802.1Q-2014] Clause 35 describes SRP, a peer-to-peer protocol for Layer-2 roughly analogous to RSVP. Almost complete is [IEEE802.1Qca], which defines how ISIS can provide multiple disjoint paths or distribution trees. Also in progress is [IEEE802.1Qcc], which expands the capabilities of SRP. The integration/interaction of the DetNet control layer an underlying IEEE 802.1 sub-network control layer will need to be defined. Finn, et al. Expires December 4, 2016 [Page 22] =0C Internet-Draft Deterministic Networking Architecture June 2016 4.10. Scaling to larger networks Reservations for individual DetNet flows require considerable state information in each relay node, especially when adequate fault mitigation (Section 4.5) is required. The DetNet data plane, in order to support larger numbers of DetNet flows, must support the aggregation of DetNet flows into tunnels, which themselves can be viewed by the relay nodes' data planes largely as individual DetNet flows. Without such aggregation, the per-relay system may limit the scale of DetNet networks. 4.11. Connected islands vs. networks Given that users have deployed examples of the IEEE 802.1 TSN TG standards, which provide capabilities similar to DetNet, it is obvious to ask whether the IETF DetNet effort can be limited to providing Layer-2 connections (VPNs) between islands of bridged TSN networks. While this capability is certainly useful to some applications, and must not be precluded by DetNet, tunneling alone is not a sufficient goal for the DetNet WG. As shown in the Deterministic Networking Use Cases draft [I-D.ietf-detnet-use-cases], there are already deployments of Layer-2 TSN networks that are encountering the well-known problems of over-large broadcast domains. Routed solutions, and combinations routed/bridged solutions, are both required. 5. Compatibility with Layer-2 Standards providing similar capabilities for bridged networks (only) have been and are being generated in the IEEE 802 LAN/MAN Standards Committee. The present architecture describes an abstract model that can be applicable both at Layer-2 and Layer-3, and over links not defined by IEEE 802. It is the intention of the authors (and hopefully, as this draft progresses, of the DetNet Working Group) that IETF and IEEE 802 will coordinate their work, via the participation of common individuals, liaisons, and other means, to maximize the compatibility of their outputs. DetNet enabled systems and nodes can be interconnected by sub- networks, i.e., Layer-2 technologies. These sub-networks will provide DetNet compatible service for support of DetNet traffic. Examples of sub-networks include 802.1TSN and a point-to-point OTN link. Of course, multi-layer DetNet systems may be possible too, where one DetNet appears as a sub-network, and provides service to, a higher layer DetNet system. Finn, et al. Expires December 4, 2016 [Page 23] =0C Internet-Draft Deterministic Networking Architecture June 2016 6. Open Questions There are a number of architectural questions that will have to be resolved before this document can be submitted for publication. Aside from the obvious fact that this present draft is subject to change, there are specific questions to which the authors wish to direct the readers' attention. 6.1. Data plane shapers and schedulers A number of techniques have been defined and are being defined by IEEE 802 for queuing, shaping, and scheduling transmissions on EtherNet media, most of which are directly applicable to any other medium. Specific selections of supported techniques are required, because minimizing, and even eliminating, congestion losses depends strongly on the details of the per-hop behavior of sources and relay nodes. The present authors expect that, at least, the IEEE 802 mechanisms will be supported. 6.2. DetNet flow identification and sequencing The techniques to be used for DetNet flow identification must be settled. The following paragraphs provide a snapshot of the authors' opinions at the time of writing. These authors anticipate the submission of drafts on this subject. See also Section 4.7 IEEE 802.1 TSN streams are identified by giving each stream (DetNet flow) a {VLAN identifier, destination MAC address} pair that is unique in the bridged network, and that the MAC address must be a multicast address. If a source is generating, for example, two unicast UDP flows to the same destination, one DetNet and one not, the DetNet flow's packets must be transformed at some point to have a multicast destination MAC address, and perhaps, a different VLAN than the non-DetNet flow's packets. A similar provision would apply to DetNet packets that are identified by MPLS labels; any bridges between the LSRs need a {VLAN identifier, destination MAC address} pair uniquely identifying the DetNet flow in the bridged network. Provision is made in current draft of [IEEE802.1CB] to make these transformations either in a Layer-2 shim in the source end system, on the output side of a router or LSR, or in a proxy function in the first-hop bridge. It remains to be seen whether this provision is adequate and/or acceptable to the IETF DetNet WG. Finn, et al. Expires December 4, 2016 [Page 24] =0C Internet-Draft Deterministic Networking Architecture June 2016 There are also questions regarding the sequentialization of packets for use with packet replication and elimination (Section 3.4). [IEEE802.1CB] defines an EtherNet tag carrying a sequence number. If MPLS Pseudowires are used with a control word containing a sequence number, the relationship and interworking between these two formats must be defined. 6.3. Flat vs. hierarchical control Boxes that are solely routers or solely bridges are rare in today's market. In a multi-tenant data center, multiple users' virtual Layer-2/Layer-3 topologies exist simultaneously, implemented on a network whose physical topology bears only accidental resemblance to the virtual topologies. While the forwarding topology (the bridges and routers) are an important consideration for a DetNet Flow Management Entity (Section 4.1.1), so is the purely physical topology. Ultimately, the model used by the management entities is based on boxes, queues, and links. The authors hope that the work of the TEAS WG will help to clarify exactly what model parameters need to be traded between the relay nodes and the controller(s). 6.4. Peer-to-peer reservation protocol As described in Section 4.9.2, the DetNet WG needs to decide whether to support a peer-to-peer protocol for a source and a destination to reserve resources for a DetNet stream. Assuming that enabling the involvement of the source and/or destination is desirable (see Deterministic Networking Use Cases [I-D.ietf-detnet-use-cases]), it remains to decide whether the DetNet WG will make it possible to deploy at least some DetNet capabilities in a network using only a peer-to-peer protocol, without a central controller. (Note that a UNI (see Section 4.1.3) between an end system and an edge relay node, for sources and/or listeners to request DetNet services, can be either the first hop of a per-to-peer reservation protocol, or can be deflected by the edge relay node to a central controller for resolution. Similarly, a decision by a central controller can be effected by the controller instructing the end system or edge relay node to initiate a per-to-peer protocol activity.) 6.5. Wireless media interactions Deterministic Networking Use Cases [I-D.ietf-detnet-use-cases] illustrates cases where wireless media are needed in a DetNet network. Some wireless media in general use, such as IEEE 802.11 Finn, et al. Expires December 4, 2016 [Page 25] =0C Internet-Draft Deterministic Networking Architecture June 2016 [IEEE802.1Q-2014], have significantly higher packet loss rates than typical wired media, such as Ethernet [IEEE802.3-2012]. IEEE 802.11 includes support for such features as MAC-layer acknowledgements and retransmissions. The techniques described in Section 3 are likely to improve the ability of a mixed wired/wireless network to offer the DetNet QoS features. The interaction of these techniques with the features of specific wireless media, although they may be significant, cannot be addressed in this document. It remains to be decided to what extent the DetNet WG will address them, and to what extent other WGs, e.g. 6TiSCH, will do so. 7. Security Considerations Security in the context of Deterministic Networking has an added dimension; the time of delivery of a packet can be just as important as the contents of the packet, itself. A man-in-the-middle attack, for example, can impose, and then systematically adjust, additional delays into a link, and thus disrupt or subvert a real-time application without having to crack any encryption methods employed. See [RFC7384] for an exploration of this issue in a related context. Furthermore, in a control system where millions of dollars of equipment, or even human lives, can be lost if the DetNet QoS is not delivered, one must consider not only simple equipment failures, where the box or wire instantly becomes perfectly silent, but bizarre errors such as can be caused by software failures. Because there is essential no limit to the kinds of failures that can occur, protecting against realistic equipment failures is indistinguishable, in most cases, from protecting against malicious behavior, whether accidental or intentional. See also Section 4.5. Security must cover: o the protection of the signaling protocol o the authentication and authorization of the controlling systems o the identification and shaping of the DetNet flows 8. IANA Considerations This document does not require an action from IANA. Finn, et al. Expires December 4, 2016 [Page 26] =0C Internet-Draft Deterministic Networking Architecture June 2016 9. Acknowledgements The authors wish to thank Jouni Korhonen, Erik Nordmark, George Swallow, Rudy Klecka, Anca Zamfir, David Black, Thomas Watteyne, Shitanshu Shah, Craig Gunther, Rodney Cummings, Balasz Varga, Wilfried Steiner, Marcel Kiessling, Karl Weber, Ethan Grossman, Pat Thaler, and Lou Berger for their various contribution with this work. 10. Access to IEEE 802.1 documents To access password protected IEEE 802.1 drafts, see the IETF IEEE 802.1 information page at https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/52/slides/ bridge-0/tsld003.htm. 11. Informative References [AVnu] http://www.avnu.org/, "The AVnu Alliance tests and certifies devices for interoperability, providing a simple and reliable networking solution for AV network implementation based on the Audio Video Bridging (AVB) standards.". [CCAMP] IETF, "Common Control and Measurement Plane", . [HART] www.hartcomm.org, "Highway Addressable Remote Transducer, a group of specifications for industrial process and control devices administered by the HART Foundation". [HSR-PRP] IEC, "High availability seamless redundancy (HSR) is a further development of the PRP approach, although HSR functions primarily as a protocol for creating media redundancy while PRP, as described in the previous section, creates network redundancy. PRP and HSR are both described in the IEC 62439 3 standard.", . [I-D.finn-detnet-problem-statement] Finn, N. and P. Thubert, "Deterministic Networking Problem Statement", draft-finn-detnet-problem-statement-05 (work in progress), March 2016. [I-D.ietf-6tisch-architecture] Thubert, P., "An Architecture for IPv6 over the TSCH mode of IEEE 802.15.4", draft-ietf-6tisch-architecture-09 (work in progress), November 2015. Finn, et al. Expires December 4, 2016 [Page 27] =0C Internet-Draft Deterministic Networking Architecture June 2016 [I-D.ietf-6tisch-tsch] Watteyne, T., Palattella, M., and L. Grieco, "Using IEEE802.15.4e TSCH in an IoT context: Overview, Problem Statement and Goals", draft-ietf-6tisch-tsch-06 (work in progress), March 2015. [I-D.ietf-detnet-use-cases] Grossman, E., Gunther, C., Thubert, P., Wetterwald, P., Raymond, J., Korhonen, J., Kaneko, Y., Das, S., Zha, Y., Varga, B., Farkas, J., Goetz, F., and J. Schmitt, "Deterministic Networking Use Cases", draft-ietf-detnet- use-cases-09 (work in progress), March 2016. [I-D.ietf-roll-rpl-industrial-applicability] Phinney, T., Thubert, P., and R. Assimiti, "RPL applicability in industrial networks", draft-ietf-roll- rpl-industrial-applicability-02 (work in progress), October 2013. [I-D.svshah-tsvwg-deterministic-forwarding] Shah, S. and P. Thubert, "Deterministic Forwarding PHB", draft-svshah-tsvwg-deterministic-forwarding-04 (work in progress), August 2015. [IEEE802.11-2012] IEEE, "Wireless LAN Medium Access Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications", 2012, . [IEEE802.1AS-2011] IEEE, "Timing and Synchronizations (IEEE 802.1AS-2011)", 2011, . [IEEE802.1BA-2011] IEEE, "AVB Systems (IEEE 802.1BA-2011)", 2011, . [IEEE802.1CB] IEEE, "Frame Replication and Elimination for Reliability (IEEE Draft P802.1CB)", 2016, . Finn, et al. Expires December 4, 2016 [Page 28] =0C Internet-Draft Deterministic Networking Architecture June 2016 [IEEE802.1Q-2014] IEEE, "MAC Bridges and VLANs (IEEE 802.1Q-2014", 2014, . [IEEE802.1Qbu] IEEE, "Frame Preemption", 2016, . [IEEE802.1Qbv] IEEE, "Enhancements for Scheduled Traffic", 2016, . [IEEE802.1Qca] IEEE, "Path Control and Reservation", 2015, . [IEEE802.1Qcc] IEEE, "Stream Reservation Protocol (SRP) Enhancements and Performance Improvements", 2016, . [IEEE802.1Qch] IEEE, "Cyclic Queuing and Forwarding", 2016, . [IEEE802.1TSNTG] IEEE Standards Association, "IEEE 802.1 Time-Sensitive Networks Task Group", 2013, . [IEEE802.3-2012] IEEE, "IEEE Stabdard for Ethernet", 2012, . [IEEE802.3br] IEEE, "Interspersed Express Traffic", 2016, . [IEEE802154] IEEE standard for Information Technology, "IEEE std. 802.15.4, Part. 15.4: Wireless Medium Access Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications for Low-Rate Wireless Personal Area Networks", June 2011. Finn, et al. Expires December 4, 2016 [Page 29] =0C Internet-Draft Deterministic Networking Architecture June 2016 [IEEE802154e] IEEE standard for Information Technology, "IEEE std. 802.15.4e, Part. 15.4: Low-Rate Wireless Personal Area Networks (LR-WPANs) Amendment 1: MAC sublayer", April 2012. [ISA100.11a] ISA/IEC, "ISA100.11a, Wireless Systems for Automation, also IEC 62734", 2011, < http://www.isa100wci.org/en- US/Documents/PDF/3405-ISA100-WirelessSystems-Future-broch- WEB-ETSI.aspx>. [ISA95] ANSI/ISA, "Enterprise-Control System Integration Part 1: Models and Terminology", 2000, . [ODVA] http://www.odva.org/, "The organization that supports network technologies built on the Common Industrial Protocol (CIP) including EtherNet/IP.". [PCE] IETF, "Path Computation Element", . [Profinet] http://us.profinet.com/technology/profinet/, "PROFINET is a standard for industrial networking in automation.", . [RFC2205] Braden, R., Ed., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and S. Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1 Functional Specification", RFC 2205, DOI 10.17487/RFC2205, September 1997, . [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, . [RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and J. Ash, "A Path Computation Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655, DOI 10.17487/RFC4655, August 2006, . [RFC5673] Pister, K., Ed., Thubert, P., Ed., Dwars, S., and T. Phinney, "Industrial Routing Requirements in Low-Power and Lossy Networks", RFC 5673, DOI 10.17487/RFC5673, October 2009, . Finn, et al. Expires December 4, 2016 [Page 30] =0C Internet-Draft Deterministic Networking Architecture June 2016 [RFC5921] Bocci, M., Ed., Bryant, S., Ed., Frost, D., Ed., Levrau, L., and L. Berger, "A Framework for MPLS in Transport Networks", RFC 5921, DOI 10.17487/RFC5921, July 2010, . [RFC6372] Sprecher, N., Ed. and A. Farrel, Ed., "MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) Survivability Framework", RFC 6372, DOI 10.17487/RFC6372, September 2011, . [RFC7384] Mizrahi, T., "Security Requirements of Time Protocols in Packet Switched Networks", RFC 7384, DOI 10.17487/RFC7384, October 2014, . [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, . [TEAS] IETF, "Traffic Engineering Architecture and Signaling", . [WirelessHART] www.hartcomm.org, "Industrial Communication Networks - Wireless Communication Network and Communication Profiles - WirelessHART - IEC 62591", 2010. Authors' Addresses Norman Finn Cisco Systems 170 W Tasman Dr. San Jose, California 95134 USA Phone: +1 408 526 4495 Email: nfinn@cisco.com Finn, et al. Expires December 4, 2016 [Page 31] =0C Internet-Draft Deterministic Networking Architecture June 2016 Pascal Thubert Cisco Systems Village d'Entreprises Green Side 400, Avenue de Roumanille Batiment T3 Biot - Sophia Antipolis 06410 FRANCE Phone: +33 4 97 23 26 34 Email: pthubert@cisco.com Michael Johas Teener Broadcom Corp. 3151 Zanker Rd. San Jose, California 95134 USA Phone: +1 831 824 4228 Email: MikeJT@broadcom.com Finn, et al. Expires December 4, 2016 [Page 32] --Apple-Mail=_3CE27F4F-0F89-4424-8F22-68C7AD916830 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=draft-finn-detnet-architecture-05.xml Content-Type: application/xml; name="draft-finn-detnet-architecture-05.xml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Deterministic Networking Architecture Cisco Systems
170 W Tasman Dr. San Jose 95134 California USA +1 408 526 4495 nfinn@cisco.com
Cisco Systems
Village d'Entreprises Green Side 400, Avenue de Roumanille Batiment T3 Biot - Sophia Antipolis 06410 FRANCE +33 4 97 23 26 34 pthubert@cisco.com
Broadcom Corp.
