[Detnet] Crosshaul input for consideration in draft-ietf-detnet-use-cases
Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano <cjbc@it.uc3m.es> Fri, 10 March 2017 03:06 UTC
Return-Path: <cjbc@it.uc3m.es>
X-Original-To: detnet@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: detnet@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DDE3129549 for <detnet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Mar 2017 19:06:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=it-uc3m-es.20150623.gappssmtp.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3jGtBmUMRnQV for <detnet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Mar 2017 19:06:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wm0-x242.google.com (mail-wm0-x242.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::242]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3AE0A129547 for <detnet@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Mar 2017 19:06:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wm0-x242.google.com with SMTP id n11so257301wma.0 for <detnet@ietf.org>; Thu, 09 Mar 2017 19:06:23 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=it-uc3m-es.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=message-id:subject:from:reply-to:to:cc:date:organization :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=SAlMMNWkeBzsaCPRBT4igOOJjRoDLirAhVlLyKZRa78=; b=qPXUqasmp5q2FAtCXruKjbtWIMo7FsFUPmsWGkyugDMKs2ld1d/6PqhMR9GUxRj3X5 zYm1euYluncqWInfjyMoJOGwnrCKyVoLhPSEyFEdy7s0DbiK5dACt9Pd3TTGx6Y1BTOQ doKKEMC0HcJF8E83vzwHW4hCHE4LsqIVNrayGSHj5YOTYxxKU4Ajv4h/rXp30DpX19qE AZTb7PA/OYAjyObqCubRSVlF77Ab8aY840a8Zb2kfOGhR+4NtOXSTvIltYJGzH2NkzMB EUDul/+9HzeLhpESGFoNbi7XsfGZCy7QSmjIJXOQaOXwGqMYN74l8dTs5b4nJaOB87Zc i0kg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:subject:from:reply-to:to:cc:date :organization:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=SAlMMNWkeBzsaCPRBT4igOOJjRoDLirAhVlLyKZRa78=; b=iF3qfDQjpgeg7/iVYS0ViJh92zJg5sITOPzVAl1NlaNCfPvNVYhsC8FyYvKDCBA/b0 hotgN9vtBo0btOGNej20kbJ6cGOCCwKCKhU7xg+Fsq97rlgAxyxSJcnT6Z8Y6ddEKvhF MIcVqrWlLXL49o4NjR4t8EUnbjRlFLbPultyCB6GdNiCRMwRpDz6DMgjIQHuhk3CbqG7 QYQr8THhC4958MwiFZez3L7okfXljc27S3W+R/NMeXsMCRSKYqcROmcrPyzwOgmumpDN Fk9C7q72oYKb+ef+de6WpsI6FqFDR+aZ8sf2YAcbLw/xexy1ozecYMA8pjWZI0CKEbEP I09A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H1LGiNZ8ll5fR+0ZpFdx92+PJLSECCH0+5RPxRSNg790a2UrYK4deq1jki1hvySCtA3
X-Received: by 10.28.30.79 with SMTP id e76mr75046wme.96.1489108914349; Thu, 09 Mar 2017 17:21:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cjbc_dell.lan (85.251.161.16.dyn.user.ono.com. [85.251.161.16]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id g18sm899104wme.2.2017.03.09.17.21.53 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Thu, 09 Mar 2017 17:21:53 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <1489108912.5107.27.camel@it.uc3m.es>
From: Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano <cjbc@it.uc3m.es>
To: "detnet@ietf.org" <detnet@ietf.org>
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2017 02:21:52 +0100
Organization: Universidad Carlos III de Madrid
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Mailer: Evolution 3.22.5-1
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/c9j7AywS3uyk30aDduuZwrVeRVI>
Cc: draft-ietf-detnet-use-cases@tools.ietf.org
Subject: [Detnet] Crosshaul input for consideration in draft-ietf-detnet-use-cases
X-BeenThere: detnet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
Reply-To: cjbc@it.uc3m.es
List-Id: Discussions on Deterministic Networking BoF and Proposed WG <detnet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/detnet>, <mailto:detnet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/detnet/>
List-Post: <mailto:detnet@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:detnet-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet>, <mailto:detnet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2017 03:06:26 -0000
Hi, In Seoul we presented draft-bernardos-detnet-crosshaul-requirements- 00.txt as potential input to be considered for "Section 6. Cellular radio" of draft-ietf-detnet-use-cases. The group agreed that contributions from us were welcome to complement/fix the text in the use cases document. We have taken -11 version and tried to propose specific changes to the document. Please find them below for discussion. ---- 6.1.1. Network Architecture OLD: Figure 10 illustrates a typical 3GPP-defined cellular network architecture, which includes "Fronthaul" and "Midhaul" network segments. The "Fronthaul" is the network connecting base stations (baseband processing units) to the remote radio heads (antennas). The "Midhaul" is the network inter-connecting base stations (or small cell sites). NEW: Figure 10 illustrates a typical 3GPP-defined cellular network architecture, which includes "Fronthaul", "Midhaul" and "Backhaul" network segments. The "Fronthaul" is