| Internet-Draft | Data Fields for Enhanced DetNet | July 2025 |
| Xiong, et al. | Expires 2 January 2026 | [Page] |
The DetNet-specific metadata should be carried in enhanced data plane based on the enhancement requirements. This document proposes the common DetNet data fields and option types such as Aggregation Option and Deterministic Latency Option. The common DetNet Data-Fields can be encapsulated into a variety of protocols such as MPLS, IPv6 and SRv6 networks.¶
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.¶
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.¶
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."¶
This Internet-Draft will expire on 2 January 2026.¶
Copyright (c) 2025 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.¶
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.¶
According to [RFC8655], Deterministic Networking (DetNet) operates at the IP layer and delivers service which provides extremely low data loss rates and bounded latency within a network domain. DetNet data planes has been specified in [RFC8938]. As described in [RFC9320], the end-to-end bounded latency depends on the value of queuing delay bound along with the queuing mechanisms. Multiple queuing mechanisms has been proposed to guarantee the bounded latency in IEEE802.1 TSN (Time-Sensitive Networking) Task Group. But the existing deterministic technologies are facing large-scale number of nodes and long-distance transmission, traffic scheduling, dynamic flows, and other controversial issues in large-scale networks. The DetNet is required to support a enhanced data plane method of flow identification and packet treatment.¶
For scaling networks, [I-D.ietf-detnet-scaling-requirements] has described the enhancement requirements for DetNet enhanced data plane, such as aggregated flow identification and deterministic latency guarantees. For example, the flow identification with service-level aggregation and explicit aggregated flow identification should be supported. And queuing mechanisms and solutions require different information to be defined as the DetNet-specific metadata to help the functions of ensuring deterministic latency, including regulation, queue management, etc. Several data plane enhancement solutions and queuing mechanisms have been discussed in DetNet. And [I-D.ietf-detnet-dataplane-taxonomy] has defined the classification criteria and the suitable categories for DetNet data plane solutions.¶
This document proposes the specific metadata which should be carried in DetNet Enhanced Data Plane (EDP) and proposes the common DetNet data fields and option types such as Aggregation Option and Deterministic Latency Option. The common DetNet Data-Fields can be encapsulated into a variety of protocols such as MPLS, IPv6 and SRv6 networks.¶
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 {RFC2119} {RFC8174} when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.¶
This document uses the terms defined in [RFC8655], [RFC8938], [I-D.ietf-detnet-scaling-requirements] and [I-D.ietf-detnet-dataplane-taxonomy].¶
SRH:Segment Routing Header¶
SRv6:Segment Routing for IPv6 forwarding plane¶
DL:Deterministic Latency¶
CSQF:Cycle Specified Queuing and Forwarding¶
TQF:Timeslot Queuing and Forwarding¶
C-SCORE:Work Conserving Stateless Core Fair Queuing¶
EDF:Earliest Deadline First¶
TAS:Time Aware Shaper¶
ATS:Asynchronous Traffic Shaping¶
CQF:Cyclic Queuing and Forwarding¶
FQ:Fair Queuing¶
TSN:Time-Sensitive Networking¶
ECQF:Enhanced Cyclic Queuing and Forwarding¶
gLBF:guaranteed Latency Based Forwarding¶
EDP:DetNet Enhanced Data Plane¶
As per [RFC8655], the DetNet data plane must support the aggregation of DetNet flows in order to support larger numbers of DetNet flows and improve scalability by reducing the per-hop states. And the flow aggregation may be necessary for scaling networks. As per [I-D.ietf-detnet-scaling-requirements], the deterministic services may demand different deterministic QoS requirements according to different levels of application requirements. The flow identification with service-level aggregation and explicit aggregated flow identification should be supported. In DetNet MPLS, A-Label defined as per [RFC8964] can be added explicitly to the packets. But in other DetNet data plane, no aggregated flow specific information is available.¶
Furthermore, it is required to be dynamic and simplified to ensure the aggregated flows have compatible DetNet flow-specific QoS characteristics. The individual flows may be aggregated for treatment based on shared service specification on aggregated-class level which identified by an aggregation class as per [I-D.xiong-detnet-flow-aggregation]. This document proposes the aggregation-based metadata in enhanced data plane for the DetNet nodes along the path to identify the aggregated flow and achieve the end-to-end QoS in scaling networks.¶
