DetNet Q. Xiong Internet-Draft ZTE Corporation Intended status: Standards Track J. Zhao Expires: 2 January 2025 CAICT R. Gandhi Cisco Systems, Inc. 1 July 2024 IPv6 Option for Scaling Deterministic Networks draft-xiong-detnet-6man-queuing-option-06 Abstract The DetNet-specific metadata should be carried in enhanced data plane based on the enhancement requirements in scaling deterministic networks. This document outlines how the DetNet-specific metadata are encapsulated in IPv6 [RFC8200] and specifies formats and principles for the IPv6 DetNet Options to provide deterministic services. Status of This Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents 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 2 January 2025. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2024 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) 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 Xiong, et al. Expires 2 January 2025 [Page 1] Internet-Draft IPv6 Option for Scaling Deterministic Ne July 2024 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Enhancement Requirements for Scaling Deterministic Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.1. Flow Aggregation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.2. Deterministic Latency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. The DetNet Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.1. Aggregation Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.2. Deterministic Latency Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4. Encapsulation of DetNet Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4.1. IPv6 Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4.2. SRv6 Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6.1. New Option for IPv6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 1. Introduction According to [RFC8655], Deterministic Networking (DetNet) operates at the IP layer and delivers service which provides extremely low data loss rates and bounded latency within a network domain. DetNet data planes has been specified in [RFC8938]. As described in [RFC9320], the end-to-end bounded latency depends on the value of queuing delay bound along with the queuing mechanisms. Multiple queuing mechanisms can be used to guarantee the bounded latency in DetNet. But the existing deterministic technologies are facing large-scale number of nodes and long-distance transmission, traffic scheduling, dynamic flows, and other controversial issues in large-scale networks. The DetNet enhanced data plane is required to support a data plane method of flow identification and packet treatment. Xiong, et al. Expires 2 January 2025 [Page 2] Internet-Draft IPv6 Option for Scaling Deterministic Ne July 2024 [I-D.ietf-detnet-scaling-requirements] has described the enhancement requirements for DetNet enhanced data plane, such as aggregated flow identification and deterministic latency guarantees. The enhanced QoS-related functions and metadata should be provided in scaling networks. [I-D.ietf-detnet-dataplane-taxonomy] has discussed the data plane enhancement solutions and queuing mechanisms in DetNet. New DetNet-specific metadata should be carried in data plane such as IP and SRv6 data plane. This document outlines how the DetNet-specific metadata are encapsulated in IPv6 [RFC8200] and specifies formats and principles for the IPv6 DetNet Options to provide deterministic services. 1.1. Requirements Language The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here. Abbreviations and definitions used in this document: SRH: Segment Routing Header SRv6: Segment Routing for IPv6 forwarding plane DL: Deterministic Latency CSQF: Cycle Specified Queuing and Forwarding TQF: Timeslot Queuing and Forwarding C-SCORE: Work Conserving Stateless Core Fair Queuing EDF: Earliest Deadline First TAS: Time Aware Shaper ATS: Asynchronous Traffic Shaping CQF: Cyclic Queuing and Forwarding FQ: Fair Queuing TSN: Time-Sensitive Networking ECQF: Enhanced Cyclic Queuing and Forwarding Xiong, et al. Expires 2 January 2025 [Page 3] Internet-Draft IPv6 Option for Scaling Deterministic Ne July 2024 gLBF: guaranteed Latency Based Forwarding 1.2. Terminology The terminology is defined as [RFC8655]. 