Network Working Group
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) A. Malis
Internet-Draft
Request for Comments: 9938 Independent
Intended status:
Category: Informational X. Geng, Ed.
Expires: 28 March 2026
ISSN: 2070-1721 M. Chen (Guoyi)Chen
Huawei
B. Varga
Ericsson
CJ. Bernardos
UC3M
24 September 2025
February 2026
A Framework for the Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Controller Plane
draft-ietf-detnet-controller-plane-framework-15
Abstract
This document provides a framework overview for the Deterministic
Networking (DetNet) controller plane. Controller Plane. It discusses concepts and
requirements for the DetNet controller plane Controller Plane, which could be the
basis for a future solution specification.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft document is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
published for informational purposes.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list It represents the consensus of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Not all documents valid
approved by the IESG are candidates for a maximum any level of six months Internet
Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 7841.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents obtained 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 28 March 2026.
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9938.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2025 2026 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)
(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.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. DetNet Controller Plane Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. DetNet Control Plane Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. DetNet Management Plane Requirements . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.3. Requirements For for Both Planes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. DetNet Control Plane Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1. Distributed Control Plane and Signaling Protocols . . . . 7
3.2. SDN/Fully Centralized Control Plane . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.3. Hybrid Control Plane (partly centralized, partly
distributed) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 (Partly Centralized and Partly
Distributed)
4. DetNet Control Plane for DetNet Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1. Explicit Paths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.2. Resource Reservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.3. PREOF Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.4. Data Plane specific considerations . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Data-Plane-Specific Considerations
4.4.1. DetNet in an MPLS Domain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.4.2. DetNet in an IP Domain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.4.3. DetNet in a Segment Routing Domain . . . . . . . . . 11
4.5. Encapsulation and metadata support . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Metadata Support
5. Management Plane Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.1. DetNet Operations, Administration Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.1.1. OAM for Performance Monitoring (PM) . . . . . . . . . 12
5.1.2. OAM for Connectivity and Fault/Defect Fault Management (CFM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6. Multidomain Multi-Domain Aspects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
10. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
11.1.
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
11.2.
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Acknowledgments
Contributors
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
1. Introduction
DetNet (Deterministic Networking)
Deterministic Networking (DetNet) provides the ability to carry
specified unicast or multicast data flows for real-time applications
with extremely low packet loss rates and assured maximum end-to-end
delivery latency. A description of the general background and
concepts of DetNet can be found in [RFC8655].
The DetNet data plane is defined in a set of documents that are
anchored by the DetNet Data Plane Framework data plane framework [RFC8938] (and (as well as the
associated DetNet MPLS defined in [RFC8964] and [RFC8964], the DetNet IP defined in
[RFC8939]
[RFC8939], and other data plane specifications defined in [RFC9023],
[RFC9024], [RFC9025], [RFC9037] [RFC9037], and [RFC9056]).
Note that in the DetNet overall architecture, the controller plane
includes what are more traditionally considered separate control and
management planes (see section Section 4.4.2 of [RFC8655]). Traditionally,
the management plane is primarily involved with fault management,
configuration management management, and performance management (sometimes
accounting management and security management is are also considered in
the management plane (see section (Section 4.2 of [RFC6632]), [RFC6632]) but not in they are out of
the scope of this document), while document). At the same time, the control plane is
primarily responsible for the instantiation and maintenance of flows,
MPLS label allocation and distribution, and active in-band or out-of-band out-of-
band signaling to support DetNet functions. In the DetNet
architecture, all of this functionality is combined into a single
controller plane. See Section 4.4.2 of [RFC8655] and the aggregation
of control and management planes in [RFC7426] for further details.
While the DetNet Architecture architecture and Data Plane data plane documents are primarily
concerned with data plane operations, they do contain some
requirements,
requirements and considerations for functions that would be required
in order to automate DetNet service provisioning and monitoring via a
DetNet controller plane Controller Plane (e.g., section see Section 4 of [RFC8938]). The
purpose of this document is to take these requirements and
considerations into a single document and extend and discuss how
various possible DetNet controller plane Controller Plane architectures could be used
to satisfy these requirements, while not providing the protocol
details for a DetNet
controller plane Controller Plane solution. Such controller
plane protocol solutions will be the subject of subsequent documents.
