



Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                          A. Malis
Request for Comments: 9938                                   Independent
Category: Informational                                     X. Geng, Ed.
ISSN: 2070-1721                                           M. (Guoyi)Chen
                                                                  Huawei
                                                                B. Varga
                                                                Ericsson
                                                           CJ. Bernardos
                                                                    UC3M
                                                              March 2026


 A Framework for the Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Controller Plane

Abstract

   This document provides a framework overview for the Deterministic
   Networking (DetNet) Controller Plane.  It discusses concepts and
   requirements for the DetNet Controller Plane, which could be the
   basis for a future solution specification.

Status of This Memo

   This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
   published for informational purposes.

   This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
   (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.  It has
   received public review and has been approved for publication by the
   Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Not all documents
   approved by the IESG are candidates for any level of Internet
   Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 7841.

   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9938.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2026 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 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.  DetNet Controller Plane Requirements
     2.1.  DetNet Control Plane Requirements
     2.2.  DetNet Management Plane Requirements
     2.3.  Requirements for Both Planes
   3.  DetNet Control Plane Architecture
     3.1.  Distributed Control Plane and Signaling Protocols
     3.2.  Fully Centralized Control Plane
     3.3.  Hybrid Control Plane (Partly Centralized and Partly
           Distributed)
   4.  DetNet Control Plane for DetNet Mechanisms
     4.1.  Explicit Paths
     4.2.  Resource Reservation
     4.3.  PREOF Support
     4.4.  Data-Plane-Specific Considerations
       4.4.1.  DetNet in an MPLS Domain
       4.4.2.  DetNet in an IP Domain
       4.4.3.  DetNet in a Segment Routing Domain
     4.5.  Encapsulation and Metadata Support
   5.  Management Plane Overview
     5.1.  DetNet Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM)
       5.1.1.  OAM for Performance Monitoring (PM)
       5.1.2.  OAM for Connectivity and Fault Management (CFM)
   6.  Multi-Domain Aspects
   7.  IANA Considerations
   8.  Security Considerations
   9.  References
     9.1.  Normative References
     9.2.  Informative References
   Acknowledgments
   Contributors
   Authors' Addresses

1.  Introduction

   Deterministic Networking (DetNet) provides the ability to carry
   specified unicast or multicast data flows for real-time applications
   with extremely low packet loss rates and assured maximum end-to-end
   delivery latency.  A description of the general background and
   concepts of DetNet can be found in [RFC8655].

   The DetNet data plane is defined in the DetNet data plane framework
   [RFC8938] (and is further explained in the associated DetNet MPLS
   [RFC8964], the DetNet IP [RFC8939], and other data plane
   specifications [RFC9023] [RFC9024] [RFC9025] [RFC9037] [RFC9056]).

   Note that in the DetNet overall architecture, the controller plane
   includes what are more usually considered separate control and
   management planes (see Section 4.4.2 of [RFC8655]).  The management
   plane is primarily involved with fault management, configuration
   management, and performance management (sometimes accounting
   management and security management are also considered in the
   management plane (Section 4.2 of [RFC6632]) but they are out of the
   scope of this document).  At the same time, the control plane is
   primarily responsible for the instantiation and maintenance of flows,
   MPLS label allocation and distribution, and active in-band or out-of-
   band signaling to support DetNet functions.  In the DetNet
   architecture, all of this functionality is combined into a single
   controller plane.  See Section 4.4.2 of [RFC8655] and the aggregation
   of control and management planes in [RFC7426] for further details.

   While the DetNet architecture and data plane documents are primarily
   concerned with data plane operations, they do contain some
   requirements and considerations for functions that would be required
   in order to automate DetNet service provisioning and monitoring via a
   DetNet Controller Plane (e.g., see Section 4 of [RFC8938]).  The
   purpose of this document is to take these requirements and
   considerations into a single document and extend and discuss how
   various possible DetNet Controller Plane architectures could be used
   to satisfy these requirements, while not providing the protocol
   details for a DetNet Controller Plane solution.  Such controller
   plane protocol solutions will be the subject of subsequent documents.
   Therefore, this document should be considered as the authoritative
   reference to be considered if/when protocol work on the DetNet
   Controller Plane starts.