As described in [RFC9320], the end-to-end bounded latency depends on the queuing delay bound and the queuing mechanisms. Multiple queuing mechanisms have been proposed such as TAS [IIEEE802.1Qbv], CBS [IEEE802.1Q-2014], ATS [IEEE802.1Qcr], CQF [IEEE802.1Qch] and so on. In scaling networks which has large variation in latency among hops, great number of flows and multiple domains. [I-D.ietf-detnet-scaling-requirements] has described the technical requirements for enhanced data plane solutions. Many variations and extensions of queuing mechanisms have been proposed to resolve the scalability issues in DetNet. For example, the CQF variations for cyclic-based scheduling includes the ECQF [IEEE 802.1Qdv], TCQF [I-D.eckert-detnet-tcqf] and CSQF [I-D.chen-detnet-sr-based-bounded-latency]. The TAS variations for timeslot-based scheduling includes TQF [I-D.peng-detnet-packet-timeslot-mechanism]. The FQ variations for rate-based scheduling includes C-SCORE [I-D.joung-detnet-stateless-fair-queuing], ATS [IEEE802.1Qcr] and gLBF [I-D.eckert-detnet-glbf]. The EDF variations for deadline-based scheduling includes EDF [I-D.peng-detnet-deadline-based-forwarding].¶
And when queuing mechanisms used in large-scale networks, the per-flow states can not be maintained with scalability issues. Some queuing parameters should be carried for coordination between nodes so as to make appropriate packet forwarding and scheduling decisions to meet the time bounds. As per [I-D.ietf-detnet-scaling-requirements], the information used by functions ensuring deterministic latency should be supported as such queuing-based information. And queuing mechanisms and solutions require different information to help the functions of ensuring deterministic latency, including regulation, queue management. The deterministic latency metadata should be defined as the DetNet-specific metadata for DetNet enhanced data plane.¶
[I-D.ietf-detnet-dataplane-taxonomy] has defined the classification criteria and the suitable categories for this solutions. This proposes the deterministic latency metadata align with the categories in enhanced data plane for the DetNet nodes along the path to apply the queuing mechanisms and get the related deterministic latency metadata in the packet to achieve the end-to-end bounded latency.¶
The enhanced functions and related metadata for DetNet should be confirmed before the encapsulations. While more than one metadata should be carried in enhanced data plane, the common DetNet header should be considered to cover all option-types and data as Figure 1.¶
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| DetNet-Type | DetNet-Length | RESERVED |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ DetNet Option and Data Space ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1 DetNet Header for Enhanced Data Plane
¶
DetNet-Type: 8-bit unsigned integer, defining the DetNet Option-type for enhanced DetNet. This document defines two options and option-types:¶
Aggregation Option-Type, TBD1, as defined in section 4.2.¶
Deterministic Latency Option-Type, TBD2, as defined in section 4.3.¶
DetNet-Length: 8-bit unsigned integer, defined the Length of the DetNet Header 4-octet units.¶
DetNet Option and Data Space: variable, it MUST be aligned by 4 octets. It carries data that is added by the DetNet encapsulating node and interpreted by the decapsulating node. The DetNet transit nodes MAY process the data by forwarding the option data determined by option type and may modify it. The DetNet Option consists of a fixed-size "Option Header" and a variable-size "Option Data". The Header and Data may be encapsulated continuously or separately. A Data or more than one Data in lists can be carried in packets.¶
The format of Aggregation Option Header is shown in Figure 2.¶
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Aggregation Type | Flag |E| Data Len |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2 Aggregation Option Header
¶
Aggregation type(16 bits): indicates the aggregation type of packet treatment ensuring the deterministic latency as Figure 3 shown. This type can also indicate the aggregated class.¶
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Value | Aggregation Type |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0x0000 | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0x0100 | Bandwidth guarantee |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0x0200 | Jitter guarantee |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0x0300 | Delay guarantee |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0x0400 | Low delay and jitter guarantee |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0x0500 |Ultra-low delay and jitter guarantee |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3 Aggregation Type
¶
Flag: 8-bit flags field. When E is set to 1, it indicates the explicit aggregated flow identification.¶
Data Len:8-bit unsigned integer. Length of option data, in octets.¶
The related option data is defined as Aggregation Option Data in Figure 4.¶
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Aggregation ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| End-to-end Delay Budget |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| End-to-end Delay Variation Budget |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4 Aggregation Option Data
¶
Aggregation ID: 32bits. It provides explicit and unique identifier for aggregated flow identification. DetNet nodes performing aggregation using aggregation ID.¶
End-to-end Delay Budget: 32bits. It provides the value of end-to-end delay budget for the aggregated flow.¶
End-to-end Delay Variation Budget: 32bits. It provides the value of end-to-end delay variation budget for the aggregated flow.¶