Therefore, this document should be considered as the authoritative
reference to be considered if/when protocol work on the DetNet controller plane
Controller Plane starts.
2. DetNet Controller Plane Requirements
Other DetNet documents, including [RFC8655] , [RFC8655], [RFC8938], [RFC9551] [RFC9551],
and [RFC9055], among others, contain requirements for the Controller
Plane. controller
plane. For convenience, these requirements have been compiled here.
These requirements have been organized into 3 groups three groups: 1)
requirements primarily applicable to the control plane, 2)
requirements primarily applicable to the management plane plane, and 3)
requirements applicable to both planes. In addition, security
requirements for the DetNet Controller Plane have been discussed in
[RFC9055], and a summary of those requirements is provided in
Section 2.4. For the sake of clarity, when applicable, the document where
in which the requirements originally appears appear is referenced.
2.1. DetNet Control Plane Requirements
The primary requirements for the DetNet Control Plane include: are as follows:
* Support the dynamic instantiation, modification, and deletion of
DetNet flows. This may include some or all of explicit path
determination, link bandwidth reservations, restricting restriction of flows
to specific links (e.g., IEEE 802.1 Time-Sensitive Networking
(TSN) links), node buffer and other resource reservations,
specification of required queuing disciplines along the path, the
ability to manage bidirectional flows, etc., as needed for a flow
[RFC8938].
* Support DetNet flow aggregation and de-aggregation via the ability
to dynamically create and delete flow aggregates (FAs), (FAs) and be
able to modify
existing FAs by adding or deleting participating flows [RFC8938].
* Allow flow instantiation requests to originate in an end
application (via an Application Programming Interface (API), (API) via
static provisioning, provisioning or via a dynamic control plane, such as an
SDN (Software-Defined Networking) a
Software-Defined Networking (SDN) controller or distributed
signaling protocols. protocols). See Section 3 for further discussion of
these options.
* In Manage, in the case of the DetNet MPLS data plane, manage DetNet Service
Label (S-Label), Forwarding Label (F-Label), and Aggregation Label
(A-Label) [RFC8964] allocation and distribution [RFC8938].
* Also Support, also in the case of the DetNet MPLS data plane, support the
DetNet service sub-layer, which provides DetNet service functions functions,
such as protection and reordering through the use of packet replication,
elimination, Packet
Replication, Elimination, and ordering functions Ordering Functions (PREOF)
[RFC8655].
* Support the queue control techniques defined in [RFC8655],
Section 4.5 of
[RFC8655] and [RFC9320] that require time synchronization among
the network data plane nodes.
* Advertise static and dynamic node and link characteristics characteristics, such
as capabilities and adjacencies to other network nodes (for
dynamic signaling approaches) or to network controllers (for
centralized approaches) [RFC8938].
* Scale to handle the number of DetNet flows expected in a domain
(which may require per-flow signaling or provisioning) [RFC8938].
* Provision flow identification information at each of the nodes
along the path. Flow identification may differ depending on the
location in the network and the DetNet functionality (e.g.,
transit node vs. relay node) [RFC8938].
2.2. DetNet Management Plane Requirements
The primary requirements of for the DetNet management plane are that it
must be able to: as
follows:
* Monitor the performance of DetNet flows and nodes to ensure that
they are meeting required objectives, both proactively and on- on
demand [RFC9551].
* Support DetNet flow continuity check and connectivity verification
functions [RFC9551].
* Support testing and monitoring of packet replication, duplicate
elimination, and packet ordering functionality in the DetNet
domain [RFC9551].
2.3. Requirements For for Both Planes
The following requirements apply to both the DetNet control and
management planes:
* Operate in a converged network domain that contains both DetNet
and non-DetNet flows [RFC8655].
* Adapt to DetNet domain topology changes such as links link or nodes node
failures (fault recovery/restoration), additions additions, and removals
[RFC8655].
In addition to the above, the DetNet controller Controller Plane should also
satisfy security requirements derived from [RFC9055], which defines
the security framework for DetNet. The following requirements are
especially relevant:
* Integrity and authenticity of control/signaling packets: The
controller plane should ensure that signaling and control messages
cannot be modified or injected by unauthorized entities and should
prevent spoofing and segmentation attacks.