2.  DetNet Controller Plane Requirements

   Other DetNet documents, including [RFC8655], [RFC8938], [RFC9551],
   and [RFC9055], among others, contain requirements for the controller
   plane.  For convenience, these requirements have been compiled here.
   These requirements have been organized into three groups: 1)
   requirements primarily applicable to the control plane, 2)
   requirements primarily applicable to the management plane, and 3)
   requirements applicable to both planes.  In addition, security
   requirements for the DetNet Controller Plane have been discussed in
   [RFC9055], and a summary of those requirements is provided in
   Section 2.3.  For the sake of clarity, when applicable, the document
   in which the requirements originally appear is referenced.

2.1.  DetNet Control Plane Requirements

   The primary requirements for the DetNet Control Plane are as follows:

   *  Support the dynamic instantiation, modification, and deletion of
      DetNet flows.  This may include some or all of explicit path
      determination, link bandwidth reservations, restriction of flows
      to specific links (e.g., IEEE 802.1 Time-Sensitive Networking
      (TSN) links), node buffer and other resource reservations,
      specification of required queuing disciplines along the path, the
      ability to manage bidirectional flows, etc., as needed for a flow
      [RFC8938].

   *  Support DetNet flow aggregation and de-aggregation via the ability
      to dynamically create and delete flow aggregates (FAs) and modify
      existing FAs by adding or deleting participating flows [RFC8938].

   *  Allow flow instantiation requests to originate in an end
      application (via an Application Programming Interface (API) via
      static provisioning or via a dynamic control plane, such as a
      Software-Defined Networking (SDN) controller or distributed
      signaling protocols).  See Section 3 for further discussion of
      these options.

   *  Manage, in the case of the DetNet MPLS data plane, DetNet Service
      Label (S-Label), Forwarding Label (F-Label), and Aggregation Label
      (A-Label) [RFC8964] allocation and distribution [RFC8938].

   *  Support, also in the case of the DetNet MPLS data plane, the
      DetNet service sub-layer, which provides DetNet service functions,
      such as protection and reordering through the use of Packet
      Replication, Elimination, and Ordering Functions (PREOF)
      [RFC8655].

   *  Support the queue control techniques defined in [RFC8655],
      Section 4.5 and [RFC9320] that require time synchronization among
      the network data plane nodes.

   *  Advertise static and dynamic node and link characteristics, such
      as capabilities and adjacencies to other network nodes (for
      dynamic signaling approaches) or to network controllers (for
      centralized approaches) [RFC8938].

   *  Scale to handle the number of DetNet flows expected in a domain
      (which may require per-flow signaling or provisioning) [RFC8938].

   *  Provision flow identification information at each of the nodes
      along the path.  Flow identification may differ depending on the
      location in the network and the DetNet functionality (e.g.,
      transit node vs. relay node) [RFC8938].

2.2.  DetNet Management Plane Requirements

   The primary requirements for the DetNet management plane are as
   follows:

   *  Monitor the performance of DetNet flows and nodes to ensure that
      they are meeting required objectives, both proactively and on
      demand [RFC9551].

   *  Support DetNet flow continuity check and connectivity verification
      functions [RFC9551].

   *  Support testing and monitoring of packet replication, duplicate
      elimination, and packet ordering functionality in the DetNet
      domain [RFC9551].

2.3.  Requirements for Both Planes

   The following requirements apply to both the DetNet control and
   management planes:

   *  Operate in a converged network domain that contains both DetNet
      and non-DetNet flows [RFC8655].

   *  Adapt to DetNet domain topology changes such as link or node
      failures (fault recovery/restoration), additions, and removals
      [RFC8655].

