RTGWG C. Villamizar, Ed.
Internet-Draft OCCNC, LLC
Intended status: Informational D. McDysan, Ed.
Expires: September 23, 2013 Verizon
S. Ning
Tata Communications
A. Malis
Verizon
L. Yong
Huawei USA
March 22, 2013
Requirements for Composite Links in MPLS Networks
draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-requirement-10
Abstract
There is often a need to provide large aggregates of bandwidth that
are best provided using parallel links between routers or MPLS LSR.
In core networks there is often no alternative since the aggregate
capacities of core networks today far exceed the capacity of a single
physical link or single packet processing element.
The presence of parallel links, with each link potentially comprised
of multiple layers has resulted in additional requirements. Certain
services may benefit from being restricted to a subset of the
component links or a specific component link, where component link
characteristics, such as latency, differ. Certain services require
that an LSP be treated as atomic and avoid reordering. Other
services will continue to require only that reordering not occur
within a microflow as is current practice.
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 http://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."
Villamizar, et al. Expires September 23, 2013 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Composite Link Requirements March 2013
This Internet-Draft will expire on September 23, 2013.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2013 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
(http://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 Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Villamizar, et al. Expires September 23, 2013 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Composite Link Requirements March 2013
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Network Operator Functional Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1. Availability, Stability and Transient Response . . . . . . 5
4.2. Component Links Provided by Lower Layer Networks . . . . . 6
4.3. Parallel Component Links with Different Characteristics . 8
5. Derived Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6. Management Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Appendix A. ITU-T G.800 Composite Link Definitions and
Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Villamizar, et al. Expires September 23, 2013 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Composite Link Requirements March 2013
1. Introduction
The purpose of this document is to describe why network operators
require certain functions in order to solve certain business problems
(Section 2). The intent is to first describe why things need to be
done in terms of functional requirements that are as independent as
possible of protocol specifications (Section 4). For certain
functional requirements this document describes a set of derived
protocol requirements (Section 5). Appendix A provides a summary of
G.800 terminology used to define a composite link.
1.1. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
2. Assumptions
The services supported include pseudowire based services (RFC 3985
[RFC3985]), including VPN services, Internet traffic encapsulated by
at least one MPLS label (RFC 3032 [RFC3032]), and dynamically
signaled MPLS (RFC 3209 [RFC3209] or RFC 5036 [RFC5036]) or MPLS-TP
LSPs (RFC 5921 [RFC5921]). The MPLS LSPs supporting these services
may be point-to-point, point-to-multipoint, or multipoint-to-
multipoint.
The locations in a network where these requirements apply are a Label
Edge Router (LER) or a Label Switch Router (LSR) as defined in RFC
3031 [RFC3031].
The IP DSCP cannot be used for flow identification since L3VPN
requires Diffserv transparency (see RFC 4031 5.5.2 [RFC4031]), and in
general network operators do not rely on the DSCP of Internet
packets.
3. Definitions
ITU-T G.800 Based Composite and Component Link Definitions:
Section 6.9.2 of ITU-T-G.800 [ITU-T.G.800] defines composite and
component links as summarized in Appendix A. The following
definitions for composite and component links are derived from
and intended to be consistent with the cited ITU-T G.800
terminology.
Villamizar, et al. Expires September 23, 2013 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Composite Link Requirements March 2013
Composite Link: A composite link is a logical link composed of a
set of parallel point-to-point component links, where all
links in the set share the same endpoints. A composite link
may itself be a component of another composite link, but only
a strict hierarchy of links is allowed.
Component Link: A point-to-point physical link (including one or
more link layer) or a logical link that preserves ordering in
the steady state. A component link may have transient out of
order events, but such events must not exceed the network's
specific NPO. Examples of a physical link are: any set of
link layers over a WDM wavelength or any supportable
combination of Ethernet PHY, PPP, SONET or OTN over a
physical link. Examples of a logical link are: MPLS LSP,
Ethernet VLAN, MPLS-TP LSP. A set of link layers supported
over pseudowire is a logical link that appears to the client
to be a physical link.
Flow: A sequence of packets that must be transferred in order on one
component link.
Flow identification: The label stack and other information that
uniquely identifies a flow. Other information in flow
identification may include an IP header, PW control word,
Ethernet MAC address, etc. Note that an LSP may contain one or
more Flows or an LSP may be equivalent to a Flow. Flow
identification is used to locally select a component link, or a
path through the network toward the destination.
Network Performance Objective (NPO): Numerical values for
performance measures, principally availability, latency, and
delay variation. See [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-cl-use-cases] for more
details.
4. Network Operator Functional Requirements
The Functional Requirements in this section are grouped in
subsections starting with the highest priority.
4.1. Availability, Stability and Transient Response
Limiting the period of unavailability in response to failures or
transient events is extremely important as well as maintaining
stability. The transient period between some service disrupting
event and the convergence of the routing and/or signaling protocols
MUST occur within a time frame specified by NPO values.
[I-D.ietf-rtgwg-cl-use-cases] provides references and a summary of
Villamizar, et al. Expires September 23, 2013 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Composite Link Requirements March 2013
service types requiring a range of restoration times.
