[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