3151 Zanker Rd. San Jose 95134 California USA +1 831 824 4228 MikeJT@broadcom.com
Internet DetNet 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. Techniques used include: 1) reserving data plane resources for individual (or aggregated) DetNet flows in some or all of the relay nodes (bridges or routers) along the path of the flow; 2) providing fixed paths for DetNet flows that do not rapidly change with the network topology; and 3) sequentializing, replicating, tracing and eliminating duplicate packets at various points to ensure the availability of at least one path. The capabilities can be managed by configuration, or by manual or automatic network management.
Deterministic Networking (DetNet) is a service that can be offered by a network to data flows (DetNet flows) that that are limited, at their source, to a maximum data rate specified by that source. DetNet provides these flows extremely low packet loss rates and assured maximum end-to-end delivery latency. This is accomplished by dedicating network resources such as link bandwidth and buffer space to DetNet flows and/or classes of DetNet flows. Unused reserved resources are available to non-DetNet packets. The Deterministic Networking Problem Statement introduces Deterministic Networking, and Deterministic Networking Use Cases summarizes the need for it. A goal of DetNet is a converged network in all respects. That is, the presence of DetNet flows does not preclude non-DetNet flows, and the benefits offered DetNet flows should not, except in extreme cases, prevent existing QoS mechanisms from operating in a normal fashion, subject to the bandwidth required for the DetNet flows. A single source-destination pair can trade both DetNet and non-DetNet flows. End systems and applications need not instantiate special interfaces for DetNet flows. Networks are not restricted to certain topologies; connectivity is not restricted. Any application that generates a data flow that can be usefully characterized as having a maximum bandwidth should be able to take advantage of DetNet, as long as the necessary resources can be reserved. Reservations can be made by the application itself, via network management, by an applications controller, or by other means. Many applications of interest to Deterministic Networking require the ability to synchronize the clocks in end systems to a sub-microsecond accuracy. Some of the queue control techniques defined in also require time synchronization among relay nodes. The means used to achieve time synchronization are not addressed in this document. DetNet should accommodate various synchronization techniques and profiles that are defined elsewhere to solve exchange time in different market segments. The present document is an individual contribution, but it is intended by the authors for adoption by the DetNet working group.
The following special terms are used in this document in order to avoid the assumption that a given element in the architecture does or does not have Internet Protocol stack, functions as a router, bridge, firewall, or otherwise plays a particular role at Layer-2 or higher. An end system capable of sinking a DetNet flow. The portion of a network that is DetNet aware. It includes end systems and other DetNet nodes. A DetNet flow is a sequence of packets from a single source, through some number of relay nodes to one or more destinations, that is limited by the source in its maximum packet size and transmission rate, and can thus be ensured the DetNet Quality of Service (QoS) from the network. A DetNet compound flow is a DetNet flow that has been separated into multiple duplicate DetNet member flows, which are eventually merged back into a single DetNet compound flow. "Compound" and "member" are strictly relative to each other, not absolutes; a DetNet compound flow comprising multiple DetNet member flows can, in turn, be a member of a higher-order compound. A DetNet aware end system or relay node. "DetNet" may be omitted in some text. An instance of a DetNet node that includes a proxy function for one or more source end systems, analogous to a Label Edge Router (LER). Commonly called a "host" or "node" in IETF documents, and an "end station" is IEEE 802 documents. End systems of interest to this document are either sources or destinations of L2 and/or L3 DatNet streams. A connection between two DetNet nodes. It may be composed of a physical link or a sub-network technology that can provide appropriate traffic delivery for DetNet flows. A router, transit node, bridge, Label Switch Router (LSR), firewall, or any other system that forwards packets from one interface to another. A trail of configuration between source to destination(s) through relay nodes associated with a DetNet flow, required to deliver the benefits of DetNet. An end system capable of sourcing a DetNet flow.
This section also serves as a dictionary for translating from the terms used by the IEEE 802 Time-Sensitive Networking (TSN) Task Group to those of the DetNet WG. The IEEE 802 term for a destination of a DetNet flow. The IEEE 802 term for a DetNet node. The IEEE 802 term for a DetNet flow. The IEEE 802 term for the source of a DetNet flow.
The DetNet Quality of Service can be expressed in terms of: Minimum and maximum end-to-end latency from source to destination; timely delivery and jitter avoidance derive from these constraints Probability of loss of a packet, under various assumptions as to the operational states of the relay nodes and links. A derived property is whether it is acceptable to deliver a duplicate packet, which is an inherent risk in highly reliable and/or broadcast transmissions It is a distinction of DetNet that it is concerned solely with worst-case values for the end-to-end latency. Average, mean, or typical values are of no interest, because they do not affect the ability of a real-time system to perform its tasks. In general, a trivial priority-based queuing scheme will give better average latency to a data flow than DetNet, but of course, the worst-case latency can be essentially unbounded. Three techniques are used by DetNet to provide these qualities of service: Bandwidth reservation and enforcement (). Pinned paths (). Packet replication and elimination (). The DetNet techniques are meant to address both of the DetNet QoS requirements (latency and packet loss). Given that relay nodes have a finite amount of buffer space, zero congestion loss necessarily results in a maximum end-to-end latency. It also addresses the largest contribution to packet loss, which is buffer congestion. Packet replication and elimination mitigates the second most important contributions to packet loss, namely random media errors and equipment failure. These three techniques can be applied independently, giving eight possible combinations, including none (no DetNet), although some combinations are of wider utility than others. This separation keeps the protocol stack coherent and maximizes interoperability with existing and developing standards in this (IETF) and other Standards Development Organizations. Some examples of typical expected combinations: Pinned paths (a) plus packet replication (b) are exactly the techniques employed by . Pinned paths are achieved by limiting the physical topology of the network, and the sequentialization, replication, and duplicate elimination are facilitated by packet tags added at the front or the end of Ethernet frames. Zero congestion loss (a) alone is is offered by IEEE 802.1 Audio Video bridging . As long as the network suffers no failures, zero congestion loss can be achieved through the use of a reservation protocol (MSRP), shapers in every relay node (bridge), and a bit of network calculus. Using all three together gives maximum protection. There are, of course, simpler methods available (and employed, today) to achieve levels of latency and packet loss that are satisfactory for many applications. Prioritization and over-provisioning is one such technique. However, these methods generally work best in the absence of any significant amount of non-critical traffic in the network (if, indeed, such traffic is supported at all), or work only if the critical traffic constitutes only a small portion of the network's theoretical capacity, or work only if all systems are functioning properly, or in the absence of actions by end systems that disrupt the network's operations. There are any number of methods in use, defined, or in progress for accomplishing each of the above techniques. It is expected that this DetNet Architecture will assist various vendors, users, and/or "vertical" Standards Development Organizations (dedicated to a single industry) to make selections among the available means of implementing DetNet networks.
The primary means by which DetNet achieves its QoS assurances is to completely eliminate congestion at an output port as a cause of packet loss. Given that a DetNet flow cannot be throttled, this can be achieved only by the provision of sufficient buffer storage at each hop through the network to ensure that no packets are dropped due to a lack of buffer storage. Ensuring adequate buffering requires, in turn, that the source, and every relay system along the path to the destination (or nearly every relay node -- see ) be careful to regulate its output to not exceed the data rate for any DetNet flow, except for brief periods when making up for interfering traffic. Any packet sent ahead of its time potentially adds to the number of buffers required by the next hop, and may thus exceed the resources allocated for a particular DetNet flow. The low-level mechanisms described in provide the necessary regulation of transmissions by an edge system or relay node to ensure zero congestion loss. The reservation of the bandwidth and buffers for a DetNet flow requires the provisioning described in . A DetNet node may have other resources requiring allocation and/or scheduling, that might otherwise be over-subscribed and trigger the rejection of a reservation.
In networks controlled by typical peer-to-peer protocols such as IEEE 802.1 ISIS bridged networks or IETF OSPF routed networks, a network topology event in one part of the network can impact, at least briefly, the delivery of data in parts of the network remote from the failure or recovery event. Thus, even redundant paths through a network, if controlled by the typical peer-to-peer protocols, do not eliminate the chances of brief losses of contact. Many real-time networks rely on physical rings or chains of two-port devices, with a relatively simple ring control protocol. This supports redundant paths with a minimum of wiring. As an additional benefit, ring topologies can often utilize different topology management protocols than those used for a mesh network, with a consequent reduction in the response time to topology changes. Of course, this comes at some cost in terms of increased hop count, and thus latency, for the typical path. In order to get the advantages of low hop count and still ensure against even very brief losses of connectivity, DetNet employs pinned paths, where the path taken by a given DetNet flow does not change, at least immediately, and likely not at all, in response to network topology events. When combined with packet replication and elimination (), this results in a high likelihood of continuous connectivity. Pinned paths are commonly used in MPLS TE LSPs.
A core objective of DetNet is to enable the convergence of Non-IP networks onto a common network infrastructure. This requires the accurate emulation of currently deployed mission-specific networks, which typically rely on point-to-point analog (e.g. 4-20mA modulation) and serial-digital cables (or buses) for highly reliable, synchronized and jitter-free communications. While the latency of analog transmissions is basically the speed of light, legacy serial links are usually slow (in the order of Kbps) compared to, say, GigE, and some latency is usually acceptable. What is not acceptable is the introduction of excessive jitter, which may, for instance, affect the stability of control systems. Applications that are designed to operate on serial links usually do not provide services to recover the jitter, because jitter simply does not exists there. Streams of information are expected to be delivered in-order and the precise time of reception influences the processes. In order to converge such existing applications, there is a desire to emulate all properties of the serial cable, such as clock transportation, perfect flow isolation and fixed latency. While minimal jitter (in the form of specifying minimum, as well as maximum, end-to-end latency) is supported by DetNet, there are practical limitations on packet-based networks in this regard. In general, users are encouraged to use, instead of, "do this when you get the packet," a combination of: Sub-microsecond time synchronization among all source and destination end systems, and Time-of-execution fields in the application packets.
After congestion loss has been eliminated, the most important causes of packet loss are random media and/or memory faults, and equipment failures. Both causes of packet loss can be greatly reduced by sending the same packets over multiple paths. Packet replication and elimination, also known as seamless redundancy , or 1+1 hitless protection, involves three capabilities: Replicating these packets into multiple DetNet member flows and, typically, sending them along at least two different paths to the destination(s), e.g. over the pinned paths of . Providing sequencing information, once, at or near the source, to the packets of a DetNet compound flow. This may be done by adding a sequence number or time stamp as part of DetNet, or may be inherent in the packet, e.g. in a transport protocol, or associated to other physical properties such as the precise time (and radio channel) of reception of the packet. Eliminating duplicated packets. This may be done at any step along the path to save network resources further down, in particular if multiple Replication points exist. But the most common case is to perform this operation at the very edge of the DetNet network, preferably in or near the receiver. This function is a "hitless" version of, e.g., the 1+1 linear protection in . That is, instead of switching from one flow to the other when a failure of a flow is detected, DetNet combines both flows, and performs a packet-by-packet selection of which to discard, based on sequence number. In the simplest case, this amounts to replicating each packet in a source that has two interfaces, and conveying them through the network, along separate paths, to the similarly dual-homed destinations, that discard the extras. This ensures that one path (with zero congestion loss) remains, even if some relay node fails. The sequence numbers can also be used for loss detection and for re-ordering. Alternatively, relay nodes in the network can provide replication and elimination facilities at various points in the network, so that multiple failures can be accommodated. This is shown in the following figure, where the two relay nodes each replicate (R) the DetNet flow on input, sending the DetNet member flows to both the other relay node and to the end system, and eliminate duplicates (E) on the output interface to the right-hand end system. Any one link in the network can fail, and the Detnet compound flow can still get through. Furthermore, two links can fail, as long as they are in different segments of the network.
> > > > > > > relay > > > > > > > > > /------------+ R system E +------------\ > > / v + ^ \ > end R + v | ^ + E end system + v | ^ + system > \ v + ^ / > > \------------+ R relay E +------------/ > > > > > > > > > system > > > > > > > > ]]>
Note that packet replication and elimination does not react to and correct failures; it is entirely passive. Thus, intermittent failures, mistakenly created packet filters, or misrouted data is handled just the same as the equipment failures that are detected handled by typical routing and bridging protocols. When combining member flows that take different-length paths through the network, and which are also guaranteed a worst-case latency by packet shaping, a merge point may require extra buffering to equalize the delays over the different paths. This equalization ensures that the resultant compound flow will not exceed its contracted bandwidth even after one or the other of the paths is restored after a failure.
Traffic Engineering Architecture and Signaling (TEAS) defines traffic-engineering architectures for generic applicability across packet and non-packet networks. From TEAS perspective, Traffic Engineering (TE) refers to techniques that enable operators to control how specific traffic flows are treated within their networks. Because if its very nature of establishing pinned optimized paths, Deterministic Networking can be seen as a new, specialized branch of Traffic Engineering, and inherits its architecture with a separation into planes. The Deterministic Networking architecture is thus composed of three planes, a (User) Application Plane, a Controller Plane, and a Network Plane, which echoes that of Figure 1 of Software-Defined Networking (SDN): Layers and Architecture Terminology.:
Per , the Application Plane includes both applications and services. In particular, the Application Plane incorporates the User Agent, a specialized application that interacts with the end user / operator and performs requests for Deterministic Networking services via an abstract Flow Management Entity, (FME) which may or may not be collocated with (one of) the end systems. At the Application Plane, a management interface enables the negotiation of flows between end systems. An abstraction of the flow called a Traffic Specification (TSpec) provides the representation. This abstraction is used to place a reservation over the (Northbound) Service Interface and within the Application plane. It is associated with an abstraction of location, such as IP addresses and DNS names, to identify the end systems and eventually specify intermediate relay nodes.
The Controller Plane corresponds to the aggregation of the Control and Management Planes in , though Common Control and Measurement Plane (CCAMP) makes an additional distinction between management and measurement. When the logical separation of the Control, Measurement and other Management entities is not relevant, the term Controller Plane is used for simplicity to represent them all, and the term controller refers to any device operating in that plane, whether is it a Path Computation entity or a Network Management entity (NME). The Path Computation Element (PCE) is a core element of a controller, in charge of computing Deterministic paths to be applied in the Network Plane. A (Northbound) Service Interface enables applications in the Application Plane to communicate with the entities in the Controller Plane. One or more PCE(s) collaborate to implement the requests from the FME as Per-fFlow Per-Hop Behaviors installed in the relay nodes for each individual flow. The PCEs place each flow along a deterministic sequence of relay nodes so as to respect per-flow constraints such as security and latency, and optimize the overall result for metrics such as an abstract aggregated cost. The deterministic sequence can typically be more complex than a direct sequence and include redundancy path, with one or more packet replication and elimination points.
The Network Plane represents the network devices and protocols as a whole, regardless of the Layer at which the network devices operate. It includes Forwarding Plane (data plane), Application, and Operational Plane (control plane) aspects. The network Plane comprises the Network Interface Cards (NIC) in the end systems, which are typically IP hosts, and relay nodes, which are typically IP routers and switches. Network-to-Network Interfaces such as used for Traffic Engineering path reservation in , as well as User-to-Network Interfaces (UNI) such as provided by the Local Management Interface (LMI) between network and end systems, are both part of the Network Plane, both in the control plane and the data plane. A Southbound (Network) Interface enables the entities in the Controller Plane to communicate with devices in the Network Plane. This interface leverages and extends TEAS to describe the physical topology and resources in the Network Plane.
Flow Management Entity
The relay nodes (and eventually the end systems NIC) expose their capabilities and physical resources to the controller (the PCE), and update the PCE with their dynamic perception of the topology, across the Southbound Interface. In return, the PCE(s) set the per-flow paths up, providing a Flow Characterization that is more tightly coupled to the relay node Operation than a TSpec. At the Network plane, relay nodes may exchange information regarding the state of the paths, between adjacent systems and eventually with the end systems, and forward packets within constraints associated to each flow, or, when unable to do so, perform a last resort operation such as drop or declassify. This specification focuses on the Southbound interface and the operation of the Network Plane.
DetNet flows can by synchronous or asynchronous. In synchronous DetNet flows, at least the relay nodes (and possibly the end systems) are closely time synchronized, typically to better than 1 microsecond. By transmitting packets from different DetNet flows or classes of DetNet flows at different times, using repeating schedules synchronized among the relay nodes, resources such as buffers and link bandwidth can be shared over the time domain among different DetNet flows. There is a tradeoff among techniques for synchronous DetNet flows between the burden of fine-grained scheduling and the benefit of reducing the required resources, especially buffer space. In contrast, asynchronous DetNet flows are not coordinated with a fine-grained schedule, so relay and end systems must assume worst-case interference among DetNet flows contending for buffer resources. Asynchronous DetNet flows are characterized by: A maximum packet size; An observation interval; and A maximum number of transmissions during that observation interval. These parameters, together with knowledge of the protocol stack used (and thus the size of the various headers added to a packet), limit the number of bit times per observation interval that the DetNet flow can occupy the physical medium. The source promises that these limits will not be exceeded. If the source transmits less data than this limit allows, the unused resources such as link bandwidth can be made available by the system to non-DetNet packets. However, making those resources available to DetNet packets in other DetNet flows would serve no purpose. Those other DetNet flows have their own dedicated resources, on the assumption that all DetNet flows can use all of their resources over a long period of time. Note that there is no provision in DetNet for throttling DetNet flows (reducing the transmission rate via feedback); the assumption is that a DetNet flow, to be useful, must be delivered in its entirety. That is, while any useful application is written to expect a certain number of lost packets, the real-time applications of interest to DetNet demand that the loss of data due to the network is extraordinarily infrequent. Although DetNet strives to minimize the changes required of an application to allow it to shift from a special-purpose digital network to an Internet Protocol network, one fundamental shift in the behavior of network applications is impossible to avoid: the reservation of resources before the application starts. In the first place, a network cannot deliver finite latency and practically zero packet loss to an arbitrarily high offered load. Secondly, achieving practically zero packet loss for unthrottled (though bandwidth limited) DetNet flows means that bridges and routers have to dedicate buffer resources to specific DetNet flows or to classes of DetNet flows. The requirements of each reservation have to be translated into the parameters that control each system's queuing, shaping, and scheduling functions and delivered to the hosts, bridges, and routers.
The presence in the network of relay nodes that are not fully capable of offering DetNet services complicates the ability of the relay nodes and/or controller to allocate resources, as extra buffering, and thus extra latency, must be allocated at points downstream from the non-DetNet relay node for a DetNet flow.
As described above, DetNet achieves its aims by reserving bandwidth and buffer resources at every hop along the path of the DetNet flow. The reservation itself is not sufficient, however. Implementors and users of a number of proprietary and standard real-time networks have found that standards for specific data plane techniques are required to enable these assurances to be made in a multi-vendor network. The fundamental reason is that latency variation in one system results in the need for extra buffer space in the next-hop system(s), which in turn, increases the worst-case per-hop latency. Standard queuing and transmission selection algorithms allow a central controller to compute the latency contribution of each relay node to the end-to-end latency, to compute the amount of buffer space required in each relay node for each incremental DetNet flow, and most importantly, to translate from a flow specification to a set of values for the managed objects that control each relay or end system. The IEEE 802 has specified (and is specifying) a set of queuing, shaping, and scheduling algorithms that enable each relay node (bridge or router), and/or a central controller, to compute these values. These algorithms include: A credit-based shaper Clause 34. Time-gated queues governed by a rotating time schedule, synchronized among all relay nodes . Synchronized double (or triple) buffers driven by synchronized time ticks. . Pre-emption of an Ethernet packet in transmission by a packet with a more stringent latency requirement, followed by the resumption of the preempted packet , . While these techniques are currently embedded in Ethernet and bridging standards, we can note that they are all, except perhaps for packet preemption, equally applicable to other media than Ethernet, and to routers as well as bridges.
A DetNet network supports the dedication of a high proportion (e.g. 75%) of the network bandwidth to DetNet flows. But, no matter how much is dedicated for DetNet flows, it is a goal of DetNet to coexist with with existing Class of Service schemes (e.g., DiffServ). It is also important that non-DetNet traffic not disrupt the DetNet flow, of course (see and ). For these reasons: Bandwidth (transmission opportunities) not utilized by a DetNet flow are available to non-DetNet packets (though not to other DetNet flows). DetNet flows can be shaped or scheduled, in order to ensure that the highest-priority non-DetNet packet also is ensured a worst-case latency (at any given hop). When transmission opportunities for DetNet flows are scheduled in detail, then the algorithm constructing the schedule should leave sufficient opportunities for non-DetNet packets to satisfy the needs of the users of the network. Detailed scheduling can also permit the time-shared use of buffer resources by different DetNet flows. Ideally, the net effect of the presence of DetNet flows in a network on the non-DetNet packets is primarily a reduction in the available bandwidth.
One key to building robust real-time systems is to reduce the infinite variety of possible failures to a number that can be analyzed with reasonable confidence. DetNet aids in the process by providing filters and policers to detect DetNet packets received on the wrong interface, or at the wrong time, or in too great a volume, and to then take actions such as discarding the offending packet, shutting down the offending DetNet flow, or shutting down the offending interface. It is also essential that filters and service remarking be employed at the network edge to prevent non-DetNet packets from being mistaken for DetNet packets, and thus impinging on the resources allocated to DetNet packets. There exist techniques, at present and/or in various stages of standardization, that can perform these fault mitigation tasks that deliver a high probability that misbehaving systems will have zero impact on well-behaved DetNet flows, except of course, for the receiving interface(s) immediately downstream of the misbehaving device.
illustrates the DetNet data plane layering model. One may compare it to that in , Annex C, a work in progress.
DetNet data plane protocol stack
Not all layers are required for any given application, or even for any given network. The layers are, from top to bottom: Shown as "source" and "destination" in the diagram. Operations, Administration, and Maintenance leverages in-band and out-of-and signaling that validates whether the service is effectively obtained within QoS constraints. It is shown in parallel with the user's application, OAM makes use of the same DetNet services. OAM can involve specific tagging added in the packets for tracing implementation or network configuration errors; traceability enables to find whether a packet is a replica, which node performed the replication, and which segment was intended for the replica. Supplies the sequence number for packet replication and elimination () for packets going down the stack. Peers with packet elimination. This layer is not needed if a higher-layer transport protocol is expected to perform any packet elimination required by the DetNet flow duplication. Based on the sequenced number supplied by its peer, packet sequencing, packet elimination discards any duplicate packets generated by DetNet flow duplication. The duplication may also be inferred from other information such as the precise time of reception in a scheduled network. The duplicate elimination layer may also perform resequencing of packets to restore packet order in a flow that was disrupted by the loss of packets on one or another of the multiple paths taken. Many DetNet applications, and particularly those in which multiple applications (e.g. different machine tools) are sharing the same network infrastructure, or even the same physical links, it is critical that a misbehaving DetNet flow does not interfere with the timely delivery of packets belonging to other DetNet flows. The DetNet flow monitoring layer monitors DetNet flows entering a DetNet node and enforces bandwidth and/or sequencing restrictions, taking appropriate action if a misbehaving flow is detected. See . This function is shown in the stack at the point where it can operate on individual DetNet member flows before they are merged into a DetNet compound flow, but in fact, it may be present in different forms in multiple places in the stack to ensure against interference errors. Replicates packets going down the stack, that belong to a DetNet compound flow, into two or more DetNet member flows. Note that this function is separate from packet sequencing. Flow duplication can be an explicit duplication and remarking of packets, or can be performed by, for example, techniques similar to ordinary multicast replication. Peers with DetNet flow merging. Merges DetNet member flows together for packets coming up the stack belonging to a specific DetNet compound flow. Peers with DetNet flow duplication. DetNet flow merging, together with packet sequencing, duplicate elimination, DetNet flow duplication, and DetNet flow merging, performs packet replication and elimination (). Encodes the sequence number into packets going down the stack. This function may or may not be a null transformation of the packet, and for some protocols, is not explicitly present, being included in the DetNet flow encoding layer, below. Peers with sequence decoding. Extracts the sequence number from packets coming up the stack for use by the duplicate elimination layer. This function may or may not be a null transformation of the packet, and for some protocols, is not explicitly present, being included in the DetNet flow decoding layer, below. Peers with sequence encoding. Encapsulates packets going down the stack, based on the packet's locally-significant DetNet flow identifier, in order to identify to which DetNet flow the packet belongs. This may be a null transformation or might be an explicit encapsulation (e.g., altering the VLAN and destination MAC address). DetNet flow identification is the basis for packet replication and elimination, for assigning per-flow resources (if any) to packets and for defense against misbehaving systems (). When DetNet flows are assigned to pinned paths, this layer can be indistinguishable from the data forwarding layer(s). Peers with DetNet flow decoding. See for an explanation of why DetNet flow encoding is not necessarily a part of normal packet transport. Extracts a locally-significant DetNet flow identifier from packets coming up the stack, in order to identify to which DetNet flow the packet belongs. This may be a null transformation or might be an explicit decapsulation (e.g., altering the VLAN and destination MAC address). Peers with DetNet flow encoding. See also . This layer provides the latency and congestion loss parts of the DetNet QoS. See . Note that additional shaping elements may be provided for DetNet edge nodes in order to precondition potentially malformed DetNet flows from a source end system. The reader is likely to notice that does not specify the relationship between the DetNet layers, the IP layers, and the link layers. This is intentional, because they can usefully be placed different places in the stack, and even in multiple places, depending on where their peers are placed.
An interesting feature of DetNet, and one that invites implementations that can be accused of "layering violations", is the need for lower layers to be aware of specific flows at higher layers, in order to provide specific queuing and shaping services for specific flows. For example: A non-IP, strictly L2 source end system X may be sending multiple flows to the same L2 destination end system Y. Those flows may include DetNet flows with different QoS requirements, and may include non-DetNet flows. A router may be sending any number of flows to another router. Again, those flows may include DetNet flows with different QoS requirements, and may include non-DetNet flows. Two routers may be separated by bridges. For these bridges to perform any required per-flow queuing and shaping, they must be able to identify the individual flows. A Label Edge Router (LERs) may have a abel Switched Path (LSP) set up for handling traffic destined for a particular IP address carrying only non-DetNet flows. If a DetNet flow to that same address is requested, a separate LSP may be needed, in order that all of the Label Switch Routers (LSRs) along the path to the destination give that flow special queuing and shaping. The need for a lower-level DetNet node to be aware of individual higher-layer flows is not unique to DetNet. But, given the endless complexity of layering and relayering over tunnels that is available to network designers, DetNet needs to provide a model for flow identification that is at least somewhat better than deep packet inspection. That is not to say that deep inspection will not be used, or the capability standardized; but, there are alternatives. The main alternative is the sequence encode/decode and, particularly, the DetNet flow encoding/decoding layers shown in . In this model, at the time a DetNet flow is established and the resources for it reserved, an alternate encapsulation of the DetNet flow at the lower layer is requested and established. For example: A single unicast DetNet flow passing from router A through a bridged network to router B may be assigned a {VLAN, multicast destination MAC address} pair that is unique within that bridged network. The bridges can then identify the flow without accessing higher-layer headers. Of course, the receiving router must recognize and accept that multicast MAC address. A DetNet flow passing from LSR A to LSR B may be assigned a different label than that used for other flows to the same IP destination. The DetNet flow encoding/decoding layers shown in perform the required alternate encapsulations. For example, one could place a DetNet flow encoding shim between the Address Resolution Protocol (ARP) layer and the MAC layer, which alters the {VLAN, MAC address} pair to identify particular streams going up and down the stack, so that the layers above the shim need no alteration to service DetNet flows. In any of the above cases, it is possible that an existing DetNet flow can be used as a carrier for multiple DetNet sub-flows. (Not to be confused with DetNet compound vs. member flows.) Of course, this requires that the aggregate DetNet flow be provisioned properly to carry the sub-flows. Thus, rather than deep packet inspection, there is the option to export higher-layer information to the lower layer. The requirement to support one or the other method for flow identification (or both) is the essential complexity that DetNet brings to existing control plane models.
There are three classes of information that a central controller or decentralized control plane needs to know that can only be obtained from the end systems and/or relay nodes in the network. When using a peer-to-peer control plane, some of this information may be required by a system's neighbors in the network. Details of the system's capabilities that are required in order to accurately allocate that system's resources, as well as other systems' resources. This includes, for example, which specific queuing and shaping algorithms are implemented (), the number of buffers dedicated for DetNet allocation, and the worst-case forwarding delay. The dynamic state of an end or relay node's DetNet resources. The identity of the system's neighbors, and the characteristics of the link(s) between the systems, including the length (in nanoseconds) of the link(s).
A centralized routing model, such as provided with a PCE (RFC 4655), enables global and per-flow optimizations. (See .) The model is attractive but a number of issues are left to be solved. In particular: Whether and how the path computation can be installed by 1) an end device or 2) a Network Management entity, And how the path is set up, either by installing state at each hop with a direct interaction between the forwarding device and the PCE, or along a path by injecting a source-routed request at one end of the path.
Whether a distributed alternative without a PCE can be valuable should be studied as well. Such an alternative could for instance inherit from the Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP-TE) flows. In a Layer-2 only environment, or as part of a layered approach to a mixed environment, IEEE 802.1 also has work, either completed or in progress. Clause 35 describes SRP, a peer-to-peer protocol for Layer-2 roughly analogous to RSVP. Almost complete is , which defines how ISIS can provide multiple disjoint paths or distribution trees. Also in progress is , which expands the capabilities of SRP. The integration/interaction of the DetNet control layer an underlying IEEE 802.1 sub-network control layer will need to be defined.
Reservations for individual DetNet flows require considerable state information in each relay node, especially when adequate fault mitigation () is required. The DetNet data plane, in order to support larger numbers of DetNet flows, must support the aggregation of DetNet flows into tunnels, which themselves can be viewed by the relay nodes' data planes largely as individual DetNet flows. Without such aggregation, the per-relay system may limit the scale of DetNet networks.
Given that users have deployed examples of the IEEE 802.1 TSN TG standards, which provide capabilities similar to DetNet, it is obvious to ask whether the IETF DetNet effort can be limited to providing Layer-2 connections (VPNs) between islands of bridged TSN networks. While this capability is certainly useful to some applications, and must not be precluded by DetNet, tunneling alone is not a sufficient goal for the DetNet WG. As shown in the Deterministic Networking Use Cases draft, there are already deployments of Layer-2 TSN networks that are encountering the well-known problems of over-large broadcast domains. Routed solutions, and combinations routed/bridged solutions, are both required.
Standards providing similar capabilities for bridged networks (only) have been and are being generated in the IEEE 802 LAN/MAN Standards Committee. The present architecture describes an abstract model that can be applicable both at Layer-2 and Layer-3, and over links not defined by IEEE 802. It is the intention of the authors (and hopefully, as this draft progresses, of the DetNet Working Group) that IETF and IEEE 802 will coordinate their work, via the participation of common individuals, liaisons, and other means, to maximize the compatibility of their outputs. DetNet enabled systems and nodes can be interconnected by sub-networks, i.e., Layer-2 technologies. These sub-networks will provide DetNet compatible service for support of DetNet traffic. Examples of sub-networks include 802.1TSN and a point-to-point OTN link. Of course, multi-layer DetNet systems may be possible too, where one DetNet appears as a sub-network, and provides service to, a higher layer DetNet system.
There are a number of architectural questions that will have to be resolved before this document can be submitted for publication. Aside from the obvious fact that this present draft is subject to change, there are specific questions to which the authors wish to direct the readers' attention.
A number of techniques have been defined and are being defined by IEEE 802 for queuing, shaping, and scheduling transmissions on EtherNet media, most of which are directly applicable to any other medium. Specific selections of supported techniques are required, because minimizing, and even eliminating, congestion losses depends strongly on the details of the per-hop behavior of sources and relay nodes. The present authors expect that, at least, the IEEE 802 mechanisms will be supported.
The techniques to be used for DetNet flow identification must be settled. The following paragraphs provide a snapshot of the authors' opinions at the time of writing. These authors anticipate the submission of drafts on this subject. See also IEEE 802.1 TSN streams are identified by giving each stream (DetNet flow) a {VLAN identifier, destination MAC address} pair that is unique in the bridged network, and that the MAC address must be a multicast address. If a source is generating, for example, two unicast UDP flows to the same destination, one DetNet and one not, the DetNet flow's packets must be transformed at some point to have a multicast destination MAC address, and perhaps, a different VLAN than the non-DetNet flow's packets. A similar provision would apply to DetNet packets that are identified by MPLS labels; any bridges between the LSRs need a {VLAN identifier, destination MAC address} pair uniquely identifying the DetNet flow in the bridged network. Provision is made in current draft of to make these transformations either in a Layer-2 shim in the source end system, on the output side of a router or LSR, or in a proxy function in the first-hop bridge. It remains to be seen whether this provision is adequate and/or acceptable to the IETF DetNet WG. There are also questions regarding the sequentialization of packets for use with packet replication and elimination (). defines an EtherNet tag carrying a sequence number. If MPLS Pseudowires are used with a control word containing a sequence number, the relationship and interworking between these two formats must be defined.
Boxes that are solely routers or solely bridges are rare in today's market. In a multi-tenant data center, multiple users' virtual Layer-2/Layer-3 topologies exist simultaneously, implemented on a network whose physical topology bears only accidental resemblance to the virtual topologies. While the forwarding topology (the bridges and routers) are an important consideration for a DetNet Flow Management Entity (), so is the purely physical topology. Ultimately, the model used by the management entities is based on boxes, queues, and links. The authors hope that the work of the TEAS WG will help to clarify exactly what model parameters need to be traded between the relay nodes and the controller(s).
As described in , the DetNet WG needs to decide whether to support a peer-to-peer protocol for a source and a destination to reserve resources for a DetNet stream. Assuming that enabling the involvement of the source and/or destination is desirable (see Deterministic Networking Use Cases), it remains to decide whether the DetNet WG will make it possible to deploy at least some DetNet capabilities in a network using only a peer-to-peer protocol, without a central controller. (Note that a UNI (see ) between an end system and an edge relay node, for sources and/or listeners to request DetNet services, can be either the first hop of a per-to-peer reservation protocol, or can be deflected by the edge relay node to a central controller for resolution. Similarly, a decision by a central controller can be effected by the controller instructing the end system or edge relay node to initiate a per-to-peer protocol activity.)
Deterministic Networking Use Cases illustrates cases where wireless media are needed in a DetNet network. Some wireless media in general use, such as IEEE 802.11 , have significantly higher packet loss rates than typical wired media, such as Ethernet. IEEE 802.11 includes support for such features as MAC-layer acknowledgements and retransmissions. The techniques described in are likely to improve the ability of a mixed wired/wireless network to offer the DetNet QoS features. The interaction of these techniques with the features of specific wireless media, although they may be significant, cannot be addressed in this document. It remains to be decided to what extent the DetNet WG will address them, and to what extent other WGs, e.g. 6TiSCH, will do so.
Security in the context of Deterministic Networking has an added dimension; the time of delivery of a packet can be just as important as the contents of the packet, itself. A man-in-the-middle attack, for example, can impose, and then systematically adjust, additional delays into a link, and thus disrupt or subvert a real-time application without having to crack any encryption methods employed. See for an exploration of this issue in a related context. Furthermore, in a control system where millions of dollars of equipment, or even human lives, can be lost if the DetNet QoS is not delivered, one must consider not only simple equipment failures, where the box or wire instantly becomes perfectly silent, but bizarre errors such as can be caused by software failures. Because there is essential no limit to the kinds of failures that can occur, protecting against realistic equipment failures is indistinguishable, in most cases, from protecting against malicious behavior, whether accidental or intentional. See also . Security must cover: the protection of the signaling protocol the authentication and authorization of the controlling systems the identification and shaping of the DetNet flows
This document does not require an action from IANA.
The authors wish to thank Jouni Korhonen, Erik Nordmark, George Swallow, Rudy Klecka, Anca Zamfir, David Black, Thomas Watteyne, Shitanshu Shah, Craig Gunther, Rodney Cummings, Balasz Varga, Wilfried Steiner, Marcel Kiessling, Karl Weber, Ethan Grossman, Pat Thaler, and Lou Berger for their various contribution with this work.
To access password protected IEEE 802.1 drafts, see the IETF IEEE 802.1 information page at https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/52/slides/bridge-0/tsld003.htm.
Frame Replication and Elimination for Reliability (IEEE Draft P802.1CB) IEEE Path Control and Reservation IEEE Stream Reservation Protocol (SRP) Enhancements and Performance Improvements IEEE Frame Preemption IEEE Enhancements for Scheduled Traffic IEEE Timing and Synchronizations (IEEE 802.1AS-2011) IEEE AVB Systems (IEEE 802.1BA-2011) IEEE MAC Bridges and VLANs (IEEE 802.1Q-2014 IEEE Cyclic Queuing and Forwarding IEEE IEEE Stabdard for Ethernet IEEE Interspersed Express Traffic IEEE Wireless LAN Medium Access Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications IEEE Enterprise-Control System Integration Part 1: Models and Terminology ANSI/ISA ISA100.11a, Wireless Systems for Automation, also IEC 62734 ISA/IEC IEEE 802.1 Time-Sensitive Networks Task Group IEEE Standards Association IEEE std. 802.15.4e, Part. 15.4: Low-Rate Wireless Personal Area Networks (LR-WPANs) Amendment 1: MAC sublayer IEEE standard for Information Technology IEEE std. 802.15.4, Part. 15.4: Wireless Medium Access Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications for Low-Rate Wireless Personal Area Networks IEEE standard for Information Technology Industrial Communication Networks - Wireless Communication Network and Communication Profiles - WirelessHART - IEC 62591 www.hartcomm.org Highway Addressable Remote Transducer, a group of specifications for industrial process and control devices administered by the HART Foundation www.hartcomm.org The organization that supports network technologies built on the Common Industrial Protocol (CIP) including EtherNet/IP. http://www.odva.org/ The AVnu Alliance tests and certifies devices for interoperability, providing a simple and reliable networking solution for AV network implementation based on the Audio Video Bridging (AVB) standards. http://www.avnu.org/ PROFINET is a standard for industrial networking in automation. http://us.profinet.com/technology/profinet/ High availability seamless redundancy (HSR) is a further development of the PRP approach, although HSR functions primarily as a protocol for creating media redundancy while PRP, as described in the previous section, creates network redundancy. PRP and HSR are both described in the IEC 62439 3 standard. IEC Traffic Engineering Architecture and Signaling IETF Path Computation Element IETF Common Control and Measurement Plane IETF --Apple-Mail=_3CE27F4F-0F89-4424-8F22-68C7AD916830 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 > On 08 Jun 2016, at 19:04, Lou Berger wrote: >=20 > Can someone send me a copy of the latest arch doc? bitbucket says the > account has hit it's user limit. Why not just use github? >=20 > Thanks, >=20 > Lou >=20 >=20 > On 6/7/2016 3:42 PM, Norman Finn (nfinn) wrote: >> Good points. I should add a section on privacy considerations. >> Points to make in that section would include (this is not proposed = text): >>=20 >> 1. DetNet is aimed at enterprise-sized networks under a single >> administration, not service provider or Big-I Internet situations. >> Most use cases (industrial, automotive, AV studio) involve planned, >> engineered, work-oriented data flows where privacy is not an issue. >> In particular, streaming content delivery to individuals is not a >> target for DetNet. >> 2. However, the requirement for every node along the path to identify >> the stream certainly does seem to conflict with random address >> changes, as do long-lived flows, in general. This may well present = an >> additional attack surface for privacy, should the DetNet paradigm be >> found useful in broader environments. >>=20 >> Any other points that should be made? >>=20 >> =97 Norm >>=20 >> From: detnet > > on behalf of >> "mohamed.boucadair@orange.com " >> > >> Date: Wednesday, April 6, 2016 at 09:58 AM >> To: Tim Chown >, >> "detnet@ietf.org " > > >> Subject: [Detnet] OFFLIST RE: detnet architecture, and privacy >> considerations >>=20 >> Hi Tim, >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> I do fully agree with this comment. >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> FWIW, there are some considerations that are discussed in >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7297#section-3.8 that may be reused >> in the context of detnet. >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> IMHO, the privacy requirement should be explicitly captured in the >> use case draft, but as that draft is currently scoped, it is hard >> to see how requirements are derived from the use cases. >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> Cheers, >>=20 >> Med >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> *De :*detnet [mailto:detnet-bounces@ietf.org] *De la part de* Tim >> Chown >> *Envoy=E9 :* mardi 5 avril 2016 13:43 >> *=C0 :* detnet@ietf.org >> *Objet :* [Detnet] detnet architecture, and privacy considerations >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> Hi, >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> The question I asked at the mic today was driven by seeing an >> architecture text (draft-finn-detnet-architecture-04) where >> there=92s no explicit mention of privacy handling, and being aware >> that since RFC 7258 was published we should be thinking about >> appropriate privacy considerations in such documents. >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> So, for example, one =91open issue' slide in Norman=92s talk asked >> about identifying streams, and L2 addresses or the 5-tuple were >> mentioned, but in a world where L2 addresses are randomised over >> time, and encryption is more widespread, other mechanisms may be >> required, ones that one might argue should be opaque to the >> network operator.=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> Wearing my dnssd WG chair hat, we=92ve discussed similar issues = this >> week, specifically how you might do device naming and service >> discovery with privacy, while using =91broadcast=92 protocols such = as >> mDNS and DNS-SD >> (see = https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/95/slides/slides-95-dnssd-0.pdf, >> if interested). >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> Whatever privacy considerations are put into the architecture, I >> think we should at least ensure we discuss them, noting that while >> detnet is scoped by charter to initially only be applicable within >> a single administrative domain, use of the word =91initially=92 >> implies its scope may/will grow later. >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> Tim >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> detnet mailing list >> detnet@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > detnet mailing list > detnet@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet --Apple-Mail=_3CE27F4F-0F89-4424-8F22-68C7AD916830-- From nobody Thu Jun 9 01:19:49 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: detnet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: detnet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FD2812D54F for ; Thu, 9 Jun 2016 01:19:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.002 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.002 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (768-bit key) header.d=labn.net Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6Ebdxv0rhywd for ; Thu, 9 Jun 2016 01:19:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gproxy8-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com (gproxy8-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com [67.222.33.93]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 5EE4112D1E4 for ; Thu, 9 Jun 2016 01:19:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 24186 invoked by uid 0); 9 Jun 2016 08:19:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cmgw4) (10.0.90.85) by gproxy8.mail.unifiedlayer.com with SMTP; 9 Jun 2016 08:19:44 -0000 Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]) by cmgw4 with id 4YKd1t00B2SSUrH01YKgrK; Thu, 09 Jun 2016 02:19:44 -0600 X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.1 cv=ecGuId0H c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=h1BC+oY+fLhyFmnTBx92Jg==:117 a=h1BC+oY+fLhyFmnTBx92Jg==:17 a=L9H7d07YOLsA:10 a=9cW_t1CCXrUA:10 a=s5jvgZ67dGcA:10 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=-NfooI8aBGcA:10 a=oK_VWpv5GtAA:10 a=pD_ry4oyNxEA:10 a=Q-fNiiVtAAAA:8 a=wU2YTnxGAAAA:8 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=z9tbli-vAAAA:8 a=j5J5hKwCAAAA:8 a=aLXM7sqAuO747ZJTDO0A:9 a=f3eNsjmJuRHpiWRf:21 a=XkLnkTYxV5h7YbcD:21 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=Fp8MccfUoT0GBdDC_Lng:22 a=Yz9wTY_ffGCQnEDHKrcv:22 a=w1C3t2QeGrPiZgrLijVG:22 a=RmrFvp9qXTL7MAzcxlte:22 a=2W0QC_tBQg4gaoMZECZt:22 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=labn.net; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:MIME-Version:Subject: References:In-Reply-To:Message-ID:Date:CC:To:From; bh=oQBr5jgAzrHfsR9WAusiAWRL7tQHbs46akGfCcGbjUc=; b=xu8gf4OxJnpNVVv/iZwGQdzZO/ 9SMVzsFnsjVCPQXXeoOqEx2ocReuxpB/HLQ/yft1edq7q76TtMatpaMC9G44o1/BZE3Tlklzj88OY 7Q4PUNYJt1Oy7q02Zz5JcKuah; Received: from [100.15.89.178] (port=49187 helo=[11.4.0.238]) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bAvBg-0007By-Mi; Thu, 09 Jun 2016 02:19:37 -0600 From: Lou Berger To: Jouni Korhonen Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2016 04:19:33 -0400 Message-ID: <155343eb608.2818.9b4188e636579690ba6c69f2c8a0f1fd@labn.net> In-Reply-To: <74F55CF7-BA44-493A-9698-3B6B0212C8CC@broadcom.com> References: <966d4358-df7a-149a-0975-56bf59b18d3d@labn.net> <74F55CF7-BA44-493A-9698-3B6B0212C8CC@broadcom.com> User-Agent: AquaMail/1.6.2.3 (build: 27000203) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Identified-User: {1038:box313.bluehost.com:labnmobi:labn.net} {sentby:smtp auth 100.15.89.178 authed with lberger@labn.net} Archived-At: Cc: Tim Chown , detnet@ietf.org, mohamed.boucadair@orange.com, Norman Finn Subject: Re: [Detnet] detnet architecture, and privacy considerations X-BeenThere: detnet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions on Deterministic Networking BoF and Proposed WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2016 08:19:48 -0000 Woops. This was supposed to be unicast to the authors. Please excuse the noise! Lou Ps thanks Jouni On June 9, 2016 12:12:10 AM Jouni Korhonen wrote: > attached. > > > > > ---------- >> On 08 Jun 2016, at 19:04, Lou Berger wrote: >> >> Can someone send me a copy of the latest arch doc? bitbucket says the >> account has hit it's user limit. Why not just use github? >> >> Thanks, >> >> Lou >> >> >> On 6/7/2016 3:42 PM, Norman Finn (nfinn) wrote: >>> Good points. I should add a section on privacy considerations. >>> Points to make in that section would include (this is not proposed text): >>> >>> 1. DetNet is aimed at enterprise-sized networks under a single >>> administration, not service provider or Big-I Internet situations. >>> Most use cases (industrial, automotive, AV studio) involve planned, >>> engineered, work-oriented data flows where privacy is not an issue. >>> In particular, streaming content delivery to individuals is not a >>> target for DetNet. >>> 2. However, the requirement for every node along the path to identify >>> the stream certainly does seem to conflict with random address >>> changes, as do long-lived flows, in general. This may well present an >>> additional attack surface for privacy, should the DetNet paradigm be >>> found useful in broader environments. >>> >>> Any other points that should be made? >>> >>> — Norm >>> >>> From: detnet >> > on behalf of >>> "mohamed.boucadair@orange.com " >>> > >>> Date: Wednesday, April 6, 2016 at 09:58 AM >>> To: Tim Chown >, >>> "detnet@ietf.org " >> > >>> Subject: [Detnet] OFFLIST RE: detnet architecture, and privacy >>> considerations >>> >>> Hi Tim, >>> >>> >>> >>> I do fully agree with this comment. >>> >>> >>> >>> FWIW, there are some considerations that are discussed in >>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7297#section-3.8 that may be reused >>> in the context of detnet. >>> >>> >>> >>> IMHO, the privacy requirement should be explicitly captured in the >>> use case draft, but as that draft is currently scoped, it is hard >>> to see how requirements are derived from the use cases. >>> >>> >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Med >>> >>> >>> >>> *De :*detnet [mailto:detnet-bounces@ietf.org] *De la part de* Tim >>> Chown >>> *Envoyé :* mardi 5 avril 2016 13:43 >>> *À :* detnet@ietf.org >>> *Objet :* [Detnet] detnet architecture, and privacy considerations >>> >>> >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> >>> >>> The question I asked at the mic today was driven by seeing an >>> architecture text (draft-finn-detnet-architecture-04) where >>> there’s no explicit mention of privacy handling, and being aware >>> that since RFC 7258 was published we should be thinking about >>> appropriate privacy considerations in such documents. >>> >>> >>> >>> So, for example, one ‘open issue' slide in Norman’s talk asked >>> about identifying streams, and L2 addresses or the 5-tuple were >>> mentioned, but in a world where L2 addresses are randomised over >>> time, and encryption is more widespread, other mechanisms may be >>> required, ones that one might argue should be opaque to the >>> network operator. >>> >>> >>> >>> Wearing my dnssd WG chair hat, we’ve discussed similar issues this >>> week, specifically how you might do device naming and service >>> discovery with privacy, while using ‘broadcast’ protocols such as >>> mDNS and DNS-SD >>> (see https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/95/slides/slides-95-dnssd-0.pdf, >>> if interested). >>> >>> >>> >>> Whatever privacy considerations are put into the architecture, I >>> think we should at least ensure we discuss them, noting that while >>> detnet is scoped by charter to initially only be applicable within >>> a single administrative domain, use of the word ‘initially’ >>> implies its scope may/will grow later. >>> >>> >>> >>> Tim >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> detnet mailing list >>> detnet@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> detnet mailing list >> detnet@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet > > > > > ---------- > _______________________________________________ > detnet mailing list > detnet@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet > From nobody Mon Jun 13 12:44:36 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: detnet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: detnet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA4B712D7B7 for ; Mon, 13 Jun 2016 12:44:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.621 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.621 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KjVeaIW18D43 for ; Mon, 13 Jun 2016 12:44:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx0b-000fd501.pphosted.com (mx0b-000fd501.pphosted.com [67.231.152.235]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D79D312D608 for ; Mon, 13 Jun 2016 12:44:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pps.filterd (m0000695.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-000fd501.pphosted.com (8.16.0.11/8.16.0.11) with SMTP id u5DJe8Gq006493; Mon, 13 Jun 2016 12:44:27 -0700 Received: from dlb-xchpw04.dolby.net (dcd-outbound.dolby.com [67.216.187.124]) by mx0b-000fd501.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 23gka24h0t-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 13 Jun 2016 12:44:27 -0700 Received: from DLB-XCHPW03.dolby.net (10.233.7.3) by DLB-XCHPW04.dolby.net (10.233.7.4) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1076.9; Mon, 13 Jun 2016 12:44:17 -0700 Received: from DLB-XCHPW03.dolby.net ([10.103.9.186]) by DLB-XCHPW03.dolby.net ([10.103.9.186]) with mapi id 15.00.1076.000; Mon, 13 Jun 2016 12:44:17 -0700 From: "Grossman, Ethan A." To: "Norman Finn (nfinn)" , "Michael Johas Teener (Mikejt@broadcom.com)" , "Pascal Thubert (pthubert) (pthubert@cisco.com)" Thread-Topic: [Detnet] detnet architecture, and privacy considerations Thread-Index: AQHRwPS7FC2sfBXT/0a/aBwTqWBtoJ/g2gWAgAAjYYCABtJcsA== Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2016 19:44:16 +0000 Message-ID: <6e255e4c6bb34d93a15d8b5516ec92f8@DLB-XCHPW03.dolby.net> References: <966d4358-df7a-149a-0975-56bf59b18d3d@labn.net> <74F55CF7-BA44-493A-9698-3B6B0212C8CC@broadcom.com> In-Reply-To: <74F55CF7-BA44-493A-9698-3B6B0212C8CC@broadcom.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [10.233.7.60] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:, , definitions=2016-06-13_10:, , signatures=0 Archived-At: Cc: "detnet@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Detnet] detnet architecture, and privacy considerations X-BeenThere: detnet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions on Deterministic Networking BoF and Proposed WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2016 19:44:34 -0000 Hi Norm, Pascal, Michael, I read over the architecture doc again and I found it quite readable. I cam= e up with a few minor typos and a couple of questions, below. Ethan. ----------------------------------- 1) " When combining member flows that take different-length paths through the network, and which are also guaranteed a worst-case latency by packet shaping, a merge point may require extra buffering to equalize the delays over the different paths. This equalization ensures that the resultant compound flow will not exceed its contracted bandwidth even after one or the other of the paths is restored after a failure." --> Is the point that the flow with longer latency inherently requires more= buffering, and that such buffering is directly related to its contracted b= andwidth? The bad case apparently would be if unequal latency paths were no= t equalized, then say the short one failed leaving the long one, then the s= hort one was reinstated... how would bandwidth be exceeded? Somehow I'm mis= sing something here. 2) "The presence in the network of relay nodes that are not fully capable of offering DetNet services complicates the ability of the relay nodes and/or controller to allocate resources, as extra buffering, and thus extra latency, must be allocated at points downstream from the non-DetNet relay node for a DetNet flow." --> If the worst case latency of the non-DetNet relay is potentially unboun= ded, how can including it as a hop even with extra buffering allow a worst = case latency for the path to be guaranteed? Does "not fully capable" have a= n implicit specific meaning?=20 3) Typo (extra "with" at "coexist with with"): " A DetNet network supports the dedication of a high proportion (e.g. 75%) of the network bandwidth to DetNet flows. But, no matter how much is dedicated for DetNet flows, it is a goal of DetNet to coexist with with existing Class of Service schemes (e.g., DiffServ). It is also important that non-DetNet traffic not disrupt the DetNet flow, of course (see Section 4.5 and Section 7)." =20 4) Typo (Per-fFlow): "One or more PCE(s) collaborate to implement the requests from the FME as Per-fFlow Per-Hop Behaviors installed in the relay nodes for each individual flow." 5) Typo (abel): "A Label Edge Router (LERs) may have a abel Switched Path (LSP)" 6) Typo: ("_with_ an underlying..."?) (maybe just re-use the extra with fro= m item 3) " The integration/interaction of the DetNet control layer an underlying IEEE 802.1 sub-network control layer will need to be defined." 7) Need references (eventually...): "There exist techniques, at present and/or in various stages of standardization, that can perform these fault mitigation tasks" ----------------------------------- From nobody Wed Jun 22 14:37:35 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: detnet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: detnet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CD6612D73D for ; Wed, 22 Jun 2016 14:37:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -15.947 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.947 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id P_9sEW9h5puG for ; Wed, 22 Jun 2016 14:37:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com [173.37.86.79]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 19A8712DCCA for ; Wed, 22 Jun 2016 14:36:46 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=6516; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1466631406; x=1467841006; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=xhcYRAKzG6tZRoRMYuN4KOA0xuOiqB1lsgWCKkI8yM0=; b=k4docypBBofErRGO+SkK89TZgEOYMRhQMUuCZ9RLKYCy6syXualkJ7Ct EtZYuYpfx/ixnV1izUlKbDSKd3KKS86R1hYlA+cU2WRFZIHQ1bv8gv7cm hN/wKT2+9GjzoP7/iQIZ/6T0Zmddfn/aiYwdrPgXo3FXX0owJgqfuhLDp w=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AzBQC7BGtX/4YNJK1dgz5WfQa6LoF6J?= =?us-ascii?q?IVzAhyBFTkTAQEBAQEBAWUnhEwBAQEEIwQNQAUMBAIBCBEBAgECAwIUEgICAjA?= =?us-ascii?q?VAgYIAgQBDQWIMA60YJA4AQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBHIEBhSaETYQTN?= =?us-ascii?q?DMUgjOCWgWIDQeHFolTAY4sgWmIAIU6j3sBIAEzg3BuiS5EfwEBAQ?= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.26,509,1459814400"; d="scan'208";a="116160875" Received: from alln-core-12.cisco.com ([173.36.13.134]) by rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 22 Jun 2016 21:36:45 +0000 Received: from XCH-ALN-003.cisco.com (xch-aln-003.cisco.com [173.36.7.13]) by alln-core-12.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u5MLajBB006658 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 22 Jun 2016 21:36:45 GMT Received: from xch-rcd-018.cisco.com (173.37.102.28) by XCH-ALN-003.cisco.com (173.36.7.13) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Wed, 22 Jun 2016 16:36:44 -0500 Received: from xch-rcd-018.cisco.com ([173.37.102.28]) by XCH-RCD-018.cisco.com ([173.37.102.28]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.009; Wed, 22 Jun 2016 16:36:44 -0500 From: "Norman Finn (nfinn)" To: "Grossman, Ethan A." , "Michael Johas Teener (Mikejt@broadcom.com)" , "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" Thread-Topic: [Detnet] detnet architecture, and privacy considerations Thread-Index: AQHRwPS7FC2sfBXT/0a/aBwTqWBtoJ/guH6AgAAjYYCAB035AIANzwwA Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 21:36:44 +0000 Message-ID: References: <966d4358-df7a-149a-0975-56bf59b18d3d@labn.net> <74F55CF7-BA44-493A-9698-3B6B0212C8CC@broadcom.com> <6e255e4c6bb34d93a15d8b5516ec92f8@DLB-XCHPW03.dolby.net> In-Reply-To: <6e255e4c6bb34d93a15d8b5516ec92f8@DLB-XCHPW03.dolby.net> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.6.5.160527 x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1 x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [10.128.2.86] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-ID: <0AAEB8FC4290E04BAE6B44F6F3601728@emea.cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Cc: "detnet@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Detnet] detnet architecture, and privacy considerations X-BeenThere: detnet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions on Deterministic Networking BoF and Proposed WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 21:37:34 -0000 U2VlIGluLWxpbmUNCg0KLS0tLS1PcmlnaW5hbCBNZXNzYWdlLS0tLS0NCkZyb206ICJHcm9zc21h biwgRXRoYW4gQS4iIDxlYWdyb3NAZG9sYnkuY29tPg0KRGF0ZTogTW9uZGF5LCBKdW5lIDEzLCAy MDE2IGF0IDEyOjQ0IFBNDQpUbzogTm9ybWFuIEZpbm4gPG5maW5uQGNpc2NvLmNvbT4sIE1pY2hh ZWwgVGVlbmVyIDxNaWtlanRAYnJvYWRjb20uY29tPiwNClBhc2NhbCBUaHViZXJ0IDxwdGh1YmVy dEBjaXNjby5jb20+DQpDYzogImRldG5ldEBpZXRmLm9yZyIgPGRldG5ldEBpZXRmLm9yZz4NClN1 YmplY3Q6IFJFOiBbRGV0bmV0XSBkZXRuZXQgYXJjaGl0ZWN0dXJlLCBhbmQgcHJpdmFjeSBjb25z aWRlcmF0aW9ucw0KDQo+SGkgTm9ybSwgUGFzY2FsLCBNaWNoYWVsLA0KPkkgcmVhZCBvdmVyIHRo ZSBhcmNoaXRlY3R1cmUgZG9jIGFnYWluIGFuZCBJIGZvdW5kIGl0IHF1aXRlIHJlYWRhYmxlLiBJ DQo+Y2FtZSB1cCB3aXRoIGEgZmV3IG1pbm9yIHR5cG9zIGFuZCBhIGNvdXBsZSBvZiBxdWVzdGlv bnMsIGJlbG93Lg0KPkV0aGFuLg0KPi0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t DQo+MSkgICIgV2hlbiBjb21iaW5pbmcgbWVtYmVyIGZsb3dzIHRoYXQgdGFrZSBkaWZmZXJlbnQt bGVuZ3RoIHBhdGhzIHRocm91Z2gNCj4gICB0aGUgbmV0d29yaywgYW5kIHdoaWNoIGFyZSBhbHNv IGd1YXJhbnRlZWQgYSB3b3JzdC1jYXNlIGxhdGVuY3kgYnkNCj4gICBwYWNrZXQgc2hhcGluZywg YSBtZXJnZSBwb2ludCBtYXkgcmVxdWlyZSBleHRyYSBidWZmZXJpbmcgdG8gZXF1YWxpemUNCj4g ICB0aGUgZGVsYXlzIG92ZXIgdGhlIGRpZmZlcmVudCBwYXRocy4gIFRoaXMgZXF1YWxpemF0aW9u IGVuc3VyZXMgdGhhdA0KPiAgIHRoZSByZXN1bHRhbnQgY29tcG91bmQgZmxvdyB3aWxsIG5vdCBl eGNlZWQgaXRzIGNvbnRyYWN0ZWQgYmFuZHdpZHRoDQo+ICAgZXZlbiBhZnRlciBvbmUgb3IgdGhl IG90aGVyIG9mIHRoZSBwYXRocyBpcyByZXN0b3JlZCBhZnRlciBhIGZhaWx1cmUuIg0KPg0KPi0t PiBJcyB0aGUgcG9pbnQgdGhhdCB0aGUgZmxvdyB3aXRoIGxvbmdlciBsYXRlbmN5IGluaGVyZW50 bHkgcmVxdWlyZXMNCj5tb3JlIGJ1ZmZlcmluZywgYW5kIHRoYXQgc3VjaCBidWZmZXJpbmcgaXMg ZGlyZWN0bHkgcmVsYXRlZCB0byBpdHMNCj5jb250cmFjdGVkIGJhbmR3aWR0aD8gVGhlIGJhZCBj YXNlIGFwcGFyZW50bHkgd291bGQgYmUgaWYgdW5lcXVhbCBsYXRlbmN5DQo+cGF0aHMgd2VyZSBu b3QgZXF1YWxpemVkLCB0aGVuIHNheSB0aGUgc2hvcnQgb25lIGZhaWxlZCBsZWF2aW5nIHRoZSBs b25nDQo+b25lLCB0aGVuIHRoZSBzaG9ydCBvbmUgd2FzIHJlaW5zdGF0ZWQuLi4gaG93IHdvdWxk IGJhbmR3aWR0aCBiZQ0KPmV4Y2VlZGVkPyBTb21laG93IEknbSBtaXNzaW5nIHNvbWV0aGluZyBo ZXJlLg0KDQpUaGUgcHJvYmxlbSBvY2N1cnMgd2hlbiB0aGUgbG93LWxhdGVuY3kgKHNob3J0KSBw YXRoIGZhaWxzIGFyZSByZWNvdmVycy4NClNlZToNCg0KaHR0cDovL3d3dy5pZWVlODAyLm9yZy8x L2ZpbGVzL3B1YmxpYy9kb2NzMjAxNS9jYi1uZmlubi1zZWFtbGVzcy1pc3N1ZXMtMTAxDQo1LXYw Mi5wZGYNCg0KDQoobm8gdXNlcm5hbWUvcGFzc3dvcmQgcmVxdWlyZWQpIGZvciBhIGZ1bGwgZXhw bGFuYXRpb24uICBCYXNpY2FsbHksIGxldOKAmXMNCnN1cHBvc2UgeW91IGhhdmUgYSAxTWIvcyBy ZXNlcnZhdGlvbiB0aGF0IHlvdeKAmXJlIG11bHRpLXBhdHRpbmcuICBUaGVyZSBpcw0KYSBsb25n IHBhdGggYW5kIGEgc2hvcnQgcGF0aC4gIFdoZW4gdGhlIHNob3J0IHBhdGggZmFpbHMsIHRoZXJl IGlzIGEgZ2FwDQpmb3IgYSB3aGlsZSwgYmVjYXVzZSB0aGUgc2xvdyBwYXRoIGNvbnRhaW5zIG9u bHkgcmVwZWF0cyB1bnRpbCB5b3UgZ2V0IHVwDQp0byB0aGUgcG9pbnQgd2hlcmUgdGhlIHNob3J0 IHBhdGggZmFpbGVkLiAgV2hlbiB0aGUgc2hvcnQgcGF0aCByZWNvdmVycywNCnlvdSBoYXZlIGEg ZG91YmxlIGxvYWQgb2YgZGF0YSB5b3XigJlkIGxpa2UgdG8gdHJhbnNtaXQuICBZb3UgaGF2ZSB0 byBidWZmZXINCnRoYXQgc2hvcnQgcGF0aCBkYXRhIGF0IHRoZSBqdW5jdGlvbiB1bnRpbCB0aGUg c2xvdyBwYXRoIGNhdGNoZXMgdXAsIGFuZA0KdGhlbiBzdGFydCB0aHJvd2luZyBhd2F5IGV2ZXJ5 IG90aGVyIHBhY2tldC4gIElmIHlvdSBkb27igJl0IGJ1ZmZlciwgdGhlbg0KeW91IHdvdWxkIGhh dmUgdG8gcnVuIHRoZSBvdXRwdXQgcG9ydCBhdCA+IDEgTWIvcyB1bnRpbCB5b3UgY2F0Y2ggdXAu DQoNCj4yKSAiVGhlIHByZXNlbmNlIGluIHRoZSBuZXR3b3JrIG9mIHJlbGF5IG5vZGVzIHRoYXQg YXJlIG5vdCBmdWxseSBjYXBhYmxlDQo+ICAgb2Ygb2ZmZXJpbmcgRGV0TmV0IHNlcnZpY2VzIGNv bXBsaWNhdGVzIHRoZSBhYmlsaXR5IG9mIHRoZSByZWxheQ0KPiAgIG5vZGVzIGFuZC9vciBjb250 cm9sbGVyIHRvIGFsbG9jYXRlIHJlc291cmNlcywgYXMgZXh0cmEgYnVmZmVyaW5nLA0KPiAgIGFu ZCB0aHVzIGV4dHJhIGxhdGVuY3ksIG11c3QgYmUgYWxsb2NhdGVkIGF0IHBvaW50cyBkb3duc3Ry ZWFtIGZyb20NCj4gICB0aGUgbm9uLURldE5ldCByZWxheSBub2RlIGZvciBhIERldE5ldCBmbG93 LiINCj4NCj4tLT4gSWYgdGhlIHdvcnN0IGNhc2UgbGF0ZW5jeSBvZiB0aGUgbm9uLURldE5ldCBy ZWxheSBpcyBwb3RlbnRpYWxseQ0KPnVuYm91bmRlZCwgaG93IGNhbiBpbmNsdWRpbmcgaXQgYXMg YSBob3AgZXZlbiB3aXRoIGV4dHJhIGJ1ZmZlcmluZyBhbGxvdw0KPmEgd29yc3QgY2FzZSBsYXRl bmN5IGZvciB0aGUgcGF0aCB0byBiZSBndWFyYW50ZWVkPyBEb2VzICJub3QgZnVsbHkNCj5jYXBh YmxlIiBoYXZlIGFuIGltcGxpY2l0IHNwZWNpZmljIG1lYW5pbmc/DQoNCklmIHRoZSB3b3JzdC1j YXNlIGxhdGVuY3kgb2YgYSBub24tZGV0ZW50IHJlbGF5IGlzIHRydWx5IHVuYm91bmRlZCwgeW91 4oCZcmUNCmhvc2VkLg0KDQpGcm9tIGEgcHJhY3RpY2FsIHN0YW5kcG9pbnQsIHBlb3BsZSBlbmdp bmVlciBuZXR3b3JrcyB0b2RheSBieSB1c2luZyBoaWdoDQpwcmlvcml0eSBmb3IgdGhlIGNyaXRp Y2FsIHRyYWZmaWMsIGFuZCBwdXR0aW5nIG5ldHdvcmsgY29udHJvbCB0cmFmZmljDQooZS5nLiBT cGFubmluZyB0cmVlIG9yIE9TUEYgcGFja2V0cykgYXQgc29tZXRoaW5nIGxvd2VyLiAgUGVvcGxl IGRvDQpuZXR3b3JrIGNhbGN1bHVzIGluIGNvbnRyb2xsZXJzIG9yIG9mZi1saW5lLCBvciBzb21l dGltZXMgc29tZXRoaW5nIGxlc3MNCnNvcGhpc3RpY2F0ZWQgKGUuZy4gYSB3aWxkIGd1ZXNzKSBv biB0aGUgd29yc3QtY2FzZSBsYXRlbmN5IHRocm91Z2ggdGhhdA0KZGV2aWNlLiAgSXQgaXMgdGhl ICh3b3JzdCBjYXNlKSAtIChiZXN0IGNhc2UpIGRpZmZlcmVuY2UgdGhhdCByZXF1aXJlcw0KYnVm ZmVyaW5nIGluIHRoZSBuZXh0IG5vZGUuDQoNCj4zKSBUeXBvIChleHRyYSAid2l0aCIgYXQgImNv ZXhpc3Qgd2l0aCB3aXRoIik6DQo+ICAiIEEgRGV0TmV0IG5ldHdvcmsgc3VwcG9ydHMgdGhlIGRl ZGljYXRpb24gb2YgYSBoaWdoIHByb3BvcnRpb24gKGUuZy4NCj4gICA3NSUpIG9mIHRoZSBuZXR3 b3JrIGJhbmR3aWR0aCB0byBEZXROZXQgZmxvd3MuICBCdXQsIG5vIG1hdHRlciBob3cNCj4gICBt dWNoIGlzIGRlZGljYXRlZCBmb3IgRGV0TmV0IGZsb3dzLCBpdCBpcyBhIGdvYWwgb2YgRGV0TmV0 IHRvIGNvZXhpc3QNCj4gICB3aXRoIHdpdGggZXhpc3RpbmcgQ2xhc3Mgb2YgU2VydmljZSBzY2hl bWVzIChlLmcuLCBEaWZmU2VydikuICBJdCBpcw0KPiAgIGFsc28gaW1wb3J0YW50IHRoYXQgbm9u LURldE5ldCB0cmFmZmljIG5vdCBkaXNydXB0IHRoZSBEZXROZXQgZmxvdywNCj4gICBvZiBjb3Vy c2UgKHNlZSBTZWN0aW9uIDQuNSBhbmQgU2VjdGlvbiA3KS4iDQo+DQo+NCkgVHlwbyAoUGVyLWZG bG93KToNCj4iT25lIG9yIG1vcmUgUENFKHMpIGNvbGxhYm9yYXRlIHRvIGltcGxlbWVudCB0aGUg cmVxdWVzdHMgZnJvbSB0aGUgRk1FDQo+ICAgYXMgUGVyLWZGbG93IFBlci1Ib3AgQmVoYXZpb3Jz IGluc3RhbGxlZCBpbiB0aGUgcmVsYXkgbm9kZXMgZm9yIGVhY2gNCj4gICBpbmRpdmlkdWFsIGZs b3cuIg0KPg0KPjUpIFR5cG8gKGFiZWwpOg0KPiJBIExhYmVsIEVkZ2UgUm91dGVyIChMRVJzKSBt YXkgaGF2ZSBhIGFiZWwgU3dpdGNoZWQgUGF0aCAoTFNQKSINCj4NCj42KSBUeXBvOiAoIl93aXRo XyBhbiB1bmRlcmx5aW5nLi4uIj8pIChtYXliZSBqdXN0IHJlLXVzZSB0aGUgZXh0cmEgd2l0aA0K PmZyb20gaXRlbSAzKQ0KPiAiIFRoZSBpbnRlZ3JhdGlvbi9pbnRlcmFjdGlvbiBvZiB0aGUgRGV0 TmV0IGNvbnRyb2wgbGF5ZXIgYW4gdW5kZXJseWluZw0KPiAgIElFRUUgODAyLjEgc3ViLW5ldHdv cmsgY29udHJvbCBsYXllciB3aWxsIG5lZWQgdG8gYmUgZGVmaW5lZC4iDQoNCkdvdCDigJhlbS4g IFRoYW5rcy4NCg0KPjcpIE5lZWQgcmVmZXJlbmNlcyAoZXZlbnR1YWxseS4uLik6DQo+IlRoZXJl IGV4aXN0IHRlY2huaXF1ZXMsIGF0IHByZXNlbnQgYW5kL29yIGluIHZhcmlvdXMgc3RhZ2VzIG9m DQo+ICAgc3RhbmRhcmRpemF0aW9uLCB0aGF0IGNhbiBwZXJmb3JtIHRoZXNlIGZhdWx0IG1pdGln YXRpb24gdGFza3MiDQo+LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0NCg0KU2hv dWxkbuKAmXQgYmUgaGFyZCB0byBwcm92aWRlIG5vbi1ub3JtYXRpdmUgcmVmZXJlbmNlcy4NCg0K VGhhbmtzLCBFdGhhbi4NCg0K4oCUIE5vcm0NCg0K From nobody Fri Jun 24 09:08:06 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: detnet@ietf.org Delivered-To: detnet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7807C12DCA9; Fri, 24 Jun 2016 09:00:58 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "\"IETF Secretariat\"" To: , X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.24.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20160624160058.10933.29342.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 09:00:58 -0700 Archived-At: Cc: detnet@ietf.org, db3546@att.com Subject: [Detnet] detnet - Requested session has been scheduled for IETF 96 X-BeenThere: detnet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 List-Id: Discussions on Deterministic Networking BoF and Proposed WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 16:01:01 -0000 Dear Lou Berger, The session(s) that you have requested have been scheduled. Below is the scheduled session information followed by the original request. detnet Session 1 (2:00:00) Monday, Afternoon Session III 1800-2000 Room Name: Bellevue size: 200 --------------------------------------------- Request Information: --------------------------------------------------------- Working Group Name: Deterministic Networking Area Name: Routing Area Session Requester: Lou Berger Number of Sessions: 1 Length of Session(s): 2 Hours Number of Attendees: 100 Conflicts to Avoid: First Priority: mpls netmod ccamp teas pce 6tisch dime dmm Second Priority: bess pals tsvwg nvo3 Special Requests: --------------------------------------------------------- From nobody Fri Jun 24 19:49:05 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: detnet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: detnet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3535812D7F3 for ; Fri, 24 Jun 2016 19:49:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.701 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.701 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=broadcom.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MMqOOiapBl2p for ; Fri, 24 Jun 2016 19:49:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pa0-x22a.google.com (mail-pa0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::22a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EAEE112D5C8 for ; Fri, 24 Jun 2016 19:49:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pa0-x22a.google.com with SMTP id bz2so42366368pad.1 for ; Fri, 24 Jun 2016 19:49:01 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=broadcom.com; s=google; h=reply-to:to:cc:from:subject:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding; bh=cR6AixzT6HwD5DtuC7U/l1j6ug98s8l1ly2fatpgpgw=; b=SNeTVIX+L9fpFXXXBIF3ivwfYdGHAN0HglsEyRpn1a3oEnr+0SFN9cYHCoIaNhak+V LbbScs4Lr9aWl2ODrvk7K/ptRwZAo5I1UKPy240v6T0nYeo3ynHvWGFZgv3oaBI2xm1Z QL5svswSyJEbAyKYHo/c5Mu+a5uOnwVZrj41c= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:reply-to:to:cc:from:subject:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=cR6AixzT6HwD5DtuC7U/l1j6ug98s8l1ly2fatpgpgw=; b=DZV+JHnuyJtl3N4yaLm+KEqfKIyZGoVkjp+whQASfxOBVpNm5BRk+ghcwWXVk5v4Yl jTxUWMzzA/bbMwqZTNcJsHdDhEK78bJXkhTa1jE1YeGEAx93eGwuiFJhmWxvARiF62wk rYoE7fT1m1TQarbBqfDUBzmo03/hUHCwrHprcL0z6y/IR7pOwU1tYN3+KXCfm/KNYvQ4 FwFUstFSDV0c3zX7YYmqL1bZbvxbxBq401jFtcBkO2mVimymVMOtxyCp170tgJUZc8ID JgxwVQPhZ1914fMoF1SrgvA+St4RmvV2o+bST/iq40v4uBq4EpblNukLk09yZK9bKyA6 G1gQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tL4NavFmGCd6s38aPUhaiGJhZe7vm/mlImM6UvQA0Rcpw9LTwldZNs6pCE1S59H4SmP X-Received: by 10.66.85.197 with SMTP id j5mr13122842paz.87.1466822939386; Fri, 24 Jun 2016 19:48:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.240.245.72] (5520-maca-inet1-outside.broadcom.com. [216.31.211.11]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id a85sm3084400pfj.42.2016.06.24.19.48.55 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 24 Jun 2016 19:48:58 -0700 (PDT) To: DetNet WG From: Jouni Korhonen Message-ID: Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 19:48:46 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.1.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Cc: "jouni.korhonen@broadcom.com" , "detnet-chairs@ietf.org" Subject: [Detnet] Agenda requests for IETF96 in Berlin X-BeenThere: detnet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list Reply-To: jouni.korhonen@broadcom.com List-Id: Discussions on Deterministic Networking BoF and Proposed WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2016 02:49:04 -0000 Folks, The preliminary agenda was published last Friday, see https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/96/agenda.html. DetNet WG is on air 18:00-20:00 Monday Afternoon session III July 18th in Bellevue. If you'd like to have a presentation slot in Berlin, please send a request to the chairs and me by Friday July 1st. Also pay attention to the important dates listed below. Specifically, the document submission deadline is UTC 23:59 on July 8th. When requesting a slot having a draft that has alrady been seen and discussed on the list is highly encouraged. Any WG draft not being discussed/presented needs to a status update sent to the list by Friday July 15th. Please also provide a summary slide by Saturday, July 16th. We'll need all slides for presentations by Saturday, July 16th. The earlier, the better, though. Cheers, Jouni, Lou & Pat PS: Important dates follow: 2016-07-08 (Friday): Internet Draft submission cut-off (for all drafts, including -00) by UTC 23:59, upload using IETF ID Submission Tool. 2016-07-08 (Friday): Draft Working Group agendas due by UTC 23:59, upload using IETF Meeting Materials Management Tool. 2016-07-08 (Friday): Early Bird registration and payment cut-off at UTC 23:59. 2016-07-11 (Monday): Revised Working Group agendas due by UTC 23:59, upload using IETF Meeting Materials Management Tool. 2016-07-11 (Monday): Registration cancellation cut-off at UTC 23:59. 2016-07-15 (Friday): Final Pre-Registration and Pre-Payment cut-off at 17:00 local meeting time. 2016-07-17 - 2016-07-22: IETF 96 in Berlin, Germany From nobody Mon Jun 27 19:09:36 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: detnet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: detnet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCE5F12D575 for ; Mon, 27 Jun 2016 19:09:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.621 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.621 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4-N8X2px9zc8 for ; Mon, 27 Jun 2016 19:09:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx0b-000fd501.pphosted.com (mx0b-000fd501.pphosted.com [67.231.152.235]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 997EC12D544 for ; Mon, 27 Jun 2016 19:09:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pps.filterd (m0000695.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-000fd501.pphosted.com (8.16.0.17/8.16.0.17) with SMTP id u5S26DI5021663; Mon, 27 Jun 2016 19:09:30 -0700 Received: from dlb-xchpw05.dolby.net (dce-outbound.dolby.com [199.71.239.48]) by mx0b-000fd501.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 23sqr5ygu6-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 27 Jun 2016 19:09:30 -0700 Received: from DLB-XCHPW05.dolby.net (10.207.132.171) by DLB-XCHPW05.dolby.net (10.207.132.171) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1076.9; Mon, 27 Jun 2016 19:09:15 -0700 Received: from DLB-XCHPW05.dolby.net ([10.107.4.207]) by DLB-XCHPW05.dolby.net ([10.107.4.207]) with mapi id 15.00.1076.000; Mon, 27 Jun 2016 19:09:15 -0700 From: "Grossman, Ethan A." To: "Norman Finn (nfinn)" , "Michael Johas Teener (Mikejt@broadcom.com)" , "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" Thread-Topic: [Detnet] detnet architecture, and privacy considerations Thread-Index: AQHRwPS7FC2sfBXT/0a/aBwTqWBtoJ/g2gWAgAAjYYCABtJcsIAOwAQAgAeyZAA= Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2016 02:09:15 +0000 Message-ID: References: <966d4358-df7a-149a-0975-56bf59b18d3d@labn.net> <74F55CF7-BA44-493A-9698-3B6B0212C8CC@broadcom.com> <6e255e4c6bb34d93a15d8b5516ec92f8@DLB-XCHPW03.dolby.net> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [10.207.133.62] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:, , definitions=2016-06-28_01:, , signatures=0 Archived-At: Cc: "detnet@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Detnet] detnet architecture, and privacy considerations X-BeenThere: detnet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions on Deterministic Networking BoF and Proposed WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2016 02:09:36 -0000 R290IGl0LCBhbGwgY2xlYXIgbm93LCB0aGFua3MgTm9ybS4gDQpFdGhhbi4NCg0KLS0tLS1Pcmln aW5hbCBNZXNzYWdlLS0tLS0NCkZyb206IE5vcm1hbiBGaW5uIChuZmlubikgW21haWx0bzpuZmlu bkBjaXNjby5jb21dIA0KU2VudDogV2VkbmVzZGF5LCBKdW5lIDIyLCAyMDE2IDI6MzcgUE0NClRv OiBHcm9zc21hbiwgRXRoYW4gQS47IE1pY2hhZWwgSm9oYXMgVGVlbmVyIChNaWtlanRAYnJvYWRj b20uY29tKTsgUGFzY2FsIFRodWJlcnQgKHB0aHViZXJ0KQ0KQ2M6IGRldG5ldEBpZXRmLm9yZw0K U3ViamVjdDogUmU6IFtEZXRuZXRdIGRldG5ldCBhcmNoaXRlY3R1cmUsIGFuZCBwcml2YWN5IGNv bnNpZGVyYXRpb25zDQoNClNlZSBpbi1saW5lDQoNCi0tLS0tT3JpZ2luYWwgTWVzc2FnZS0tLS0t DQpGcm9tOiAiR3Jvc3NtYW4sIEV0aGFuIEEuIiA8ZWFncm9zQGRvbGJ5LmNvbT4NCkRhdGU6IE1v bmRheSwgSnVuZSAxMywgMjAxNiBhdCAxMjo0NCBQTQ0KVG86IE5vcm1hbiBGaW5uIDxuZmlubkBj aXNjby5jb20+LCBNaWNoYWVsIFRlZW5lciA8TWlrZWp0QGJyb2FkY29tLmNvbT4sIFBhc2NhbCBU aHViZXJ0IDxwdGh1YmVydEBjaXNjby5jb20+DQpDYzogImRldG5ldEBpZXRmLm9yZyIgPGRldG5l dEBpZXRmLm9yZz4NClN1YmplY3Q6IFJFOiBbRGV0bmV0XSBkZXRuZXQgYXJjaGl0ZWN0dXJlLCBh bmQgcHJpdmFjeSBjb25zaWRlcmF0aW9ucw0KDQo+SGkgTm9ybSwgUGFzY2FsLCBNaWNoYWVsLA0K PkkgcmVhZCBvdmVyIHRoZSBhcmNoaXRlY3R1cmUgZG9jIGFnYWluIGFuZCBJIGZvdW5kIGl0IHF1 aXRlIHJlYWRhYmxlLiBJIA0KPmNhbWUgdXAgd2l0aCBhIGZldyBtaW5vciB0eXBvcyBhbmQgYSBj