* Protection against controller compromise: Mechanisms should exist
to verify the legitimacy of controllers and to prevent
unauthorized components from impersonating them.
* System-wide security design: The architecture must account for the
possibility of compromised nodes or controllers, ensuring
resilience so that the failure or subversion of a single component
does not cause catastrophic impact.
* Timely delivery of control plane messages: The controller plane
should ensure that control and signaling messages are delivered
without undue delay to prevent disruption of DetNet services
without resource leakage.
3. DetNet Control Plane Architecture
As noted in the Introduction, the DetNet control plane Control Plane is responsible
for the instantiation and maintenance of flows, the allocation and
distribution of flow related flow-related information (e.g., MPLS label), and
active in-band or out-of-band information distribution to support
these functions.
The following sections define three types of DetNet control plane Control Plane
architectures: 1) a fully distributed control plane utilizing dynamic
signaling protocols, 2) a fully centralized SDN-like control plane,
and 3) a hybrid control plane containing both distributed protocols
and centralized controlling. This document describes the various
information exchanges between entities in the network for each type
of these architectures and the corresponding advantages and
disadvantages.
In each of
The examples in the following sections, there are examples to sections illustrate possible mechanisms
that could be used in each type of the architectures. They are not
meant to be exhaustive or to preclude any other possible mechanism
that could be used in place of those used in the examples.
3.1. Distributed Control Plane and Signaling Protocols
In a fully distributed configuration model, User-to-Network the User-Network
Interface (UNI) information is transmitted over a DetNet UNI protocol
from the user side to the network side. Then Then, the UNI and network
configuration information propagate propagates in the network via distributed
control plane signaling protocols. Such a DetNet UNI protocol is not
necessary when the End-systems end systems are DetNet capable.
Taking an RSVP-TE [RFC3209] MPLS network as an example, where end
systems are not part of the DetNet domain:
1. Network nodes collect topology information and DetNet
capabilities of the network nodes through IGP; IGP.
2. The ingress edge node receives a flow establishment request from
the UNI and calculates one or more valid path(s); paths.
3. The ingress node sends a PATH message with an explicit route
through RSVP-TE. After receiving the PATH message, the egress
edge node sends a RESV message with the distributed label and
resource reservation request.
In this example, both the IGP and RSVP-TE may require extensions for
DetNet.
3.2. SDN/Fully Centralized Control Plane
In the fully SDN/centralized configuration model, flow/UNI
information is transmitted either from a centralized user controller
or from applications via an API/ northbound API/northbound interface to a centralized
controller. Network node configurations for DetNet flows are
performed by the controller using a protocol such as NETCONF
[RFC6241]/YANG [RFC6020][RFC7950]
[RFC6241], YANG [RFC6020] [RFC7950], DetNet YANG [RFC9633] [RFC9633], or PCE-CC
[RFC8283].
Take the following case as an example:
1. A centralized controller collects topology information and DetNet
capabilities of the network nodes via NETCONF/YANG; NETCONF/YANG.
2. The controller receives a flow establishment request from a UNI
and calculates one or more valid path(s) paths through the network; network.
3. The controller chooses the optimal path and configures the
devices along that path for DetNet flow transmission via PCE-CC.
Protocols
The protocols in the above example may require extensions for DetNet.
3.3. Hybrid Control Plane (partly centralized, partly distributed) (Partly Centralized and Partly Distributed)
In the hybrid model, the controller and control plane protocols work
together to provide DetNet services, and there are a number of
possible combinations.
In the following case, the RSVP-TE and controller are used together:
1. A controller collects topology information and DetNet
capabilities of the network nodes via an IGP and/or BGP-LS
[RFC9552]; the Border
Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS) [RFC9552].
2. A controller receives a flow establishment request through API
and calculates one or more valid path(s) paths through the network; network.
3. Based on the calculation result, the controller distributes flow
path information to the ingress edge node and configures network
nodes along the path with necessary DetNet information (e.g., for
replication/duplicate elimination) elimination).