   In addition to the above, the DetNet Controller Plane should also
   satisfy security requirements derived from [RFC9055], which defines
   the security framework for DetNet.  The following requirements are
   especially relevant:

   *  Integrity and authenticity of control/signaling packets: The
      controller plane should ensure that signaling and control messages
      cannot be modified or injected by unauthorized entities and should
      prevent spoofing and segmentation attacks.

   *  Protection against controller compromise: Mechanisms should exist
      to verify the legitimacy of controllers and to prevent
      unauthorized components from impersonating them.

   *  System-wide security design: The architecture must account for the
      possibility of compromised nodes or controllers, ensuring
      resilience so that the failure or subversion of a single component
      does not cause catastrophic impact.

   *  Timely delivery of control plane messages: The controller plane
      should ensure that control and signaling messages are delivered
      without undue delay to prevent disruption of DetNet services
      without resource leakage.

3.  DetNet Control Plane Architecture

   As noted in the Introduction, the DetNet Control Plane is responsible
   for the instantiation and maintenance of flows, the allocation and
   distribution of flow-related information (e.g., MPLS label), and
   active in-band or out-of-band information distribution to support
   these functions.

   The following sections define three types of DetNet Control Plane
   architectures: 1) a fully distributed control plane utilizing dynamic
   signaling protocols, 2) a fully centralized SDN-like control plane,
   and 3) a hybrid control plane containing both distributed protocols
   and centralized controlling.  This document describes the various
   information exchanges between entities in the network for each type
   of these architectures and the corresponding advantages and
   disadvantages.

   The examples in the following sections illustrate possible mechanisms
   that could be used in each type of the architectures.  They are not
   meant to be exhaustive or to preclude any other possible mechanism
   that could be used in place of those used in the examples.

3.1.  Distributed Control Plane and Signaling Protocols

   In a fully distributed configuration model, the User-Network
   Interface (UNI) information is transmitted over a DetNet UNI protocol
   from the user side to the network side.  Then, the UNI and network
   configuration information propagates in the network via distributed
   control plane signaling protocols.  Such a DetNet UNI protocol is not
   necessary when the end systems are DetNet capable.

   Taking an RSVP-TE [RFC3209] MPLS network as an example, where end
   systems are not part of the DetNet domain:

   1.  Network nodes collect topology information and DetNet
       capabilities of the network nodes through IGP.

   2.  The ingress edge node receives a flow establishment request from
       the UNI and calculates one or more valid paths.

   3.  The ingress node sends a PATH message with an explicit route
       through RSVP-TE.  After receiving the PATH message, the egress
       edge node sends a RESV message with the distributed label and
       resource reservation request.

   In this example, both the IGP and RSVP-TE may require extensions for
   DetNet.

3.2.  Fully Centralized Control Plane

   In the fully centralized configuration model (e.g., using an SDN
   controller), both flow and UNI information can be transmitted from a
   centralized user controller or from other applications, via an API or
   northbound interface, to a centralized controller.  Network node
   configurations for DetNet flows are performed by the controller using
   a protocol such as NETCONF [RFC6241], YANG [RFC6020] [RFC7950],
   DetNet YANG [RFC9633], or a PCE-based central controller (PCE-CC)
   [RFC8283].

   Take the following case as an example:

   1.  A centralized controller collects topology information and DetNet
       capabilities of the network nodes via NETCONF/YANG.

   2.  The controller receives a flow establishment request from a UNI
       and calculates one or more valid paths through the network.

   3.  The controller chooses the optimal path and configures the
       devices along that path for DetNet flow transmission via PCE-CC.

   The protocols in the above example may require extensions for DetNet.

3.3.  Hybrid Control Plane (Partly Centralized and Partly Distributed)

   In the hybrid model, the controller and control plane protocols work
   together to provide DetNet services, and there are a number of
   possible combinations.

   In the following case, the RSVP-TE and controller are used together:

   1.  A controller collects topology information and DetNet
       capabilities of the network nodes via an IGP and/or the Border
       Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS) [RFC9552].

   2.  A controller receives a flow establishment request through API
       and calculates one or more valid paths through the network.