the network connecting base stations (baseband processing units) to the remote radio heads (antennas). The "Midhaul" is the network inter-connecting base stations (or small cell sites). The "Backhaul" is the network or links connecting the radio base station sites to the network controller/gateway sites (i.e. the core of the 3GPP cellular network). ---- 6.1.3. Time Synchronization Constraints [...] OLD: In cellular networks from the LTE radio era onward, phase synchronization is needed in addition to frequency synchronization ([TS36300], [TS23401]). NEW: In cellular networks from the LTE radio era onward, phase synchronizatio n is needed in addition to frequency synchronization ([TS36300], [TS23401]). Time constraints are also important due to its impact on packet loss. If a packet is delivered too late, then the packet may be dropped by the host. ---- ---- 6.1.4. Transport Loss Constraints [...] OLD: For packetized Fronthaul and Midhaul connections packet loss may be caused by BER, congestion, or network failure scenarios. Current tools for elminating packet loss for Fronthaul and Midhaul networks have serious challenges, for example retransmitting lost packets and/ or using forward error correction (FEC) to circumvent bit errors is practically impossible due to the additional delay incurred. Using redundant streams for better guarantees for delivery is also practically impossible in many cases due to high bandwidth requirements of Fronthaul and Midhaul networks. Protection switching is also a candidate but current technologies for the path switch are too slow to avoid reset of mobile interfaces. NEW: For packetized Fronthaul and Midhaul connections packet loss may be caused by BER, congestion, or network failure scenarios. Some fronthaul functional splits considered by 3GPP require the frame loss ratio (FLR) to be less than 10E-7 for data traffic and less than 10E-6 for C&M. Current tools for eliminating packet loss for Fronthaul and Midhaul networks have serious challenges, for example retransmitting lost packets and/or using forward error correction (FEC) to circumvent bit errors is practically impossible due to the additional delay incurred. Using redundant streams for better guarantees for delivery is also practically impossible in many cases due to high bandwidth requirements of Fronthaul and Midhaul networks. Protection switching is also a candidate but current technologies for the path switch are too slow to avoid reset of mobile interfaces. ---- ---- 6.3. Cellular Radio Networks Future [...] OLD: o All form of xHaul networks will need some form of DetNet solutions. For example with the advent of 5G some Backhaul traffic will also have DetNet requirements (e.g. traffic belonging to time-critical 5G applications). NEW: o All form of xHaul networks will need some form of DetNet solutions. For example with the advent of 5G some Backhaul traffic will also have DetNet requirements (e.g. traffic belonging to time-critical 5G applications). o Different splits of the functionality run on the base stations (baseband processing units) and the remote radio heads (antennae) could co-exist on the same Fronthaul and Backhaul network. ---- ---- 6.4. Cellular Radio Networks Asks [...] OLD: A standard for data plane transport specification which is: o Unified among all xHauls (meaning that different flows with diverse DetNet requirements can coexist in the same network and traverse the same nodes without interfering with each other) o Deployed in a highly deterministic network environment NEW: A standard for data plane transport specification which is: o Unified among all xHauls (meaning that different flows with diverse DetNet requirements can coexist in the same network and traverse the same nodes without interfering with each other) o Deployed in a highly deterministic network environment o Capable of supporting multiple functional splits simultaneously, including existing Backhaul and CPRI Fronthaul and new modes as defined for example in 3GPP. o Slicing and Multi-tenancy-capable, supporting: isolating traffic (guaranteed QoS) and separating traffic (privacy). o Compatible with existing security and synchronization mechanisms, such as IEEE1588, IEEE802.1AS. o Capable of transporting both in-band and out-band control traffic (OAM info, ...). o Deployable over multiple data link technologies (e.g., IEEE 802.3, mmWave, etc.). ---- Comments are welcome, Thanks, Carlos
- [Detnet] Crosshaul input for consideration in dra… Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano
- Re: [Detnet] Crosshaul input for consideration in… Balázs Varga A
- Re: [Detnet] Crosshaul input for consideration in… Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano
- Re: [Detnet] Crosshaul input for consideration in… Balázs Varga A
- Re: [Detnet] Crosshaul input for consideration in… Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano