Draft: draft-ietf-detnet-mpls

Commentary: … flows 
 OK .
Paragraph (version A):
The DetNet forwarding sub-layer is supported by one or more
forwarding labels (F-Labels).  MPLS Traffic Engineering
encapsulations and mechanisms can be utilized to provide a forwarding
sub-layer that is responsible for providing resource allocation and
explicit routes.
Paragraph (version B):
The DetNet forwarding sub-layer is supported by zero or more
forwarding labels (F-Labels).  MPLS Traffic Engineering
encapsulations and mechanisms can be utilized to provide a forwarding
sub-layer that is responsible for providing resource allocation and
explicit routes.
Paragraph (version A):
The resource control and management aspects of aggregation (including
the configuration of queuing, shaping, and policing) is the
responsibility of the DetNet controller plane and will be covered in
other documents.  It is also the responsibility of the controller
plane to ensure that consistent aggregation methods are used.
Paragraph (version B):
The resource control and management aspects of aggregation (including
the configuration of queuing, shaping, and policing) are the
responsibility of the DetNet controller plane and will be covered in
other documents.  It is also the responsibility of the controller
plane to ensure that consistent aggregation methods are used.
Paragraph (version A):
DetNet flows forwarded via MPLS can leverage MPLS-TE's existing
support for hierarchical LSPs (H-LSPs), see RFC4206.  H-LSPs are
typically used to aggregate control and resources, they may also be
used to provide OAM or protection for the aggregated LSPs.  Arbitrary
levels of aggregation naturally falls out of the definition for
hierarchy and the MPLS label stack RFC3032.  DetNet nodes which
support aggregation (LSP hierarchy) map one or more LSPs (labels)
into and from an H-LSP.  Both carried LSPs and H-LSPs may or may not
use the TC field, i.e., L-LSPs or E-LSPs.  Such nodes will need to
ensure that component LSPs and H-LSPs receive the traffic treatement
required to ensure the required DetNet service is preserved.
Paragraph (version B):
DetNet flows forwarded via MPLS can leverage MPLS-TE's existing
support for hierarchical LSPs (H-LSPs), see RFC4206.  H-LSPs are
typically used to aggregate control and resources, they may also be
used to provide OAM or protection for the aggregated LSPs.  Arbitrary
levels of aggregation naturally falls out of the definition for
hierarchy and the MPLS label stack RFC3032.  DetNet nodes which
support aggregation (LSP hierarchy) map one or more LSPs (labels)
into and from an H-LSP.  Both carried LSPs and H-LSPs may or may not
use the TC field, i.e., L-LSPs or E-LSPs.  Such nodes will need to
ensure that individual LSPs and H-LSPs receive the traffic treatement
required to ensure the required DetNet service is preserved.
Paragraph (version A):
Both the Aggregation (A) label and the S-Label have their MPLS S bit
set indicating bottom of stack, and the d-CW allows the PREOF to
work.
Paragraph (version A):
It is a property of the A-label that what follows is d-CW followed by
an S-Label.  A relay node processing the A-label would not know the
underlying payload type.  This would only be known to a node that was
a peer of the node imposing the S-Label.  However there is no real
need for it to know the payload type during aggregation processing.
Paragraph (version A):
As in the previous section, nodes supporting this type of
aggregetation will need to ensure that component and aggregated flows
receive the traffic treatement required to ensure the required DetNet
service is preserved.  Also, it is the controller plane's
responsibility to to ensure that the service required on the
aggregate flow are properly provisioned.
Paragraph (version B):
Both the aggregation label, or A-Label, and the individual flow's
S-Label have their MPLS S bit set indicating bottom of stack, and the
d-CW allows the PREOF to work.  An A-Label is a special case of an
S-Label, whose properties are known only at the aggregation and
deaggregation end-points.
Paragraph (version B):
It is a property of the A-Label that what follows is a d-CW followed
by an MPLS label stack.  A relay node processing the A-Label would
not know the underlying payload type, and the A-Label would be
process as a normal S-Label.  This would only be known to a node that
was a peer of the node imposing the S-Label.  However there is no
real need for it to know the payload type during aggregation
processing.
Paragraph (version B):
As in the previous section, nodes supporting this type of
aggregetation will need to ensure that individual and aggregated
flows receive the traffic treatement required to ensure the required
DetNet service is preserved.  Also, it is the controller plane's
responsibility to to ensure that the service required on the
aggregate flow are properly provisioned.
Paragraph (version A):
F-Label to H-LSP/Label mappings.
Paragraph (version A):
H-Label values and service parameters.
Paragraph (version B):
F-Label to H-LSP mappings.
Paragraph (version B):
H-LSP label values and associated parameters.
Paragraph (version A):
If bandwidth reservations are used, the sum of the reservations
should be the sum of all the individual reservations, in other words,
the reservations should not create an over subscription of bandwidth
reservation.  If maximum delay bounds are used the system should
ensure that the aggregate does not exceed the delay bounds of the
component flows.
Paragraph (version B):
If bandwidth reservations are used, the sum of the reservations
should be the sum of all the individual reservations, in other words,
the reservations should not create an over subscription of bandwidth
reservation.  If maximum delay bounds are used the system should
ensure that the aggregate does not exceed the delay bounds of the
individual flows.
Paragraph (version A):
As described in I-D.ietf-detnet-data-plane-framework, the ability to
aggregate individual flows, and their associated resource control,
into a larger aggregate is an important technique for improving
scaling by reducing the state per hop.  DetNet IP data plane
aggregation can take place within a single node, when that node
maintains state about both the aggregated and component flows.  It
can also take place between nodes, where one node maintains state
about only flow aggregates while the other node maintains state on
all or a portion of the component flows.  In either case, the
management or control function that provisions the aggregate flows
must ensure that adequate resources are allocated and configured to
provide combined service requirements of the component flows.  As
DetNet is concerned about latency and jitter, more than just
bandwidth needs to be considered.
Paragraph (version B):
As described in I-D.ietf-detnet-data-plane-framework, the ability to
aggregate individual flows, and their associated resource control,
into a larger aggregate is an important technique for improving
scaling by reducing the state per hop.  DetNet IP data plane
aggregation can take place within a single node, when that node
maintains state about both the aggregated and individual flows.  It
can also take place between nodes, where one node maintains state
about only flow aggregates while the other node maintains state on
all or a portion of the component flows.  In either case, the
management or control function that provisions the aggregate flows
must ensure that adequate resources are allocated and configured to
provide combined service requirements of the individual flows.  As
DetNet is concerned about latency and jitter, more than just
bandwidth needs to be considered.