2. Enhancement Requirements for Scaling Deterministic Networks 2.1. Flow Aggregation As per [RFC8655], the DetNet data plane must support the aggregation of DetNet flows in order to support larger numbers of DetNet flows and improve scalability by reducing the per-hop states. And the flow aggregation may be necessary for scaling networks. As per [I-D.ietf-detnet-scaling-requirements], the deterministic services may demand different deterministic QoS requirements according to different levels of application requirements. For example, industrial applications may demand tight jitter, strict latency limit requirements. The video applications may demand relative loose latency requirements and so on. The flow identification with service-level aggregation and explicit aggregated flow identification should be supported. The flow identification is required to be dynamic and simplified to ensure the aggregated flows have compatible DetNet flow-specific QoS characteristics. In DetNet MPLS, A-Label defined as per [RFC8964] can be added explicitly to the packets. But in other DetNet data plane, no aggregated flow specific information is available. The aggregation identification and service type should be defined as the DetNet-specific metadata. The DetNet nodes along the path can identify the aggregated flow to achieve the end-to-end QoS in scaling networks. 2.2. Deterministic Latency As described in [RFC9320], the end-to-end bounded latency depends on the queuing delay bound and the queuing mechanisms. Multiple queuing mechanisms have been proposed such as TAS [IIEEE802.1Qbv], CBS [IEEE802.1Q-2014],ATS [IEEE802.1Qcr], CQF [IEEE802.1Qch] and so on. In scaling networks which has large variation in latency among hops, great number of flows and multiple domains, [I-D.ietf-detnet-scaling-requirements] has described the technical requirements for enhanced data plane solutions. Many variations and extensions of queuing mechanisms have been proposed to resolve the scalability issues in DetNet. [I-D.ietf-detnet-dataplane-taxonomy] has described the classification criteria of the solutions. For instance, the CQF variations for cyclic-based scheduling includes the Xiong, et al. Expires 2 January 2025 [Page 4] Internet-Draft IPv6 Option for Scaling Deterministic Ne July 2024 ECQF [IEEE 802.1Qdv], Multi-CQF [I-D.dang-queuing-with-multiple-cyclic-buffers], TCQF [I-D.eckert-detnet-tcqf] and CSQF [I-D.chen-detnet-sr-based-bounded-latency]. The TAS variations for timeslot-based scheduling includes TQF [I-D.peng-detnet-packet-timeslot-mechanism]. The FQ variations for rate-based scheduling includes C-SCORE [I-D.joung-detnet-stateless-fair-queuing] ATS [IEEE802.1Qcr] and gLBF [I-D.eckert-detnet-glbf]. The EDF variations for deadline-based scheduling includes EDF[I-D.peng-detnet-deadline-based-forwarding] and Local Deadline [I-D.stein-srtsn]. The Damper variations for damper-based scheduling includes Damper [I-D.mohammadpour-detnet-bounded-delay-variation] and gLBF [I-D.eckert-detnet-glbf]. And when queuing mechanisms used in large-scale networks, the per- flow states can not be maintained with scalability issues. Some queuing parameters should be carried for coordination between nodes so as to make appropriate packet forwarding and scheduling decisions to meet the time bounds. As per [I-D.ietf-detnet-scaling-requirements], the information used by functions ensuring deterministic latency should be supported as such queuing-based information. And queuing mechanisms and solutions require different information to help the functions of ensuring deterministic latency, including regulation, queue management. The deterministic latency metadata should be defined for forwarding nodes along the path which can apply the queuing mechanisms and get the related deterministic latency metadata in packet to achieve the end- to-end bounded latency. 3. The DetNet Options This document defines new IPv6 options for DetNet to signal DetNet- specific metadata. The DetNet options helps to discriminate the types of mechanisms and specify the related parameters. The format of the DetNet options follow the generic definition in section 4.2 of [RFC8200]. The DetNet options may be placed either in an HbH (Hop- by-Hop) or a DoH (Destination Option Header) EH (Extension Header). 