4. Using RSVP-TE, the ingress edge node sends a PATH message with an
explicit route. After receiving the PATH message, the egress
edge node sends a RESV message with the distributed label and
resource reservation request.
There are many other variations that could be included in a hybrid
control plane. The requested DetNet extensions for a protocol in
each possible case is for future work.
4. DetNet Control Plane for DetNet Mechanisms
This section discusses the requested control plane features for
DetNet mechanisms as defined in [RFC8655], including explicit path,
resource reservation, service protection (PREOF). PREOF.
Different DetNet services may implement any or all of these based on
the requirements.
4.1. Explicit Paths
Explicit paths are required in DetNet to provide a stable forwarding
service and guarantee that the DetNet service is not impacted when
the network topology changes. The following features are necessary
in the control plane to implement explicit paths in DetNet:
* Path computation: DetNet explicit paths need to meet the SLA
(Service Service
Level Agreement) Agreement (SLA) requirements of the application, which
include bandwidth, maximum end- to-end end-to-end delay, maximum end-to-end
delay variation, maximum loss ratio, etc. In a distributed
network system, an IGP with CSPF (Constrained Constrained Shortest Path First) First (CSPF)
may be used to compute a set of feasible paths for a DetNet
service. In a centralized network system, the controller can
compute paths satisfying the requirements of DetNet based on the
network information collected from the DetNet domain.
* Path establishment: The computed path for the DetNet service has
to be sent/configured/signaled to the network device, device so that the
corresponding DetNet flow could can pass through the network domain
following the specified path.
4.2. Resource Reservation
DetNet flows are supposed to be protected from congestion, so
sufficient resource reservation for a DetNet service could protect a
service from congestion. There are multiple types of resources in
the network that could be allocated to DetNet flows, e.g., packet
processing resources, buffer resources, and the bandwidth of the
output port. The network resource requested by a specified DetNet
service is determined by the SLA requirements and network capability.
* Resource Allocation: Port bandwidth is one of the basic attributes
of a network device which that is easy to obtain or calculate. In
current traffic engineering implementations, network resource
allocation is synonymous with bandwidth allocation. A DetNet flow
is characterized with by a traffic specification specification, as defined in
[RFC9016], including attributes such as Interval, Maximum Packets
Per Interval,
MaxPacketsPerInterval, and Maximum Payload Size. MaxPayloadSize. The traffic
specification describes the worst case, rather than the average
case, for the
traffic, traffic to ensure that sufficient bandwidth and
buffering resources are reserved to satisfy the traffic
specification. However, in the case of DetNet, resource
allocation is more than simple bandwidth reservation. For
example, allocation of buffers and required queuing disciplines
during forwarding may be required as well. Furthermore, resources
must be ensured to execute DetNet service sub-layer functions on
the node, such as protection and reordering through the use of packet replication, duplicate
elimination, and packet ordering functions (PREOF).
PREOF.
* Device configuration with or without flow discrimination: The
resource allocation can be guaranteed by device configuration.
For example, an output port bandwidth reservation can be
configured as a parameter of queue management and the port
scheduling algorithm. When DetNet flows are aggregated, a group
of DetNet flows share the allocated resource in the network
device. When the DetNet flows are treated independently, the
device should maintain a mapping relationship between a DetNet
flow and its corresponding resources.
4.3. PREOF Support
DetNet path redundancy is supported via packet replication, duplicate
elimination, Packet Replication,
Elimination, and packet ordering functions Ordering Functions (PREOF). A DetNet flow is
replicated and forwarded by multiple networks paths to avoid packet
loss caused by device or link failures. In general, current control
plane mechanisms that can be used to establish an explicit path,
whether distributed or centralized, support point-to-point (P2P) and
point-to-multipoint (P2MP) path establishment. PREOF requires the
ability to compute and establish a set of multiple paths (e.g.,
multiple LSP Label Switched Path (LSP) segments in an MPLS network) from
the point(s) of packet replication to the point(s) of packet merging
and ordering. Mapping of DetNet (member) flows to explicit path
segments has to be ensured as well. Protocol extensions will be
required to support these new features. Terminology will also be
required to refer to this coordinated set of path segments (such as
an 'LSP graph' "LSP graph" in the case of the DetNet MPLS data plane).
4.4. Data Plane specific considerations Data-Plane-Specific Considerations
4.4.1. DetNet in an MPLS Domain
For the purposes of this document, 'traditional MPLS' "traditional MPLS" is defined as
MPLS without the use of segment routing (see Section 4.4.3 for a
discussion of MPLS with segment routing) or MPLS-TP MPLS Transport Profile
(MPLS-TP) [RFC5960].
In traditional MPLS domains, a dynamic control plane using
distributed signaling protocols is typically used for the
distribution of MPLS labels used for forwarding MPLS packets. The
dynamic signaling protocols most commonly used for label distribution
are LDP [RFC5036], RSVP-TE[RFC4875], RSVP-TE [RFC4875], and BGP [RFC8277] (which
enables BGP/MPLS-based Layer 3 VPNs [RFC4384] [RFC4384], Layer 2 VPNs [RFC4664]
[RFC4664], and EVPN EVPNs [RFC7432]).
Any of these protocols could be used to distribute DetNet Service
Labels (S-Labels) and Aggregation Labels (A-Labels) [RFC8964]. As
discussed in [RFC8938], S-Labels are similar to other MPLS service
labels, such as pseudowire, pseudowire and L3 VPN, VPN and L2 VPN labels, and could be
distributed in a similar manner, such as through the use of targeted
LDP or BGP. If these were to be used for DetNet, they would require
extensions to support DetNet-specific features features, such as PREOF,
aggregation (A-Labels), node resource allocation, and queue
placement.
4.4.2. DetNet in an IP Domain
For the purposes of this document, 'traditional IP' "traditional IP" is defined as IP
without the use of segment routing (see Section 4.4.3 for a
discussion of IP with segment routing). This section will discuss
possible protocol extensions to existing IP routing protocols. It
should be noted that a DetNet IP data plane [RFC8939] is simpler than
a DetNet MPLS data plane [RFC8964], [RFC8964] and doesn't support PREOF, so only
one path per flow or flow aggregate is required.
4.4.3. DetNet in a Segment Routing Domain
Segment Routing [RFC8402] is a scalable approach to building network
domains that provides explicit routing via source routing encoded in
packet headers headers, and it is combined with centralized network control
to compute paths through the network. Forwarding paths are
distributed with associated policy policies to network edge nodes for use in
packet headers. Segment Routing reduces the amount of network
signaling associated with distributed signaling protocols protocols, such as
RSVP-TE, and also reduces the amount of state in core nodes compared
with that required for traditional MPLS and IP routing, as the state
is now in the packets rather than in the routers. This could be
useful for DetNet, where a very large number of flows through a
network domain are expected, which would otherwise require the
instantiation of state for each flow traversing each node in the
network.
Note that the DetNet MPLS and IP data planes described in [RFC8964]
and [RFC8939] were constructed to be compatible with both types of
segment routing, SR-MPLS routing: Segment Routing over MPLS (SR-MPLS) [RFC8660] and SRv6
Segment Routing over IPv6 (SRv6) [RFC8754] [RFC8986].
4.5. Encapsulation and metadata support Metadata Support
To effectively manage DetNet flows, the controller plane will need to
have a clear understanding of the encapsulation and metadata
capabilities of the underlying network nodes. This will require a
control mechanism that can discover, configure, and manage these
parameters for each flow.
The controller plane needs to understand and manage the encapsulation
and metadata capabilities of the network nodes to provision DetNet
flows effectively. This process might need a discovery phase, phase in
which the controller discovers which encapsulation types (e.g., MPLS,
IP) and metadata schemes (e.g., sequencing, timestamping) that each
node supports. After discovery, the controller might instruct nodes
on the specific encapsulation and companion metadata to apply for a
given flow. This ensures that DetNet packets are handled
consistently across the network. For example, the controller might
instruct a node to use an MPLS header and add a sequence number for a
particular flow.
5. Management Plane Overview
The management plane includes the ability to statically provision
network nodes and to use OAM Operations, Administration, and Maintenance
(OAM) to monitor DetNet performance and to detect outages or other
issues at the DetNet layer.
5.1. DetNet Operations, Administration Administration, and Maintenance (OAM)
This document covers the general considerations for OAM.
5.1.1. OAM for Performance Monitoring (PM)
5.1.1.1. Active PM
Active PM is performed by injecting OAM packets into the network to
estimate the performance of the network and by then measuring the
performance of the those OAM packets. Adding extra traffic can affect
the delay and throughput performance of the network, and for this reason active
reason, Active PM is not recommended for use in operational DetNet
domains. However, it is a useful test tool when commissioning a new
network or during troubleshooting.
5.1.1.2. Passive PM
Passive PM, such as IOAM In Situ Operations, Administration, and
Maintenance (IOAM) [RFC9197], monitors the actual service traffic in
a network domain in order to measure its performance without having a
detrimental effect on the network. As compared to Active PM, Passive
PM is much preferred for use in DetNet domains.
5.1.2. OAM for Connectivity and Fault/Defect Fault Management (CFM)
The detailed requirements for connectivity and fault/defect detection
and management CFM in a DetNet IP domain and a DetNet
MPLS domain are defined in [RFC9551] [RFC9634] [RFC9551], [RFC9634], and [RFC9546],
respectively.
6. Multidomain Multi-Domain Aspects
When there are multiple domains involved, one or multiple controller
plane functions (CPF) Controller
Plane Functions (CPFs) would have to collaborate to implement the
requests received from the flow management entity (FME, as defined in
[RFC8655]) Flow Management Entity (FME) [RFC8655] as
per-flow, per-hop behaviors installed in the DetNet nodes for each
individual flow. Adding multi-domain support might require some
support at the CPF. For example, CPFs of different domains, e.g., PCEs
PCEs, need to discover each other, other and then authenticate and negotiate
per-hop behaviors. Furthermore, in the case of wireless domains, the
per-domain RAW [I-D.ietf-raw-architecture] specific functions like the PLR (Point specific to Reliable and Available Wireless
(RAW) [RAW-ARCH], such as Point of Local Repair)s Repairs (PLRs), have to be also
be considered, e.g., in addition to the PCEs. Depending on the multi-
domain
multi-domain support provided by the application plane, the
controller plane might be relieved from some responsibilities (e.g.,
if the application plane takes care of splitting what needs to be
provided by each domain).
7. IANA Considerations
This document has no actions for IANA.
Note to RFC Editor: this section may be removed on publication as an
RFC. IANA actions.
8. Security Considerations
This document provides a framework for the DetNet controller plane, Controller Plane
and does not include any protocol specifications. Any future
specification that is defined to support the DetNet controller plane Controller Plane
is expected to include the appropriate security considerations. For
overall security considerations of DetNet DetNet, see [RFC8655] and [RFC9055]
[RFC9055].
9. Acknowledgments
Thanks to Jim Guichard, Donald Eastlake, and Stewart Bryant for their
review comments.
Authors would also like to thank Deb Cooley, Mike Bishop, Mohamed
Boucadair, Gorry Fairhurst and Dave Thaler for their comments during
the different directorate and IESG reviews.
10. Contributors
Fengwei Qin
China Mobile
Email: qinfengwei@chinamobile.com
11. References
11.1.
9.1. Normative References
[RFC8655] Finn, N., Thubert, P., Varga, B., and J. Farkas,
"Deterministic Networking Architecture", RFC 8655,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8655, October 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8655>.
[RFC8938] Varga, B., Ed., Farkas, J., Berger, L., Malis, A., and S.
Bryant, "Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Data Plane
Framework", RFC 8938, DOI 10.17487/RFC8938, November 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8938>.
[RFC9016] Varga, B., Farkas, J., Cummings, R., Jiang, Y., and D.
Fedyk, "Flow and Service Information Model for
Deterministic Networking (DetNet)", RFC 9016,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9016, March 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9016>.
[RFC9055] Grossman, E., Ed., Mizrahi, T., and A. Hacker,
"Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Security
Considerations", RFC 9055, DOI 10.17487/RFC9055, June
2021, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9055>.
[RFC9551] Mirsky, G., Theoleyre, F., Papadopoulos, G., Bernardos,
CJ., Varga, B., and J. Farkas, "Framework of Operations,
Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) for Deterministic
Networking (DetNet)", RFC 9551, DOI 10.17487/RFC9551,
March 2024, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9551>.
11.2.
9.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-raw-architecture]
[RAW-ARCH] Thubert, P., Ed., "Reliable and Available Wireless
Architecture", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
ietf-raw-architecture-30, 25 July 2025,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-raw-
architecture-30>.
[RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
Tunnels", RFC 3209, DOI 10.17487/RFC3209, December 2001,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3209>.
[RFC4384] Meyer, D., "BGP Communities for Data Collection", BCP 114,
RFC 4384, DOI 10.17487/RFC4384, February 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4384>.
[RFC4664] Andersson, L., Ed. and E. Rosen, Ed., "Framework for Layer
2 Virtual Private Networks (L2VPNs)", RFC 4664,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4664, September 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4664>.
[RFC4875] Aggarwal, R., Ed., Papadimitriou, D., Ed., and S.
Yasukawa, Ed., "Extensions to Resource Reservation
Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) for Point-to-
Multipoint TE Label Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 4875,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4875, May 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4875>.
[RFC5036] Andersson, L., Ed., Minei, I., Ed., and B. Thomas, Ed.,
"LDP Specification", RFC 5036, DOI 10.17487/RFC5036,
October 2007, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5036>.
[RFC5960] Frost, D., Ed., Bryant, S., Ed., and M. Bocci, Ed., "MPLS
Transport Profile Data Plane Architecture", RFC 5960,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5960, August 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5960>.
[RFC6020] Bjorklund, M., Ed., "YANG - A Data Modeling Language for
the Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)", RFC 6020,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6020, October 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6020>.
[RFC6241] Enns, R., Ed., Bjorklund, M., Ed., Schoenwaelder, J., Ed.,
and A. Bierman, Ed., "Network Configuration Protocol
(NETCONF)", RFC 6241, DOI 10.17487/RFC6241, June 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6241>.
[RFC6632] Ersue, M., Ed. and B. Claise, "An Overview of the IETF
Network Management Standards", RFC 6632,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6632, June 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6632>.
[RFC7426] Haleplidis, E., Ed., Pentikousis, K., Ed., Denazis, S.,
Hadi Salim, J., Meyer, D., and O. Koufopavlou, "Software-
Defined Networking (SDN): Layers and Architecture
Terminology", RFC 7426, DOI 10.17487/RFC7426, January
2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7426>.
[RFC7432] Sajassi, A., Ed., Aggarwal, R., Bitar, N., Isaac, A.,
Uttaro, J., Drake, J., and W. Henderickx, "BGP MPLS-Based
Ethernet VPN", RFC 7432, DOI 10.17487/RFC7432, February
2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7432>.
[RFC7950] Bjorklund, M., Ed., "The YANG 1.1 Data Modeling Language",
RFC 7950, DOI 10.17487/RFC7950, August 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7950>.
[RFC8277] Rosen, E., "Using BGP to Bind MPLS Labels to Address
Prefixes", RFC 8277, DOI 10.17487/RFC8277, October 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8277>.
[RFC8283] Farrel, A., Ed., Zhao, Q., Ed., Li, Z., and C. Zhou, "An
Architecture for Use of PCE and the PCE Communication
Protocol (PCEP) in a Network with Central Control",
RFC 8283, DOI 10.17487/RFC8283, December 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8283>.
[RFC8402] Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L.,
Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment
Routing Architecture", RFC 8402, DOI 10.17487/RFC8402,
July 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8402>.
[RFC8660] Bashandy, A., Ed., Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S.,
Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment
Routing with the MPLS Data Plane", RFC 8660,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8660, December 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8660>.
[RFC8754] Filsfils, C., Ed., Dukes, D., Ed., Previdi, S., Leddy, J.,
Matsushima, S., and D. Voyer, "IPv6 Segment Routing Header
(SRH)", RFC 8754, DOI 10.17487/RFC8754, March 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8754>.
[RFC8939] Varga, B., Ed., Farkas, J., Berger, L., Fedyk, D., and S.
Bryant, "Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Data Plane:
IP", RFC 8939, DOI 10.17487/RFC8939, November 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8939>.
