Large-Scale Deterministic Network Update

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Streaming Video over the Internet
Advertisements

20.1 Chapter 20 Network Layer: Internet Protocol Copyright © The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. Permission required for reproduction or display.
Differentiated Services. Service Differentiation in the Internet Different applications have varying bandwidth, delay, and reliability requirements How.
EE 4272Spring, 2003 Chapter 10 Packet Switching Packet Switching Principles  Switching Techniques  Packet Size  Comparison of Circuit Switching & Packet.
A General approach to MPLS Path Protection using Segments Ashish Gupta Ashish Gupta.
Draft-li-rtgwg-cc-igp-arch-00IETF 88 RTGWG1 An Architecture of Central Controlled Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) draft-li-rtgwg-cc-igp-arch-00 Zhenbin.
Integrated Services (RFC 1633) r Architecture for providing QoS guarantees to individual application sessions r Call setup: a session requiring QoS guarantees.
CS Spring 2011 CS 414 – Multimedia Systems Design Lecture 23 - Multimedia Network Protocols (Layer 3) Klara Nahrstedt Spring 2011.
Distributed Multimedia March 19, Distributed Multimedia What is Distributed Multimedia?  Large quantities of distributed data  Typically streamed.
20.1 Chapter 20 Network Layer: Internet Protocol Copyright © The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. Permission required for reproduction or display.
DetNet Data Plane using PseudoWires Jouni Korhonen Shahram Davari Norm Finn IETF#94, Yokohama.
Queue Scheduling Disciplines
1 Transport Layer: Basics Outline Intro to transport UDP Congestion control basics.
1 Review – The Internet’s Protocol Architecture. Protocols, Internetworking & the Internet 2 Introduction Internet standards Internet standards Layered.
Ethernet Packet Filtering – Part 2 Øyvind Holmeide 10/28/2014 by.
ETTC 2015-Guaranteed end-to-end latency through Ethernet Øyvind Holmeide 02/01/2015 by.
The Network Layer.
Advanced Network Tap application for
Instructor Materials Chapter 6: Quality of Service
EE 122: Lecture 19 (Asynchronous Transfer Mode - ATM)
DetNet Data Plane Discussion
FlexE - Channel Control Work in the IETF
(Flow Related) DLEP Extensions
Presenter: Jeffrey Zhang
IEEE Time-Sensitive Networking (TSN)
Les Ginsberg Stefano Previdi Peter Psenak Martin Pilka
Multi Protocol Label Switching (MPLS)
FlexE - Channel Control Work in the IETF
DetNet Data Plane Discussion
On-Time Network On-chip
draft-finn-detnet-problem-statement Norm Finn, Pascal Thubert
© 2008 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.Cisco ConfidentialPresentation_ID 1 Chapter 6: Quality of Service Connecting Networks.
What’s “Inside” a Router?
Guide to TCP/IP Fourth Edition
Dr. John P. Abraham Professor UTPA
DetNet Data Plane Protection Implementation Report
Authors Mach Chen (Huawei) Xuesong Geng (Huawei) Zhenqiang Li (CMCC)
Authors Mach Chen Andrew G. Malis
Chapter 20 Network Layer: Internet Protocol
Time Sensitive Networking for 5G
Zhenbin Li, Shunwan Zhuang Huawei Technologies
A Unified Approach to IP Segment Routing
Bala’zs, Norm, Jouni DetNet WG London, 23rd March, 2018
Dr. John P. Abraham Professor UTRGV, EDINBURG, TX
DetNet Configuration YANG Model
EE 122: Quality of Service and Resource Allocation
draft-ietf-detnet-dp-sol-00 Issues
IETF standard chances of IDNet in NM area
{Stewart Bryant, Mach Huawei
On-time Network On-chip
Dr. John P. Abraham Professor UTPA
DetNet Information Model Consideration
1 Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS). 2 MPLS Overview A forwarding scheme designed to speed up IP packet forwarding (RFC 3031) Idea: use a fixed length.
Lightweight but Powerful QoS Solution for Embedded Systems
CIS679: Two Planes and Int-Serv Model
DetNet Data Plane design team IETF 98, Chicago, 2017
DetNet Configuration YANG Model Update
DetNet Bounded Latency-02
Horizon: Balancing TCP over multiple paths in wireless mesh networks
draft-guichard-sfc-nsh-sr-02
An MPLS-Based Forwarding Plane for Service Function Chaining
An Engineering Approach to Computer Networking
DetNet Bounded Latency-04
draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-01
OAM for Deterministic Networks draft-mirsky-detnet-oam
Editors: Bala’zs Varga, Jouni Korhonen
DetNet Data Plane Solutions draft-ietf-detnet-dp-sol-ip-02  draft-ietf-detnet-dp-sol-mpls-02  Bala’zs Varga, Jouni Korhonen, Janos Farkas, Lou Berger,
draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-policy-05
DetNet Architecture Updates
draft-geng-detnet-requirements-bounded-latency- 00
Presentation transcript:

Large-Scale Deterministic Network Update draft-qiang-detnet-large-scale-detnet-04 Cristian Qiang (qiangli3@huawei.com) Xuesong Geng (gengxuesong@huawei.com) Bingyang Liu (liubingyang@huawei.com) Toerless Eckert (tte+ietf@cs.fau.de) Liang Geng (gengliang@chinamobile.com)

Requirements for this work Bounded Jitter requirement from DetNet Charter: The Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Working Group focuses on deterministic data paths that operate over Layer 2 bridged and Layer 3 routed segments, where such paths can provide bounds on latency, loss, and packet delay variation (jitter), and high reliability Architecture: Primary goals defining the DetNet QoS: Minimum and maximum end-to-end latency from source to destination; timely delivery, and bounded jitter (packet delay variation) derived from these constraints. Asynchronous Traffic Shaping only provides upper bound on delay Jitter ~= propagation delay variation = [ 0 … max-end-to-end-queuing-delay] - “”no lower bound””! Network Speed: DetNet needs to support fast networks with 100++ Gbps transit link speeds (common outside building/campus networks). Need a per-link QoS option that is viable at this speed. Network link speed not determined by only one traffic class (DetNet) Other Easily calculated delay/jitter (centralized or distributed) Badly behaving links (jitter) Jitter of mechanism not subject to link jitter but per-link cycle-mapping (shape out link jitter)

Goals of this work Informational DetNet WG document Introduce Requirements and Framework Independent of specific forwarding plane options Generically applicable to DetNet scenarios Use as justification and reference for normative work in other WGs TBD, figure out later, but for example: QoS model in TSVWG (PHB?) or DetNet Forwarding plane encodings, TBD, e.g.: IPv4/IPv6 DSCP or UDP extensions TSVWG IPv6 extension header in 6MAN SR/SIF encoding SPRING SR-MPLS/MPLS specific encodings in MPLS …

Simple Scalable Queuing Solution in the Scenario Client A ES1 CE1 PE1 PE2 CE2 Client C Client B P ES3 TSN Network DetNet Domain TSN Link A key novel aspect for DetNet services is that it needs traffic treatment on every hop where there can be burst collisions or congestion, otherwise we an not control latency in a way that can be calculated. Congestion Protection Avoiding packet loss and latency because of congestion Resource reservation for DetNet flows Queuing Management (Shaping, Scheduling, etc.)

Cyclic forwarding in TSN TSN-CQF: synchronous forwarding scheme without per-flow queuing state on every hop Synchronous packets forwarded across all hops within a single synchronized cycle (10..100 usec) Challenges High accuracy time synchronization requirement (nsec) Limited physical size due to cycle time The larger the network, the smaller the percentage of traffic that can be synchronous. Example (extreme to make point): 10 usec cycle time: max network size: 2 Km, after < 1 Km only < 50% traffic could be synchronous Node A time

Proposed Large-Scale Network Cyclic Forwarding Carry cycle-identifier in packet No synchronous forwarding: Buffer cycles and send after all packets for cycle arrived Results Keep the key benefits Easy calculated end-to-end-delay (sum(per-hop-cycle-delay)) Tight bounded jitter O(cycle-time) [usec] Eliminated physical scale limitations Can support arbitrary link-propagation delay, hop, end-to-end delay Eliminates need for tight time-synchronization Requires only frequency synchronization in order to control drift between adjacent node cycle times (usec instead of nsec) Frequency synchronization is much easier than time synchronization E.g.: no problems with the difficult asymmetric link problem Node A time

Major Changes Since Last IETF Meeting Add a new figure to illustrate that common IP/MPLS forwarding + Priority Queueing couldn’t guarantee bounded latency and delay variance (jitter) due to micro-burst and micro-bust iteration

Major Changes Since Last IETF Meeting Use cycle identifier to indicate packet behavior (sending timing) every hop, refine the potential ways to carry minimal 2 bits cycle identifier

Add description for two modes (i. e Add description for two modes (i.e., swap mode and stack mode) that implement LDN cyclic forwarding method Swap Mode: In-packet: Cycle-identifier (applicable to any forwarding plane) Each node pre-provisioned with cycle-mapping table (e.g.: from PCE-CC) Swap Mode Node Swap Mode Node cycle identifier 1 payload cycle identifier 2 payload cycle identifier 3 payload (CycleID_1  CycleID_2) (CycleID_2  CycleID_3) Stack Mode: In-packet: stack of cycle-identifiers , one for each hop (for SR-MPLS, SRv6) Each hop maps based on next cycle-identifier Current cycle identifier Current cycle identifier Current cycle identifier Stack Mode Node cycle identifier 3 cycle identifier 2 cycle identifier 3 cycle identifier 2 cycle identifier 1 Stack Mode Node cycle identifier 3 cycle identifier 2 cycle identifier 1 cycle identifier 1 payload payload payload

In Summary Want to make sure requirements and solution are well understood through draft And verify that DetNet WG agrees on requirements being valuable Want to ask for working group adoption before next IETF Will do another version resulting from feedback Disclaimer: This is NOT the only QoS model useful for DetNet, but is important: least complex per-hop QoS (we think).

Thanks