3.1. Aggregation Option The Aggregation Option helps to identify the aggregated flow and discriminate the different deterministic QoS requirements and specify the related parameters. Xiong, et al. Expires 2 January 2025 [Page 5] Internet-Draft IPv6 Option for Scaling Deterministic Ne July 2024 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Option Type |Option Data Len| Service Type| Flag | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Aggregation ID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | End-to-end Delay Budget | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | End-to-end Delay Variation Budget | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 1: Aggregation Option Service Type: 8-bit unsigned integer, indicates the service-level or class-based aggregation type of packet treatment ensuring the deterministic QoS as following shown. This type can also indicate the aggregated class. +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Value | Service Type | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |0x0000 | Reserved | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |0x0100 | Bandwidth guarantee | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |0x0200 | Jitter guarantee | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |0x0300 | Delay guarantee | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |0x0400 | Low delay and jitter guarantee | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |0x0500 |Ultra-low delay and jitter guarantee | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 2: Service Type Flag: 8-bit flags field. Aggregation ID: 32bits. It provides explicit and unique identifier for aggregated flow identification. DetNet nodes performing aggregation using aggregation ID. End-to-end Delay Budget: 32bits. It provides the value of end-to-end delay budget for the aggregated flow. Xiong, et al. Expires 2 January 2025 [Page 6] Internet-Draft IPv6 Option for Scaling Deterministic Ne July 2024 End-to-end Delay Variation Budget: 32bits. It provides the value of end-to-end delay variation budget for the aggregated flow. 3.2. Deterministic Latency Option The Deterministic Latency Option helps to discriminate the deterministic latency technologies and specify the related parameters. 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Option Type |Option Data Len| DL Type | Flag | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | ~ Deterministic Latency Data(variable)(optional) ~ | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 3: Deterministic Latency Option Format Option Type: TBD1, 8-bit option type identifier indicates the Deterministic Latency Option. Option Data Len: 8-bit unsigned integer. Length of this option, in octets, not including the first 2 octets. DL (Deterministic Latency) Type: 8-bit unsigned integer, indicates the type of deterministic latency information and related queuing and scheduling metadata. Flag: 8-bit flags field. Deterministic Latency Data: Variable-length field and the data is specific to the type. The Deterministic Latency type and data should depend on and align with the classification of the data plane queuing and scheduling solutions as per [I-D.ietf-detnet-dataplane-taxonomy]. For instance, it may cover the information such as cycle, timeslot, deadline, rate, packet size, damper, timestamp information as shown in Figure 3. Xiong, et al. Expires 2 January 2025 [Page 7] Internet-Draft IPv6 Option for Scaling Deterministic Ne July 2024 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type |Deterministic Latency Type and Information| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |0x0000 | Unassigned | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |0x0001 | Cycle Information | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |0x0002 | Timeslot Information | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |0x0003 | Deadline Information | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |0x0004 | Ratio Information | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |0x0005 | Damper Information | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 4: Deterministic Latency Type and Information 4. Encapsulation of DetNet Options 4.1. IPv6 Networks The DetNet Options is intended to be placed in an IPv6 HbH EH since it must be processed by every DetNet forwarding node along the path. For the DetNet options, all DetNet forwarding nodes can use the queuing information to achieve the packet forwarding and scheduling. The format of DetNet options in IPv6 is as follows. +-----------------------------------+ | DetNet App-Flow | | (original IP) Packet | +-----------------------------------+ | other EHs | +-----------------------------------+ | IPv6 Hop-by-Hop Ex Hdr | | (DetNet Options) | | | +-----------------------------------+ | IPv6 Header | +-----------------------------------+ | Data-Link | +-----------------------------------+ | Physical | +-----------------------------------+ Figure 5: DetNet Option Format in IPv6 Xiong, et al. Expires 2 January 2025 [Page 8] Internet-Draft IPv6 Option for Scaling Deterministic Ne July 2024 4.2. SRv6 Networks The DetNet Options is intended to be placed in an DOH EH before an SRH since it must be processed by the DetNet forwarding nodes of the SRv6 segment list. For the DetNet options, the DetNet forwarding nodes among SRv6 segment list can use the queuing-based information to achieve the packet forwarding and scheduling. The format of DetNet options in SRv6 is as follows. +-----------------------------------+ | DetNet App-Flow | | (original IP) Packet | +-----------------------------------+ | Segment Routing Header | +-----------------------------------+ | IPv6 Destination Ex Hdr | | (DetNet Options) | | | +-----------------------------------+ | IPv6 Header | +-----------------------------------+ | Data-Link | +-----------------------------------+ | Physical | +-----------------------------------+ Figure 6: DetNet Options Format in SRv6 5. Security Considerations As this document describes new options for IPv6, it can apply the security considerations of [RFC8200] and [RFC8250]. Security considerations for DetNet are covered in the DetNet Architecture [RFC8655] and DetNet data plane [RFC8938], [RFC8939], [RFC8964] and DetNet security considerations [RFC9055]. The security considerations specified in [I-D.ietf-detnet-scaling-requirements] are also applicable to the procedures defined in this document. 6. IANA Considerations 6.1. New Option for IPv6 This specification updates the "Destination Options and Hop-by-Hop Options" under the "Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Parameters" registry with the values below: Xiong, et al. Expires 2 January 2025 [Page 9] Internet-Draft IPv6 Option for Scaling Deterministic Ne July 2024 +======+===================================+=================+ | Type | Description | Reference | +======+===================================+=================+ | TBD1 | IPv6 Aggregation Option | [this document] | +------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+ | TBD2 | IPv6 Deterministic Latency Option | [this document] | +------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+ Table 1 7. Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank Aihua Liu, Peng Liu, Bin Tan, and Shaofu Peng for their review, suggestions and comments to this document. 8. References 8.1. Normative References [I-D.chen-detnet-sr-based-bounded-latency] Chen, M., Geng, X., Li, Z., Joung, J., and J. Ryoo, "Segment Routing (SR) Based Bounded Latency", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-chen-detnet-sr-based- bounded-latency-03, 7 July 2023, . [I-D.dang-queuing-with-multiple-cyclic-buffers] Liu, B. and J. Dang, "A Queuing Mechanism with Multiple Cyclic Buffers", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft- dang-queuing-with-multiple-cyclic-buffers-00, 22 February 2021, . [I-D.eckert-detnet-glbf] Eckert, T. T., Clemm, A., Bryant, S., and S. Hommes, "Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Data Plane - guaranteed Latency Based Forwarding (gLBF) for bounded latency with low jitter and asynchronous forwarding in Deterministic Networks", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-eckert- detnet-glbf-02, 5 January 2024, . [I-D.eckert-detnet-tcqf] Eckert, T. T., Li, Y., Bryant, S., Malis, A. G., Ryoo, J., Liu, P., Li, G., Ren, S., and F. Yang, "Deterministic Xiong, et al. Expires 2 January 2025 [Page 10] Internet-Draft IPv6 Option for Scaling Deterministic Ne July 2024 Networking (DetNet) Data Plane - Tagged Cyclic Queuing and Forwarding (TCQF) for bounded latency with low jitter in large scale DetNets", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-eckert-detnet-tcqf-05, 5 January 2024, . [I-D.ietf-detnet-dataplane-taxonomy] Joung, J., Geng, X., Peng, S., and T. T. Eckert, "Dataplane Enhancement Taxonomy", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-detnet-dataplane-taxonomy-00, 24 May 2024, . [I-D.ietf-detnet-scaling-requirements] Liu, P., Li, Y., Eckert, T. T., Xiong, Q., Ryoo, J., zhushiyin, and X. Geng, "Requirements