   3.  Based on the calculation result, the controller distributes flow
       path information to the ingress edge node and configures network
       nodes along the path with necessary DetNet information (e.g., for
       replication/duplicate elimination).

   4.  Using RSVP-TE, the ingress edge node sends a PATH message with an
       explicit route.  After receiving the PATH message, the egress
       edge node sends a RESV message with the distributed label and
       resource reservation request.

   There are many other variations that could be included in a hybrid
   control plane.  The requested DetNet extensions for a protocol in
   each possible case is for future work.

4.  DetNet Control Plane for DetNet Mechanisms

   This section discusses the requested control plane features for
   DetNet mechanisms as defined in [RFC8655], including PREOF.
   Different DetNet services may implement any or all of these based on
   the requirements.

4.1.  Explicit Paths

   Explicit paths are required in DetNet to provide a stable forwarding
   service and guarantee that the DetNet service is not impacted when
   the network topology changes.  The following features are necessary
   in the control plane to implement explicit paths in DetNet:

   *  Path computation: DetNet explicit paths need to meet the Service
      Level Agreement (SLA) requirements of the application, which
      include bandwidth, maximum end-to-end delay, maximum end-to-end
      delay variation, maximum loss ratio, etc.  In a distributed
      network system, an IGP with Constrained Shortest Path First (CSPF)
      may be used to compute a set of feasible paths for a DetNet
      service.  In a centralized network system, the controller can
      compute paths satisfying the requirements of DetNet based on the
      network information collected from the DetNet domain.

   *  Path establishment: The computed path for the DetNet service has
      to be sent/configured/signaled to the network device so that the
      corresponding DetNet flow can pass through the network domain
      following the specified path.

4.2.  Resource Reservation

   DetNet flows are supposed to be protected from congestion, so
   sufficient resource reservation for a DetNet service could protect a
   service from congestion.  There are multiple types of resources in
   the network that could be allocated to DetNet flows, e.g., packet
   processing resources, buffer resources, and the bandwidth of the
   output port.  The network resource requested by a specified DetNet
   service is determined by the SLA requirements and network capability.

   *  Resource Allocation: Port bandwidth is one of the basic attributes
      of a network device that is easy to obtain or calculate.  In
      current traffic engineering implementations, network resource
      allocation is synonymous with bandwidth allocation.  A DetNet flow
      is characterized by a traffic specification, as defined in
      [RFC9016], including attributes such as Interval,
      MaxPacketsPerInterval, and MaxPayloadSize.  The traffic
      specification describes the worst case, rather than the average
      case, for the traffic to ensure that sufficient bandwidth and
      buffering resources are reserved to satisfy the traffic
      specification.  However, in the case of DetNet, resource
      allocation is more than simple bandwidth reservation.  For
      example, allocation of buffers and required queuing disciplines
      during forwarding may be required as well.  Furthermore, resources
      must be ensured to execute DetNet service sub-layer functions on
      the node, such as protection and reordering through the use of
      PREOF.

   *  Device configuration with or without flow discrimination: The
      resource allocation can be guaranteed by device configuration.
      For example, an output port bandwidth reservation can be
      configured as a parameter of queue management and the port
      scheduling algorithm.  When DetNet flows are aggregated, a group
      of DetNet flows share the allocated resource in the network
      device.  When the DetNet flows are treated independently, the
      device should maintain a mapping relationship between a DetNet
      flow and its corresponding resources.

4.3.  PREOF Support

   DetNet path redundancy is supported via Packet Replication,
   Elimination, and Ordering Functions (PREOF).  A DetNet flow is
   replicated and forwarded by multiple networks paths to avoid packet
   loss caused by device or link failures.  In general, current control
   plane mechanisms that can be used to establish an explicit path,
   whether distributed or centralized, support point-to-point (P2P) and
   point-to-multipoint (P2MP) path establishment.  PREOF requires the
   ability to compute and establish a set of multiple paths (e.g.,
   multiple Label Switched Path (LSP) segments in an MPLS network) from
   the point(s) of packet replication to the point(s) of packet merging
   and ordering.  Mapping of DetNet flows or DetNet member flows to
   explicit path segments has to be ensured as well.  Protocol
   extensions will be required to support these new features.
   Terminology will also be required to refer to this coordinated set of
   path segments (such as an "LSP graph" in the case of the DetNet MPLS
   data plane).

4.4.  Data-Plane-Specific Considerations

4.4.1.  DetNet in an MPLS Domain

   For the purposes of this document, "legacy MPLS" is defined as MPLS
   without the use of Segment Routing (see Section 4.4.3 for a
   discussion of MPLS with Segment Routing) or MPLS Transport Profile
   (MPLS-TP) [RFC5960].

   In legacy MPLS domains, a dynamic control plane using distributed
   signaling protocols is typically used for the distribution of MPLS
   labels used for forwarding MPLS packets.  The dynamic signaling
   protocols most commonly used for label distribution are LDP
   [RFC5036], RSVP-TE [RFC4875], and BGP [RFC8277] (which enables BGP-
   based MPLS Layer 3 VPNs [RFC4384], Layer 2 VPNs [RFC4664], and EVPNs
   [RFC7432]).

   Any of these protocols could be used to distribute DetNet Service
   Labels (S-Labels) and Aggregation Labels (A-Labels) [RFC8964].  As
   discussed in [RFC8938], S-Labels are similar to other MPLS service
   labels, such as pseudowire and L3 VPN and L2 VPN labels, and could be
   distributed in a similar manner, such as through the use of targeted
   LDP or BGP.  If these were to be used for DetNet, they would require
   extensions to support DetNet-specific features, such as PREOF,
   aggregation (A-Labels), node resource allocation, and queue
   placement.

4.4.2.  DetNet in an IP Domain

   For the purposes of this document, "legacy IP" is defined as IP
   without the use of Segment Routing (see Section 4.4.3 for a
   discussion of IP with Segment Routing).  It should be noted that a
   DetNet IP data plane [RFC8939] is simpler than a DetNet MPLS data
   plane [RFC8964] and doesn't support PREOF, so only one path per flow
   or flow aggregate is required.  Therefore, possible protocol
   extensions are expected to be limited, e.g., to existing IP routing
   protocols.

4.4.3.  DetNet in a Segment Routing Domain

   Segment Routing [RFC8402] is a scalable approach to building network
   domains that provides explicit routing via source routing encoded in
   packet headers, and it is combined with centralized network control
   to compute paths through the network.  Forwarding paths are
   distributed with associated policies to network edge nodes for use in
   packet headers.  Segment Routing reduces the amount of network
   signaling associated with distributed signaling protocols, such as
   RSVP-TE, and also reduces the amount of state in core nodes compared
   with that required for legacy MPLS and IP routing, as the state is
   now in the packets rather than in the routers.  This could be useful
   for DetNet, where a very large number of flows through a network
   domain are expected, which would otherwise require the instantiation
   of state for each flow traversing each node in the network.

   Note that the DetNet MPLS and IP data planes described in [RFC8964]
   and [RFC8939] were constructed to be compatible with both types of
   Segment Routing: Segment Routing over MPLS (SR-MPLS) [RFC8660] and
   Segment Routing over IPv6 (SRv6) [RFC8754] [RFC8986].

4.5.  Encapsulation and Metadata Support

   To effectively manage DetNet flows, the controller plane will need to
   have a clear understanding of the encapsulation and metadata
   capabilities of the underlying network nodes.  This will require a
   control mechanism that can discover, configure, and manage these
   parameters for each flow.

   The controller plane needs to understand and manage the encapsulation
   and metadata capabilities of the network nodes to provision DetNet
   flows effectively.  This process might need a discovery phase in
   which the controller discovers which encapsulation types (e.g., MPLS,
   IP) and metadata schemes (e.g., sequencing, timestamping) that each
   node supports.  After discovery, the controller might instruct nodes
   on the specific encapsulation and companion metadata to apply for a
   given flow.  This ensures that DetNet packets are handled
   consistently across the network.  For example, the controller might
   instruct a node to use an MPLS header and add a sequence number for a
   particular flow.

