Draft: draft-ietf-detnet-ip-over-mpls

Commentary: The changes are good .
Paragraph (version A):
This document specifies the Deterministic Networking data plane when
operating in an IP over MPLS packet switched network.
Paragraph (version B):
This document specifies the Deterministic Networking data plane when
encapsulating IP over an MPLS packet switched network.
Paragraph (version A):
This document uses the terminology and concepts established in the
DetNet architecture RFC8655 and I-D.ietf-detnet-data-plane-framework,
and the reader is assumed to be familiar with these documents and
their terminology.
Paragraph (version B):
This document uses the terminology and concepts established in the
DetNet architecture RFC8655 and I-D.ietf-detnet-data-plane-framework,
the reader is assumed to be familiar with these documents and their
terminology.
Paragraph (version A):
fig_ip_detnet illustrates an IP DetNet, with an MPLS based DetNet
network as a sub-network between the relay nodes.  It shows a more
complex DetNet enabled IP network where an IP flow is mapped to one
or more PWs and MPLS (TE) LSPs.  The end systems still originate IP
encapsulated traffic that are identified as DetNet flows.  The relay
nodes follow procedures defined in ip-over-mpls to map each DetNet
flow to MPLS LSPs.  While not shown, relay nodes can provide service
sub-layer functions such as PREOF using DetNet over MPLS, and this is
indicated by the solid line for the MPLS facing portion of the
Service component.  Note that the Transit node is MPLS (TE) LSP aware
and performs switching based on MPLS labels, and need not have any
specific knowledge of the DetNet service or the corresponding DetNet
flow identification.  See ip-over-mpls for details on the mapping of
IP flows to MPLS, and I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls for general support of
DetNet services using MPLS.
Paragraph (version B):
fig_ip_detnet illustrates an IP DetNet, with an MPLS based DetNet
network as a sub-network between the relay nodes.  An IP flow is
mapped to one or more PWs and MPLS (TE) LSPs.  The end systems still
originate IP encapsulated traffic, identified as DetNet flows.  The
relay nodes follow procedures defined in ip-over-mpls to map each
DetNet flow to MPLS LSPs.  While not shown, relay nodes can provide
service sub-layer functions such as PREOF using DetNet over MPLS, and
this is indicated by the solid line for the MPLS facing portion of
the Service component.  Note that the Transit node is MPLS (TE) LSP
aware and performs switching based on MPLS labels, and need not have
any specific knowledge of the DetNet service or the corresponding
DetNet flow identification.  See ip-over-mpls for details on the
mapping of IP flows to MPLS, and I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls for general
support of DetNet services using MPLS.
Paragraph (version A):
fig_ip_detnet illustrated DetNet enabled End Systems (hosts),
connected to DetNet (DN) enabled IP networks, operating over a DetNet
aware MPLS network.  Using this figure we can have a case where the
Relay nodes act as T-PEs and sit at the boundary of the MPLS domain
since the non-MPLS domain is DetNet aware.  This case is very similar
to the DetNet MPLS Network figure 2 in I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls.  However
in I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls figure 2 the T-PEs are located at the end
system and MPLS spans the whole DetNet service.  The primary
difference in this document is that the Relay nodes are at the edges
of the MPLS domain and therefore function as T-PEs, and that MPLS
service sub-layer functions are not provided over the DetNet IP
network.  The transit node functions show above are identical to
those described in I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls.
Paragraph (version B):
fig_ip_detnet illustrates IP DetNet enabled End Systems (hosts)
connected to DetNet (DN) enabled IP networks, operating over a DetNet
aware MPLS network.  In this Figure we have a case where the Relay
nodes act as T-PEs and sit at the boundary of the MPLS domain since
the non-MPLS domain is DetNet aware.  This case is very similar to
the DetNet MPLS Network Figure 2 in I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls.  However,
in I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls Figure 2, the T-PEs are located at the end
system and MPLS spans the whole DetNet service.  The primary
difference in this document is that the Relay nodes are at the edges
of the MPLS domain and therefore function as T-PEs, and that MPLS
service sub-layer functions are not provided over the DetNet IP
network.  The transit node functions shown above are identical to
those described in I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls.
Paragraph (version A):
fig_ip_detnet illustrates DetNet enabled End Systems, connected to
DetNet (DN) enabled MPLS network.  A similar situation occurs when
end systems are are not DetNet aware.  In this case, edge nodes sit
at the boundary of the MPLS domain since it is also a DetNet domain
boundary.  The edge nodes provide DetNet service proxies for the end
applications by initiating and terminating DetNet service for the
application's IP flows.  While the node types differ, there is
essentially no difference in data plane processing between relay and
edges.  There are likely to be differences in controller plane
operation, particularly when distributed control plane protocols are
used.
Paragraph (version B):
fig_ip_detnet illustrates DetNet enabled End Systems connected to
DetNet (DN) enabled MPLS network.  A similar situation occurs when
end systems are not DetNet aware.  In this case, edge nodes sit at
the boundary of the MPLS domain since it is also a DetNet domain
boundary.  The edge nodes provide DetNet service proxies for the end
applications by initiating and terminating DetNet service for the
application's IP flows.  While the node types differ, there is
essentially no difference in data plane processing between relay and
edges.  There are likely to be differences in controller plane
operation, particularly when distributed control plane protocols are
used.
Paragraph (version A):
It is still possible to provided DetNet service protection for non-
DetNet aware end systems.  This case is basically the same as
fig_ip_pw_detnet, with the exception that CE1 and CE2 are non-DetNet
aware end systems and R1 and R3 become edge nodes.
Paragraph (version B):
It is still possible to provide DetNet service protection for non-
DetNet aware end systems.  This case is basically the same as
fig_ip_pw_detnet, with the exception that CE1 and CE2 are non-DetNet
aware end systems and R1 and R3 become edge nodes.
Paragraph (version A):
Per Section 5.1 of I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls, the DetNet MPLS data plane
uses a single S-Label to support a single app flow.  DetNet IP Flow
Identification Procedures in Section 4.4 of I-D.ietf-detnet-ip states
that a single DetNet flow is identified based on IP, and next level
protocol, header information.  Section 4.4.  (Aggregation
Considerations) of I-D.ietf-detnet-ip defines the ways in which
aggregation is supported through the use of prefixes, wildcards,
lists, and port ranges.  Collectively, this results in the fairly
straightforward procedures defined in this section.
Paragraph (version B):
Per Section 5.1 of I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls, the DetNet MPLS data plane
uses a single S-Label to support a single app flow.  DetNet IP Flow
Identification Procedures in Section 4.4 of I-D.ietf-detnet-ip states
that a single DetNet flow is identified based on IP, and next level
protocol, header information.  Section 4.4.  (Aggregation
Considerations) of I-D.ietf-detnet-ip defines the ways in which
aggregation is supported through the use of prefixes, wildcards,
lists, and port ranges.  Collectively, this results in the fairly
straightforward procedures defined in the next section.
Paragraph (version A):
Generals security considerations for DetNet are described in detail
in I-D.ietf-detnet-security.  DetNet MPLS and DetNet IP security
considerations equally apply to this document and are described in I-
D.ietf-detnet-mpls and I-D.ietf-detnet-ip.
Paragraph (version B):
General security considerations for DetNet are described in detail in
I-D.ietf-detnet-security.  DetNet MPLS and DetNet IP security
considerations equally apply to this document and are described in I-
D.ietf-detnet-mpls and I-D.ietf-detnet-ip.
Paragraph (version A):
The primary considerations for the data plane is to maintain
integrity of data and delivery of the associated DetNet service
traversing the DetNet network.  Application flows can be protected
through whatever means is provided by the underlying technology.  For
example, encryption may be used, such as that provided by IPSec
RFC4301 for IP flows and/or by an underlying sub-net using MACSec
IEEE802.1AE-2018 for IP over Ethernet (Layer-2) flows.
Paragraph (version B):
The primary considerations for the data plane are to maintain
integrity of data and delivery of the associated DetNet service
traversing the DetNet network.  Application flows can be protected
through whatever means is provided by the underlying technology.  For
example, encryption may be used, such as that provided by IPSec
RFC4301 for IP flows and/or by an underlying sub-net using MACSec
IEEE802.1AE-2018 for IP over Ethernet (Layer-2) flows.