for Scaling Deterministic Networks", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-detnet-scaling-requirements-06, 22 May 2024, . [I-D.joung-detnet-stateless-fair-queuing] Joung, J., Ryoo, J., Cheung, T., Li, Y., and P. Liu, "Latency Guarantee with Stateless Fair Queuing", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-joung-detnet-stateless- fair-queuing-02, 29 February 2024, . [I-D.mohammadpour-detnet-bounded-delay-variation] Mohammadpour, E. and J. Le Boudec, "DetNet Bounded Packet- Delay-Variation", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft- mohammadpour-detnet-bounded-delay-variation-00, 10 September 2021, . [I-D.peng-detnet-deadline-based-forwarding] Peng, S., Du, Z., Basu, K., cheng, Yang, D., and C. Liu, "Deadline Based Deterministic Forwarding", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-peng-detnet-deadline- based-forwarding-10, 20 June 2024, . [I-D.peng-detnet-packet-timeslot-mechanism] Peng, S., Liu, P., Basu, K., Liu, A., Yang, D., and G. Peng, "Timeslot Queueing and Forwarding Mechanism", Work Xiong, et al. Expires 2 January 2025 [Page 11] Internet-Draft IPv6 Option for Scaling Deterministic Ne July 2024 in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-peng-detnet-packet- timeslot-mechanism-07, 20 June 2024, . [I-D.stein-srtsn] Stein, Y. J., "Segment Routed Time Sensitive Networking", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-stein-srtsn-01, 29 August 2021, . [I-D.xiong-detnet-data-fields-edp] Xiong, Q., Liu, A., Gandhi, R., and D. Yang, "Data Fields for DetNet Enhanced Data Plane", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-xiong-detnet-data-fields-edp-02, 1 July 2024, . [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, . [RFC4915] Psenak, P., Mirtorabi, S., Roy, A., Nguyen, L., and P. Pillay-Esnault, "Multi-Topology (MT) Routing in OSPF", RFC 4915, DOI 10.17487/RFC4915, June 2007, . [RFC5120] Przygienda, T., Shen, N., and N. Sheth, "M-ISIS: Multi Topology (MT) Routing in Intermediate System to Intermediate Systems (IS-ISs)", RFC 5120, DOI 10.17487/RFC5120, February 2008, . [RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440, DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, March 2009, . [RFC7752] Gredler, H., Ed., Medved, J., Previdi, S., Farrel, A., and S. Ray, "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and Traffic Engineering (TE) Information Using BGP", RFC 7752, DOI 10.17487/RFC7752, March 2016, . [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017, . Xiong, et al. Expires 2 January 2025 [Page 12] Internet-Draft IPv6 Option for Scaling Deterministic Ne July 2024 [RFC8200] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200, DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017, . [RFC8231] Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Medved, J., and R. Varga, "Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Stateful PCE", RFC 8231, DOI 10.17487/RFC8231, September 2017, . [RFC8250] Elkins, N., Hamilton, R., and M. Ackermann, "IPv6 Performance and Diagnostic Metrics (PDM) Destination Option", RFC 8250, DOI 10.17487/RFC8250, September 2017, . [RFC8655] Finn, N., Thubert, P., Varga, B., and J. Farkas, "Deterministic Networking Architecture", RFC 8655, DOI 10.17487/RFC8655, October 2019, . [RFC8664] Sivabalan, S., Filsfils, C., Tantsura, J., Henderickx, W., and J. Hardwick, "Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Segment Routing", RFC 8664, DOI 10.17487/RFC8664, December 2019, . [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, . [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, . [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, . [RFC9055] Grossman, E., Ed., Mizrahi, T., and A. Hacker, "Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Security Considerations", RFC 9055, DOI 10.17487/RFC9055, June 2021, . Xiong, et al. Expires 2 January 2025 [Page 13] Internet-Draft IPv6 Option for Scaling Deterministic Ne July 2024 [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, . [RFC9357] Xiong, Q., "Label Switched Path (LSP) Object Flag Extension for Stateful PCE", RFC 9357, DOI 10.17487/RFC9357, February 2023, . Authors' Addresses Quan Xiong ZTE Corporation China Email: xiong.quan@zte.com.cn Junfeng Zhao CAICT China Email: zhaojunfeng@caict.ac.cn Rakesh Gandhi Cisco Systems, Inc. Canada Email: rgandhi@cisco.com Xiong, et al. Expires 2 January 2025 [Page 14]