5.  Management Plane Overview

   The management plane includes the ability to statically provision
   network nodes and to use Operations, Administration, and Maintenance
   (OAM) to monitor DetNet performance and to detect outages or other
   issues at the DetNet layer.

5.1.  DetNet Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM)

   This document covers the general considerations for OAM.

5.1.1.  OAM for Performance Monitoring (PM)

5.1.1.1.  Active PM

   Active PM is performed by injecting OAM packets into the network to
   estimate the performance of the network and by then measuring the
   performance of those OAM packets.  Adding extra traffic can affect
   the delay and throughput performance of the network, and for this
   reason, Active PM is not recommended for use in operational DetNet
   domains.  However, it is a useful test tool when commissioning a new
   network or during troubleshooting.

5.1.1.2.  Passive PM

   Passive PM, such as In Situ Operations, Administration, and
   Maintenance (IOAM) [RFC9197], monitors the actual service traffic in
   a network domain in order to measure its performance without having a
   detrimental effect on the network.  As compared to Active PM, Passive
   PM is much preferred for use in DetNet domains.

5.1.2.  OAM for Connectivity and Fault Management (CFM)

   The detailed requirements for CFM in a DetNet IP domain and a DetNet
   MPLS domain are defined in [RFC9551], [RFC9634], and [RFC9546],
   respectively.

6.  Multi-Domain Aspects

   When there are multiple domains involved, multiple Controller Plane
   Functions (CPFs) would have to collaborate to implement the requests
   received from the Flow Management Entity (FME) [RFC8655] as per-flow,
   per-hop behaviors installed in the DetNet nodes for each individual
   flow.  Adding multi-domain support might require some support at the
   CPF.  For example, CPFs of different domains, e.g., PCEs, need to
   discover each other and then authenticate and negotiate per-hop
   behaviors.  Furthermore, in the case of wireless domains, per-domain
   functions specific to Reliable and Available Wireless (RAW)
   [RAW-ARCH], such as Point of Local Repairs (PLRs), have to also be
   considered, e.g., in addition to the PCEs.  Depending on the multi-
   domain support provided by the application plane, the controller
   plane might be relieved from some responsibilities (e.g., if the
   application plane takes care of splitting what needs to be provided
   by each domain).

7.  IANA Considerations

   This document has no IANA actions.

8.  Security Considerations

   This document provides a framework for the DetNet Controller Plane
   and does not include any protocol specifications.  Any future
   specification that is defined to support the DetNet Controller Plane
   is expected to include the appropriate security considerations.  For
   overall security considerations of DetNet, see [RFC8655] and
   [RFC9055].

9.  References

9.1.  Normative References

   [RFC8655]  Finn, N., Thubert, P., Varga, B., and J. Farkas,
              "Deterministic Networking Architecture", RFC 8655,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8655, October 2019,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8655>.

   [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,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8938>.

   [RFC9016]  Varga, B., Farkas, J., Cummings, R., Jiang, Y., and D.
              Fedyk, "Flow and Service Information Model for
              Deterministic Networking (DetNet)", RFC 9016,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC9016, March 2021,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9016>.

   [RFC9055]  Grossman, E., Ed., Mizrahi, T., and A. Hacker,
              "Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Security
              Considerations", RFC 9055, DOI 10.17487/RFC9055, June
              2021, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9055>.

   [RFC9551]  Mirsky, G., Theoleyre, F., Papadopoulos, G., Bernardos,
              CJ., Varga, B., and J. Farkas, "Framework of Operations,
              Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) for Deterministic
              Networking (DetNet)", RFC 9551, DOI 10.17487/RFC9551,
              March 2024, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9551>.