[RFC8964] Varga, B., Ed., Farkas, J., Berger, L., Malis, A., Bryant,
S., and J. Korhonen, "Deterministic Networking (DetNet)
Data Plane: MPLS", RFC 8964, DOI 10.17487/RFC8964, January
2021, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8964>.
[RFC8986] Filsfils, C., Ed., Camarillo, P., Ed., Leddy, J., Voyer,
D., Matsushima, S., and Z. Li, "Segment Routing over IPv6
(SRv6) Network Programming", RFC 8986,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8986, February 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8986>.
[RFC9023] Varga, B., Ed., Farkas, J., Malis, A., and S. Bryant,
"Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Data Plane: IP over
IEEE 802.1 Time-Sensitive Networking (TSN)", RFC 9023,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9023, June 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9023>.
[RFC9024] Varga, B., Ed., Farkas, J., Malis, A., Bryant, S., and D.
Fedyk, "Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Data Plane: IEEE
802.1 Time-Sensitive Networking over MPLS", RFC 9024,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9024, June 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9024>.
[RFC9025] Varga, B., Ed., Farkas, J., Berger, L., Malis, A., and S.
Bryant, "Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Data Plane:
MPLS over UDP/IP", RFC 9025, DOI 10.17487/RFC9025, April
2021, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9025>.
[RFC9037] Varga, B., Ed., Farkas, J., Malis, A., and S. Bryant,
"Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Data Plane: MPLS over
IEEE 802.1 Time-Sensitive Networking (TSN)", RFC 9037,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9037, June 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9037>.
[RFC9056] Varga, B., Ed., Berger, L., Fedyk, D., Bryant, S., and J.
Korhonen, "Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Data Plane:
IP over MPLS", RFC 9056, DOI 10.17487/RFC9056, October
2021, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9056>.
[RFC9197] Brockners, F., Ed., Bhandari, S., Ed., and T. Mizrahi,
Ed., "Data Fields for In Situ Operations, Administration,
and Maintenance (IOAM)", RFC 9197, DOI 10.17487/RFC9197,
May 2022, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9197>.
[RFC9320] Finn, N., Le Boudec, J.-Y., Mohammadpour, E., Zhang, J.,
and B. Varga, "Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Bounded
Latency", RFC 9320, DOI 10.17487/RFC9320, November 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9320>.
[RFC9546] Mirsky, G., Chen, M., and B. Varga, "Operations,
Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) for Deterministic
Networking (DetNet) with the MPLS Data Plane", RFC 9546,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9546, February 2024,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9546>.
[RFC9552] Talaulikar, K., Ed., "Distribution of Link-State and
Traffic Engineering Information Using BGP", RFC 9552,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9552, December 2023,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9552>.
[RFC9633] Geng, X., Ryoo, Y., Fedyk, D., Rahman, R., and Z. Li,
"Deterministic Networking (DetNet) YANG Data Model",
RFC 9633, DOI 10.17487/RFC9633, October 2024,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9633>.
[RFC9634] Mirsky, G., Chen, M., and D. Black, "Operations,
Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) for Deterministic
Networking (DetNet) with the IP Data Plane", RFC 9634,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9634, October 2024,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9634>.
Acknowledgments
Thanks to Jim Guichard, Donald Eastlake 3rd, and Stewart Bryant for
their reviews and comments.
The authors would also like to thank Deb Cooley, Mike Bishop, Mohamed
Boucadair, Gorry Fairhurst, and Dave Thaler for their comments during
the different directorate and IESG reviews.
Contributors
Fengwei Qin
China Mobile
Email: qinfengwei@chinamobile.com
Authors' Addresses
Andrew G. Malis
Independent
Email: agmalis@gmail.com
Xuesong Geng (editor)
Huawei
Email: gengxuesong@huawei.com
Mach (Guoyi) Chen (Guoyi)Chen
Huawei
Email: mach.chen@huawei.com
Balazs Varga
Ericsson
Email: balazs.a.varga@ericsson.com
Carlos J. Bernardos
Universidad Carlos III de Madrid
Av. Universidad, 30
28911 Leganes, Madrid
Spain
Phone: +34 91624 6236
Email: cjbc@it.uc3m.es
URI: http://www.it.uc3m.es/cjbc/