The format of Deterministic Latency Option Header is shown in Figure 5.¶
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Deterministic Latency Type | Flag | Data Len |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 5 Deterministic Latency Option header
¶
Deterministic Latency Type(16 bits): indicates the type of deterministic latency information with related queuing and scheduling metadata and it aglined with the suitable categories as defined in [I-D.ietf-detnet-dataplane-taxonomy] and shown in Figure 6.¶
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Value | Deterministic Latency Type |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0x0000 | Unassigned |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0x0001 | Right-bounded category |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0x0002 | Flow level periodic bounded category |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0x0003 | Class level periodic bounded category |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0x0004 | Flow level non-periodic bounded category |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0x0005 | Class level non-periodic bounded category |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0x0006 | Flow level rate based unbounded category |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0x0007 | Flow level rate based left-bounded category|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 6 Deterministic Latency Type
¶
Flag: 8-bit flags field. Data Len: 8-bit unsigned integer. Length of option data, in octets.¶
The related option data is defined as Deterministic Latency option data which provides function-based or queuing-based information for a node to forward a DetNet flow. The data of which is determined by the deterministic latency type. The DetNet option data can be provided one time or in list. The examples of different types of data is as following sections shown.¶
As per [I-D.ietf-detnet-dataplane-taxonomy], for solutions in the right-bounded category, a packet has only a maximum time bound.¶
When the type is set to 0x0001, indicates the queuing and scheduling solutions in right-bounded category. The data field and related information may be carried and designed as following shown:¶
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Maximum time bound |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 7 Data Field in Right-bounded Category
¶
Maximum time bound: 32bits, indicates the required maximum time bound of a packet.¶
As per [I-D.ietf-detnet-dataplane-taxonomy], the flow Level periodic bounded solutions define a set of time slots, which will be scheduled for flows or flow aggregates.¶
When the type is set to 0x0002, indicates the queuing and scheduling solutions in flow level periodic bounded category. The data field and related information may be carried and designed as following shown:¶
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Timeslot ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 8 Data Field in Flow Level Periodic Bounded Category
¶
Timeslot ID: indicates the identifier of the timeslot scheduled for a flow.¶
As per [I-D.ietf-detnet-dataplane-taxonomy], the periodic bounded solutions can be further categorized by the traffic granularity with class level subcategory. The class Level periodic bounded solutions define a set of cycles and each cycle will be scheduled for flows or flow aggregates within a class level.¶
When the type is set to 0x0003, indicates the queuing and scheduling solutions in class level periodic bounded category. The data field and related information may be carried and designed as following shown:¶
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Cycle ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 9 Data Field in Class Level Periodic Bounded Category
¶
Cycle ID (32bits): indicates the identifer which the queue applied for a node to forward DetNet flows within a class level.¶
As per [I-D.ietf-detnet-dataplane-taxonomy], flow level non-periodic bounded solutions guarantee the minimum and maximum bounds of a packet in a flow or flow aggregate.¶
When the type is set to 0x0004, indicates the queuing and scheduling solutions in flow level non-periodic bounded category The data field and related information may be carried and designed as following shown:¶
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Maximum time bound |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Minimum time bound |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 10 Data Field in Flow Level Non-periodic Bounded Category
¶
Maximum time bound: 32bits, indicates the maximum time bound of a packet in a flow or flow aggregates.¶
Minimum time bound: 32bits, indicates the minimum time bound of a packet in a flow or flow aggregates.¶
As per [I-D.ietf-detnet-dataplane-taxonomy], class level non-periodic bounded solutions guarantee the minimum and maximum bounds of a packet within a class level.¶
When the type is set to 0x0005, indicates the queuing and scheduling solutions in class level non-periodic bounded category. The data field and related information may be carried and designed as following shown:¶