9.2.  Informative References

   [RAW-ARCH] Thubert, P., Ed., "Reliable and Available Wireless
              Architecture", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
              ietf-raw-architecture-30, 25 July 2025,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-raw-
              architecture-30>.

   [RFC3209]  Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
              and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
              Tunnels", RFC 3209, DOI 10.17487/RFC3209, December 2001,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3209>.

   [RFC4384]  Meyer, D., "BGP Communities for Data Collection", BCP 114,
              RFC 4384, DOI 10.17487/RFC4384, February 2006,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4384>.

   [RFC4664]  Andersson, L., Ed. and E. Rosen, Ed., "Framework for Layer
              2 Virtual Private Networks (L2VPNs)", RFC 4664,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4664, September 2006,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4664>.

   [RFC4875]  Aggarwal, R., Ed., Papadimitriou, D., Ed., and S.
              Yasukawa, Ed., "Extensions to Resource Reservation
              Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) for Point-to-
              Multipoint TE Label Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 4875,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4875, May 2007,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4875>.

   [RFC5036]  Andersson, L., Ed., Minei, I., Ed., and B. Thomas, Ed.,
              "LDP Specification", RFC 5036, DOI 10.17487/RFC5036,
              October 2007, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5036>.

   [RFC5960]  Frost, D., Ed., Bryant, S., Ed., and M. Bocci, Ed., "MPLS
              Transport Profile Data Plane Architecture", RFC 5960,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5960, August 2010,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5960>.

   [RFC6020]  Bjorklund, M., Ed., "YANG - A Data Modeling Language for
              the Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)", RFC 6020,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6020, October 2010,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6020>.

   [RFC6241]  Enns, R., Ed., Bjorklund, M., Ed., Schoenwaelder, J., Ed.,
              and A. Bierman, Ed., "Network Configuration Protocol
              (NETCONF)", RFC 6241, DOI 10.17487/RFC6241, June 2011,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6241>.

   [RFC6632]  Ersue, M., Ed. and B. Claise, "An Overview of the IETF
              Network Management Standards", RFC 6632,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6632, June 2012,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6632>.

   [RFC7426]  Haleplidis, E., Ed., Pentikousis, K., Ed., Denazis, S.,
              Hadi Salim, J., Meyer, D., and O. Koufopavlou, "Software-
              Defined Networking (SDN): Layers and Architecture
              Terminology", RFC 7426, DOI 10.17487/RFC7426, January
              2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7426>.

   [RFC7432]  Sajassi, A., Ed., Aggarwal, R., Bitar, N., Isaac, A.,
              Uttaro, J., Drake, J., and W. Henderickx, "BGP MPLS-Based
              Ethernet VPN", RFC 7432, DOI 10.17487/RFC7432, February
              2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7432>.

   [RFC7950]  Bjorklund, M., Ed., "The YANG 1.1 Data Modeling Language",
              RFC 7950, DOI 10.17487/RFC7950, August 2016,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7950>.

   [RFC8277]  Rosen, E., "Using BGP to Bind MPLS Labels to Address
              Prefixes", RFC 8277, DOI 10.17487/RFC8277, October 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8277>.

   [RFC8283]  Farrel, A., Ed., Zhao, Q., Ed., Li, Z., and C. Zhou, "An
              Architecture for Use of PCE and the PCE Communication
              Protocol (PCEP) in a Network with Central Control",
              RFC 8283, DOI 10.17487/RFC8283, December 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8283>.

   [RFC8402]  Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L.,
              Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment
              Routing Architecture", RFC 8402, DOI 10.17487/RFC8402,
              July 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8402>.

   [RFC8660]  Bashandy, A., Ed., Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S.,
              Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment
              Routing with the MPLS Data Plane", RFC 8660,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8660, December 2019,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8660>.

   [RFC8754]  Filsfils, C., Ed., Dukes, D., Ed., Previdi, S., Leddy, J.,
              Matsushima, S., and D. Voyer, "IPv6 Segment Routing Header
              (SRH)", RFC 8754, DOI 10.17487/RFC8754, March 2020,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8754>.

   [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,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8939>.