b3VwbGUgb2YgcXVlc3Rpb25zLCBiZWxvdy4NCj5FdGhhbi4NCj4tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLQ0KPjEpICAiIFdoZW4gY29tYmluaW5nIG1lbWJlciBmbG93cyB0aGF0 IHRha2UgZGlmZmVyZW50LWxlbmd0aCBwYXRocyB0aHJvdWdoDQo+ICAgdGhlIG5ldHdvcmssIGFu ZCB3aGljaCBhcmUgYWxzbyBndWFyYW50ZWVkIGEgd29yc3QtY2FzZSBsYXRlbmN5IGJ5DQo+ICAg cGFja2V0IHNoYXBpbmcsIGEgbWVyZ2UgcG9pbnQgbWF5IHJlcXVpcmUgZXh0cmEgYnVmZmVyaW5n IHRvIGVxdWFsaXplDQo+ICAgdGhlIGRlbGF5cyBvdmVyIHRoZSBkaWZmZXJlbnQgcGF0aHMuICBU aGlzIGVxdWFsaXphdGlvbiBlbnN1cmVzIHRoYXQNCj4gICB0aGUgcmVzdWx0YW50IGNvbXBvdW5k IGZsb3cgd2lsbCBub3QgZXhjZWVkIGl0cyBjb250cmFjdGVkIGJhbmR3aWR0aA0KPiAgIGV2ZW4g YWZ0ZXIgb25lIG9yIHRoZSBvdGhlciBvZiB0aGUgcGF0aHMgaXMgcmVzdG9yZWQgYWZ0ZXIgYSBm YWlsdXJlLiINCj4NCj4tLT4gSXMgdGhlIHBvaW50IHRoYXQgdGhlIGZsb3cgd2l0aCBsb25nZXIg bGF0ZW5jeSBpbmhlcmVudGx5IHJlcXVpcmVzDQo+bW9yZSBidWZmZXJpbmcsIGFuZCB0aGF0IHN1 Y2ggYnVmZmVyaW5nIGlzIGRpcmVjdGx5IHJlbGF0ZWQgdG8gaXRzIA0KPmNvbnRyYWN0ZWQgYmFu ZHdpZHRoPyBUaGUgYmFkIGNhc2UgYXBwYXJlbnRseSB3b3VsZCBiZSBpZiB1bmVxdWFsIA0KPmxh dGVuY3kgcGF0aHMgd2VyZSBub3QgZXF1YWxpemVkLCB0aGVuIHNheSB0aGUgc2hvcnQgb25lIGZh aWxlZCBsZWF2aW5nIA0KPnRoZSBsb25nIG9uZSwgdGhlbiB0aGUgc2hvcnQgb25lIHdhcyByZWlu c3RhdGVkLi4uIGhvdyB3b3VsZCBiYW5kd2lkdGggDQo+YmUgZXhjZWVkZWQ/IFNvbWVob3cgSSdt IG1pc3Npbmcgc29tZXRoaW5nIGhlcmUuDQoNClRoZSBwcm9ibGVtIG9jY3VycyB3aGVuIHRoZSBs b3ctbGF0ZW5jeSAoc2hvcnQpIHBhdGggZmFpbHMgYXJlIHJlY292ZXJzLg0KU2VlOg0KDQpodHRw Oi8vd3d3LmllZWU4MDIub3JnLzEvZmlsZXMvcHVibGljL2RvY3MyMDE1L2NiLW5maW5uLXNlYW1s ZXNzLWlzc3Vlcy0xMDENCjUtdjAyLnBkZg0KDQoNCihubyB1c2VybmFtZS9wYXNzd29yZCByZXF1 aXJlZCkgZm9yIGEgZnVsbCBleHBsYW5hdGlvbi4gIEJhc2ljYWxseSwgbGV04oCZcyBzdXBwb3Nl IHlvdSBoYXZlIGEgMU1iL3MgcmVzZXJ2YXRpb24gdGhhdCB5b3XigJlyZSBtdWx0aS1wYXR0aW5n LiAgVGhlcmUgaXMgYSBsb25nIHBhdGggYW5kIGEgc2hvcnQgcGF0aC4gIFdoZW4gdGhlIHNob3J0 IHBhdGggZmFpbHMsIHRoZXJlIGlzIGEgZ2FwIGZvciBhIHdoaWxlLCBiZWNhdXNlIHRoZSBzbG93 IHBhdGggY29udGFpbnMgb25seSByZXBlYXRzIHVudGlsIHlvdSBnZXQgdXAgdG8gdGhlIHBvaW50 IHdoZXJlIHRoZSBzaG9ydCBwYXRoIGZhaWxlZC4gIFdoZW4gdGhlIHNob3J0IHBhdGggcmVjb3Zl cnMsIHlvdSBoYXZlIGEgZG91YmxlIGxvYWQgb2YgZGF0YSB5b3XigJlkIGxpa2UgdG8gdHJhbnNt aXQuICBZb3UgaGF2ZSB0byBidWZmZXIgdGhhdCBzaG9ydCBwYXRoIGRhdGEgYXQgdGhlIGp1bmN0 aW9uIHVudGlsIHRoZSBzbG93IHBhdGggY2F0Y2hlcyB1cCwgYW5kIHRoZW4gc3RhcnQgdGhyb3dp bmcgYXdheSBldmVyeSBvdGhlciBwYWNrZXQuICBJZiB5b3UgZG9u4oCZdCBidWZmZXIsIHRoZW4g eW91IHdvdWxkIGhhdmUgdG8gcnVuIHRoZSBvdXRwdXQgcG9ydCBhdCA+IDEgTWIvcyB1bnRpbCB5 b3UgY2F0Y2ggdXAuDQoNCj4yKSAiVGhlIHByZXNlbmNlIGluIHRoZSBuZXR3b3JrIG9mIHJlbGF5 IG5vZGVzIHRoYXQgYXJlIG5vdCBmdWxseSBjYXBhYmxlDQo+ICAgb2Ygb2ZmZXJpbmcgRGV0TmV0 IHNlcnZpY2VzIGNvbXBsaWNhdGVzIHRoZSBhYmlsaXR5IG9mIHRoZSByZWxheQ0KPiAgIG5vZGVz IGFuZC9vciBjb250cm9sbGVyIHRvIGFsbG9jYXRlIHJlc291cmNlcywgYXMgZXh0cmEgYnVmZmVy aW5nLA0KPiAgIGFuZCB0aHVzIGV4dHJhIGxhdGVuY3ksIG11c3QgYmUgYWxsb2NhdGVkIGF0IHBv aW50cyBkb3duc3RyZWFtIGZyb20NCj4gICB0aGUgbm9uLURldE5ldCByZWxheSBub2RlIGZvciBh IERldE5ldCBmbG93LiINCj4NCj4tLT4gSWYgdGhlIHdvcnN0IGNhc2UgbGF0ZW5jeSBvZiB0aGUg bm9uLURldE5ldCByZWxheSBpcyBwb3RlbnRpYWxseQ0KPnVuYm91bmRlZCwgaG93IGNhbiBpbmNs dWRpbmcgaXQgYXMgYSBob3AgZXZlbiB3aXRoIGV4dHJhIGJ1ZmZlcmluZyANCj5hbGxvdyBhIHdv cnN0IGNhc2UgbGF0ZW5jeSBmb3IgdGhlIHBhdGggdG8gYmUgZ3VhcmFudGVlZD8gRG9lcyAibm90 IA0KPmZ1bGx5IGNhcGFibGUiIGhhdmUgYW4gaW1wbGljaXQgc3BlY2lmaWMgbWVhbmluZz8NCg0K SWYgdGhlIHdvcnN0LWNhc2UgbGF0ZW5jeSBvZiBhIG5vbi1kZXRlbnQgcmVsYXkgaXMgdHJ1bHkg dW5ib3VuZGVkLCB5b3XigJlyZSBob3NlZC4NCg0KRnJvbSBhIHByYWN0aWNhbCBzdGFuZHBvaW50 LCBwZW9wbGUgZW5naW5lZXIgbmV0d29ya3MgdG9kYXkgYnkgdXNpbmcgaGlnaCBwcmlvcml0eSBm b3IgdGhlIGNyaXRpY2FsIHRyYWZmaWMsIGFuZCBwdXR0aW5nIG5ldHdvcmsgY29udHJvbCB0cmFm ZmljIChlLmcuIFNwYW5uaW5nIHRyZWUgb3IgT1NQRiBwYWNrZXRzKSBhdCBzb21ldGhpbmcgbG93 ZXIuICBQZW9wbGUgZG8gbmV0d29yayBjYWxjdWx1cyBpbiBjb250cm9sbGVycyBvciBvZmYtbGlu ZSwgb3Igc29tZXRpbWVzIHNvbWV0aGluZyBsZXNzIHNvcGhpc3RpY2F0ZWQgKGUuZy4gYSB3aWxk IGd1ZXNzKSBvbiB0aGUgd29yc3QtY2FzZSBsYXRlbmN5IHRocm91Z2ggdGhhdCBkZXZpY2UuICBJ dCBpcyB0aGUgKHdvcnN0IGNhc2UpIC0gKGJlc3QgY2FzZSkgZGlmZmVyZW5jZSB0aGF0IHJlcXVp cmVzIGJ1ZmZlcmluZyBpbiB0aGUgbmV4dCBub2RlLg0KDQo+MykgVHlwbyAoZXh0cmEgIndpdGgi IGF0ICJjb2V4aXN0IHdpdGggd2l0aCIpOg0KPiAgIiBBIERldE5ldCBuZXR3b3JrIHN1cHBvcnRz IHRoZSBkZWRpY2F0aW9uIG9mIGEgaGlnaCBwcm9wb3J0aW9uIChlLmcuDQo+ICAgNzUlKSBvZiB0 aGUgbmV0d29yayBiYW5kd2lkdGggdG8gRGV0TmV0IGZsb3dzLiAgQnV0LCBubyBtYXR0ZXIgaG93 DQo+ICAgbXVjaCBpcyBkZWRpY2F0ZWQgZm9yIERldE5ldCBmbG93cywgaXQgaXMgYSBnb2FsIG9m IERldE5ldCB0byBjb2V4aXN0DQo+ICAgd2l0aCB3aXRoIGV4aXN0aW5nIENsYXNzIG9mIFNlcnZp Y2Ugc2NoZW1lcyAoZS5nLiwgRGlmZlNlcnYpLiAgSXQgaXMNCj4gICBhbHNvIGltcG9ydGFudCB0 aGF0IG5vbi1EZXROZXQgdHJhZmZpYyBub3QgZGlzcnVwdCB0aGUgRGV0TmV0IGZsb3csDQo+ICAg b2YgY291cnNlIChzZWUgU2VjdGlvbiA0LjUgYW5kIFNlY3Rpb24gNykuIg0KPg0KPjQpIFR5cG8g KFBlci1mRmxvdyk6DQo+Ik9uZSBvciBtb3JlIFBDRShzKSBjb2xsYWJvcmF0ZSB0byBpbXBsZW1l bnQgdGhlIHJlcXVlc3RzIGZyb20gdGhlIEZNRQ0KPiAgIGFzIFBlci1mRmxvdyBQZXItSG9wIEJl aGF2aW9ycyBpbnN0YWxsZWQgaW4gdGhlIHJlbGF5IG5vZGVzIGZvciBlYWNoDQo+ICAgaW5kaXZp ZHVhbCBmbG93LiINCj4NCj41KSBUeXBvIChhYmVsKToNCj4iQSBMYWJlbCBFZGdlIFJvdXRlciAo TEVScykgbWF5IGhhdmUgYSBhYmVsIFN3aXRjaGVkIFBhdGggKExTUCkiDQo+DQo+NikgVHlwbzog KCJfd2l0aF8gYW4gdW5kZXJseWluZy4uLiI/KSAobWF5YmUganVzdCByZS11c2UgdGhlIGV4dHJh IHdpdGggDQo+ZnJvbSBpdGVtIDMpICAiIFRoZSBpbnRlZ3JhdGlvbi9pbnRlcmFjdGlvbiBvZiB0 aGUgRGV0TmV0IGNvbnRyb2wgbGF5ZXIgDQo+YW4gdW5kZXJseWluZw0KPiAgIElFRUUgODAyLjEg c3ViLW5ldHdvcmsgY29udHJvbCBsYXllciB3aWxsIG5lZWQgdG8gYmUgZGVmaW5lZC4iDQoNCkdv dCDigJhlbS4gIFRoYW5rcy4NCg0KPjcpIE5lZWQgcmVmZXJlbmNlcyAoZXZlbnR1YWxseS4uLik6 DQo+IlRoZXJlIGV4aXN0IHRlY2huaXF1ZXMsIGF0IHByZXNlbnQgYW5kL29yIGluIHZhcmlvdXMg c3RhZ2VzIG9mDQo+ICAgc3RhbmRhcmRpemF0aW9uLCB0aGF0IGNhbiBwZXJmb3JtIHRoZXNlIGZh dWx0IG1pdGlnYXRpb24gdGFza3MiDQo+LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0NCg0KU2hvdWxkbuKAmXQgYmUgaGFyZCB0byBwcm92aWRlIG5vbi1ub3JtYXRpdmUgcmVmZXJl bmNlcy4NCg0KVGhhbmtzLCBFdGhhbi4NCg0K4oCUIE5vcm0NCg0K From nobody Tue Jun 28 07:48:50 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: detnet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: detnet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E701912B051 for ; Tue, 28 Jun 2016 07:48:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -15.947 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.947 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lcFeDPQZpXbB for ; Tue, 28 Jun 2016 07:48:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from alln-iport-6.cisco.com (alln-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.142.93]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8588E1288B8 for ; Tue, 28 Jun 2016 07:48:37 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=456; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1467125317; x=1468334917; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:content-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=x3RR9EhIbfVRGI6iR1Xyhv4jK9FcUSuiLFRfZdkS0hE=; b=Si83eXbL7hXUzxHD0TXWG0WsJSPeIm4Ior2QDbn4xiJoCZZayVl1WbyN Sg3OYoh0bC2SVwRswJk+Zy4ep05LaUkP04Eua/7raPViHBTuwN4vWb+/+ Rlbs3r+ULBi2Tw82HrU0w14Reag/RObGlJLU1QSnOPFrwXBTmy+T3S1Yq k=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AOAgAKjXJX/4QNJK1bgz6BWborgXuGG?= =?us-ascii?q?B6BEzgUAQEBAQEBAWUnhE0CBCMRRRIBCBoCJgIEMBUSBA6INbJwkDQBAQEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEcgQGFJ4F3CIJOhECDASuCLwWZAgGOOYFTAY1Qj34BH?= =?us-ascii?q?jaDcIkffwEBAQ?= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.26,541,1459814400"; d="scan'208";a="291083511" Received: from alln-core-10.cisco.com ([173.36.13.132]) by alln-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 28 Jun 2016 14:48:36 +0000 Received: from XCH-RTP-015.cisco.com (xch-rtp-015.cisco.com [64.101.220.155]) by alln-core-10.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u5SEma3w026976 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 28 Jun 2016 14:48:36 GMT Received: from xch-rtp-014.cisco.com (64.101.220.154) by XCH-RTP-015.cisco.com (64.101.220.155) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Tue, 28 Jun 2016 10:48:35 -0400 Received: from xch-rtp-014.cisco.com ([64.101.220.154]) by XCH-RTP-014.cisco.com ([64.101.220.154]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Tue, 28 Jun 2016 10:48:35 -0400 From: "Patrick Wetterwald (pwetterw)" To: "Grossman, Ethan A." Thread-Topic: [Detnet] DetNet Use Case Statements - Asymmetric delay Thread-Index: AQHR0Uwmpf0WXWHae0WuSa3EIv+9Aw== Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2016 14:48:35 +0000 Message-ID: <10F7191E-A160-4617-9777-41D6AC1B2D76@cisco.com> Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/f.15.1.160411 x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1 x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [10.228.216.31] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-ID: <0A63724BF08D0C4B8B8B14FABA728FB7@emea.cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Cc: "detnet@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Detnet] DetNet Use Case Statements - Asymmetric delay X-BeenThere: detnet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions on Deterministic Networking BoF and Proposed WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2016 14:48:48 -0000 SGkgRXRoYW4sDQoNCkkgd291bGQgbGlrZSB0byBkb3VibGUtY2hlY2sgYSBzcGVjaWZpYyB1dGls aXR5IHJlcXVpcmVtZW50IHdoaWNoIGlzIHRoZSBBc3ltbWV0cmljIGRlbGF5Lg0KDQpJbiB0ZWxl IHByb3RlY3Rpb24gdXNlIGNhc2VzLCBpdCByZXF1aXJlcyB0aGF0IHRoZSBkZWxheSBpbiBib3Ro IGRpcmVjdGlvbnMgYmUgdGhlIHNhbWUuIA0KDQpJdCBtYXkgYmUgZ29vZCBpbiB0aGUgVXRpbGl0 eSByZXF1aXJlbWVudHMgc3VtbWFyeSAoMy40KSB0byBhZGQgdGhpcyBzcGVjaWZpYyByZXF1aXJl bWVudDogQXN5bW1ldHJpYyBEZWxheS4NCg0KVGhhbmtzLA0KDQpQYXRyaWNrDQo= From nobody Tue Jun 28 09:07:55 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: detnet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: detnet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE69D12D54C for ; Tue, 28 Jun 2016 09:07:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.621 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.621 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ONrK6bIMVdNo for ; Tue, 28 Jun 2016 09:07:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx0b-000fd501.pphosted.com (mx0b-000fd501.pphosted.com [67.231.152.235]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 854FE12B00C for ; Tue, 28 Jun 2016 08:57:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pps.filterd (m0000695.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-000fd501.pphosted.com (8.16.0.17/8.16.0.17) with SMTP id u5SFtiQX010025; Tue, 28 Jun 2016 08:57:54 -0700 Received: from dlb-xchpw06.dolby.net (dce-outbound.dolby.com [199.71.239.48]) by mx0b-000fd501.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 23sqr626hn-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 28 Jun 2016 08:57:54 -0700 Received: from DLB-XCHPW05.dolby.net (10.207.132.171) by DLB-XCHPW06.dolby.net (10.207.132.172) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1076.9; Tue, 28 Jun 2016 08:57:39 -0700 Received: from DLB-XCHPW05.dolby.net ([10.107.4.207]) by DLB-XCHPW05.dolby.net ([10.107.4.207]) with mapi id 15.00.1076.000; Tue, 28 Jun 2016 08:57:39 -0700 From: "Grossman, Ethan A." To: "Patrick Wetterwald (pwetterw)" Thread-Topic: [Detnet] DetNet Use Case Statements - Asymmetric delay Thread-Index: AQHR0Uwmpf0WXWHae0WuSa3EIv+9A5//COFC Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2016 15:57:39 +0000 Message-ID: <1467129468175.25676@dolby.com> References: <10F7191E-A160-4617-9777-41D6AC1B2D76@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <10F7191E-A160-4617-9777-41D6AC1B2D76@cisco.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [10.207.133.62] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:, , definitions=2016-06-28_10:, , signatures=0 Archived-At: Cc: "detnet@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Detnet] DetNet Use Case Statements - Asymmetric delay X-BeenThere: detnet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions on Deterministic Networking BoF and Proposed WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2016 16:07:54 -0000 OK, will do, thank you Patrick. =0A= Ethan.=0A= ________________________________________=0A= From: Patrick Wetterwald (pwetterw) =0A= Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 7:48 AM=0A= To: Grossman, Ethan A.=0A= Cc: detnet@ietf.org=0A= Subject: Re: [Detnet] DetNet Use Case Statements - Asymmetric delay=0A= =0A= Hi Ethan,=0A= =0A= I would like to double-check a specific utility requirement which is the As= ymmetric delay.=0A= =0A= In tele protection use cases, it requires that the delay in both directions= be the same.=0A= =0A= It may be good in the Utility requirements summary (3.4) to add this specif= ic requirement: Asymmetric Delay.=0A= =0A= Thanks,=0A= =0A= Patrick=0A=