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Maximum time bound |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Minimum time bound |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 11 Data Field in Class Level Non-periodic Bounded Category
¶
Maximum time bound: 32bits, indicates the maximum time bound of a packet within a class level .¶
Minimum time bound: 32bits, indicates the minimum time bound of a packet within a class level.¶
In flow level rate based unbounded category, the latency bound is primarily influenced by the ratio of a flow's maximum packet size, its allocated service rate and completion time.¶
When the type is set to 0x0006, indicates the queuing and scheduling solutions in flow level rate based unbounded category. The data field and related information may be carried and designed as following shown:¶
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Maximum packet size |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Service rate |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Finish time |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 12 Data Field in Flow Level Rate-based Unbounded Category
¶
Maximum packet size: 32 bits, indicates the maximum packet size of a flow.¶
Service rate: 32 bits, indicates the allocated service rate of a flow.¶
Finish time: 32 bits, indicates the required service completion time of a flow.¶
In flow level rate based left-bounded category, the latency bound is primarily influenced by the ratio of a flow's maximum packet size, its allocated service rate, start time and completion time.¶
When the type is set to 0x0007, indicates the queuing and scheduling solutions in flow level Rate based left-bounded category. The data field and related information may be carried and designed as following shown:¶
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Maximum packet size |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Service rate |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Finish time |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Eligible time |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 13 Data Field in Flow Level Rate-based Left-bounded Category
¶
Maximum packet size: 32 bits, indicates the maximum packet size of a flow.¶
Service rate: 32 bits, indicates the allocated service rate of a flow.¶
Finish time: 32 bits, indicates the required service completion time of a flow.¶
Eligible time: 32bits, indicates the required service start time of a flow.¶
The packet treatment should indicate the behaviour action ensuring the deterministic latency at DetNet nodes such as queuing-based mechanisms. The deterministic latency type and related parameters such as queuing-based information should be carried as metadta in data plane. And the definitions may follow these polices.¶
The data plane enhancement must be generic and the format must be applied to all functions and queuing mechanisms. The metadata and definitions should be common among different candidate queuing solutions.¶
Information and metadata MUST be simplified and limited to be carried in DetNet packets for provided deterministic latency related scheduling along the forwarding path. For example, the queuing-based information should be carried in metadata for coordination between nodes.¶
The requirement of the flow or service may be not suitable to be carried explicitly in DetNet data plane. The packet treatment should schedule the resources and indicate the behaviour to ensure the deterministic latency in forwarding sub-layer. So the queuing mechanisms could be viewed as a type of deterministic resources. The resources type and queuing type should be explicitly indicated.¶
Reusing the DSCP or existing field is reasonable and simple to define and easy to standardize. For example, in IPv4 and traditional MPLS networks, it is not suitable to carry new metadata and it is suggested to reuse the original bits such as DSCP as per [I-D.eckert-detnet-tcqf]. The mapping from DSCP and the metadata such as queuing information MUST be provided in the controller plane.¶
DSCP value may be not sufficient and hard to distinguish between the original DiffServ service and the deterministic service. The DetNet-specific metadata can also be encoded as a common data fields and the definition of data fields is independent from the encapsulating protocols. The data fields could be encapsulated into a variety of protocols, such as MPLS MNA [I-D.sxg-mpls-mna-deterministic-latency], IPv6 [I-D.xiong-detnet-6man-queuing-option] and SRv6 [I-D.xiong-detnet-spring-srh-extensions].¶
Security considerations for DetNet are covered in the DetNet Architecture [RFC8655] and DetNet data plane [RFC8938], [RFC8939], [RFC8964] and DetNet security considerations [RFC9055]. The security considerations specified in [I-D.ietf-detnet-scaling-requirements] are also applicable to the procedures defined in this document.¶
IANA has defined a registry group named "DetNet Data Fields". This group includes the DetNet Option-Type registry. This registry defines code points for the DetNet Option-Type field for identifying DetNet-Option-Types. The following code points are defined in this document:¶
TBD1: DetNet Aggregation Option-Type¶
TBD2: DetNet Deterministic Latency Option-Type¶
The authors would like to acknowledge Peng Liu, Bin Tan for his thorough review and very helpful comments.¶