   [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, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8964>.

   [RFC8986]  Filsfils, C., Ed., Camarillo, P., Ed., Leddy, J., Voyer,
              D., Matsushima, S., and Z. Li, "Segment Routing over IPv6
              (SRv6) Network Programming", RFC 8986,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8986, February 2021,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8986>.

   [RFC9023]  Varga, B., Ed., Farkas, J., Malis, A., and S. Bryant,
              "Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Data Plane: IP over
              IEEE 802.1 Time-Sensitive Networking (TSN)", RFC 9023,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC9023, June 2021,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9023>.

   [RFC9024]  Varga, B., Ed., Farkas, J., Malis, A., Bryant, S., and D.
              Fedyk, "Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Data Plane: IEEE
              802.1 Time-Sensitive Networking over MPLS", RFC 9024,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC9024, June 2021,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9024>.

   [RFC9025]  Varga, B., Ed., Farkas, J., Berger, L., Malis, A., and S.
              Bryant, "Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Data Plane:
              MPLS over UDP/IP", RFC 9025, DOI 10.17487/RFC9025, April
              2021, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9025>.

   [RFC9037]  Varga, B., Ed., Farkas, J., Malis, A., and S. Bryant,
              "Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Data Plane: MPLS over
              IEEE 802.1 Time-Sensitive Networking (TSN)", RFC 9037,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC9037, June 2021,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9037>.

   [RFC9056]  Varga, B., Ed., Berger, L., Fedyk, D., Bryant, S., and J.
              Korhonen, "Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Data Plane:
              IP over MPLS", RFC 9056, DOI 10.17487/RFC9056, October
              2021, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9056>.

   [RFC9197]  Brockners, F., Ed., Bhandari, S., Ed., and T. Mizrahi,
              Ed., "Data Fields for In Situ Operations, Administration,
              and Maintenance (IOAM)", RFC 9197, DOI 10.17487/RFC9197,
              May 2022, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9197>.

   [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,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9320>.

   [RFC9546]  Mirsky, G., Chen, M., and B. Varga, "Operations,
              Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) for Deterministic
              Networking (DetNet) with the MPLS Data Plane", RFC 9546,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC9546, February 2024,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9546>.

   [RFC9552]  Talaulikar, K., Ed., "Distribution of Link-State and
              Traffic Engineering Information Using BGP", RFC 9552,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC9552, December 2023,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9552>.

   [RFC9633]  Geng, X., Ryoo, Y., Fedyk, D., Rahman, R., and Z. Li,
              "Deterministic Networking (DetNet) YANG Data Model",
              RFC 9633, DOI 10.17487/RFC9633, October 2024,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9633>.

   [RFC9634]  Mirsky, G., Chen, M., and D. Black, "Operations,
              Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) for Deterministic
              Networking (DetNet) with the IP Data Plane", RFC 9634,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC9634, October 2024,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9634>.

Acknowledgments

   Thanks to Jim Guichard, Donald Eastlake 3rd, and Stewart Bryant for
   their reviews and comments.

   The authors would also like to thank Deb Cooley, Mike Bishop, Mohamed
   Boucadair, Gorry Fairhurst, and Dave Thaler for their comments during
   the different directorate and IESG reviews.

Contributors

   Fengwei Qin
   China Mobile
   Email: qinfengwei@chinamobile.com


Authors' Addresses

   Andrew G. Malis
   Independent
   Email: agmalis@gmail.com


   Xuesong Geng (editor)
   Huawei
   Email: gengxuesong@huawei.com


   Mach (Guoyi)Chen
   Huawei
   Email: mach.chen@huawei.com


   Balazs Varga
   Ericsson
   Email: balazs.a.varga@ericsson.com


   Carlos J. Bernardos
   Universidad Carlos III de Madrid
   Av. Universidad, 30
   28911 Leganes, Madrid
   Spain
   Phone: +34 91624 6236
   Email: cjbc@it.uc3m.es
   URI:   http://www.it.uc3m.es/cjbc/