FR#1 The solution SHALL provide a means to summarize some routing
advertisements regarding the characteristics of a composite
link such that the routing protocol converges within the
timeframe needed to meet the network performance objective. A
composite link CAN be announced in conjunction with detailed
parameters about its component links, such as bandwidth and
latency. The composite link SHALL behave as a single IGP
adjacency.
FR#2 The solution SHALL ensure that all possible restoration
operations happen within the timeframe needed to meet the NPO.
The solution may need to specify a means for aggregating
signaling to meet this requirement.
FR#3 The solution SHALL provide a mechanism to select a path for a
flow across a network that contains a number of paths comprised
of pairs of nodes connected by composite links in such a way as
to automatically distribute the load over the network nodes
connected by composite links while meeting all of the other
mandatory requirements stated above. The solution SHOULD work
in a manner similar to that of current networks without any
composite link protocol enhancements when the characteristics
of the individual component links are advertised.
FR#4 If extensions to existing protocols are specified and/or new
protocols are defined, then the solution SHOULD provide a means
for a network operator to migrate an existing deployment in a
minimally disruptive manner.
FR#5 Any automatic LSP routing and/or load balancing solutions MUST
NOT oscillate such that performance observed by users changes
such that an NPO is violated. Since oscillation may cause
reordering, there MUST be means to control the frequency of
changing the component link over which a flow is placed.
FR#6 Management and diagnostic protocols MUST be able to operate
over composite links.
Existing scaling techniques used in MPLS networks apply to MPLS
networks which support Composite Links. Scalability and stability
are covered in more detail in [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-cl-framework].
4.2. Component Links Provided by Lower Layer Networks
Case 3 as defined in [ITU-T.G.800] involves a component link
supporting an MPLS layer network over another lower layer network
Villamizar, et al. Expires September 23, 2013 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Composite Link Requirements March 2013
(e.g., circuit switched or another MPLS network (e.g., MPLS-TP)).
The lower layer network may change the latency (and/or other
performance parameters) seen by the MPLS layer network. Network
Operators have NPOs of which some components are based on performance
parameters. Currently, there is no protocol for the lower layer
network to inform the higher layer network of a change in a
performance parameter. Communication of the latency performance
parameter is a very important requirement. Communication of other
performance parameters (e.g., delay variation) is desirable.
FR#7 In order to support network NPOs and provide acceptable user
experience, the solution SHALL specify a protocol means to
allow a lower layer server network to communicate latency to
the higher layer client network.
FR#8 The precision of latency reporting SHOULD be configurable. A
reasonable default SHOULD be provided. Implementations SHOULD
support precision of at least 10% of the one way latencies for
latency of 1 ms or more.
FR#9 The solution SHALL provide a means to limit the latency on a
per LSP basis between nodes within a network to meet an NPO
target when the path between these nodes contains one or more
pairs of nodes connected via a composite link.
The NPOs differ across the services, and some services have
different NPOs for different QoS classes, for example, one QoS
class may have a much larger latency bound than another.
Overload can occur which would violate an NPO parameter (e.g.,
loss) and some remedy to handle this case for a composite link
is required.
FR#10 If the total demand offered by traffic flows exceeds the
capacity of the composite link, the solution SHOULD define a
means to cause the LSPs for some traffic flows to move to some
other point in the network that is not congested. These
"preempted LSPs" may not be restored if there is no
uncongested path in the network.
The intent is to measure the predominant latency in uncongested
service provider networks, where geographic delay dominates and is on
the order of milliseconds or more. The argument for including
queuing delay is that it reflects the delay experienced by
applications. The argument against including queuing delay is that
it if used in routing decisions it can result in routing instability.
This tradeoff is discussed in detail in
[I-D.ietf-rtgwg-cl-framework].
Villamizar, et al. Expires September 23, 2013 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Composite Link Requirements March 2013
4.3. Parallel Component Links with Different Characteristics
Corresponding to Case 1 of [ITU-T.G.800], as one means to provide
high availability, network operators deploy a topology in the MPLS
network using lower layer networks that have a certain degree of
diversity at the lower layer(s). Many techniques have been developed
to balance the distribution of flows across component links that
connect the same pair of nodes. When the path for a flow can be
chosen from a set of candidate nodes connected via composite links,
other techniques have been developed. Refer to the Appendices in
[I-D.ietf-rtgwg-cl-use-cases] for a description of existing
techniques and a set of references.
FR#11 The solution SHALL measure traffic on a labeled traffic flow
and dynamically select the component link on which to place
this flow in order to balance the load so that no component
link in the composite link between a pair of nodes is
overloaded.
FR#12 When a traffic flow is moved from one component link to
another in the same composite link between a set of nodes (or
sites), it MUST be done so in a minimally disruptive manner.
FR#13 Load balancing MAY be used during sustained low traffic
periods to reduce the number of active component links for the
purpose of power reduction.
FR#14 The solution SHALL provide a means to identify flows whose
rearrangement frequency needs to be bounded by a configured
value.
FR#15 The solution SHALL provide a means that communicates whether
the flows within an LSP can be split across multiple component
links. The solution SHOULD provide a means to indicate the
flow identification field(s) which can be used along the flow
path which can be used to perform this function.
FR#16 The solution SHALL provide a means to indicate that a traffic
flow shall select a component link with the minimum latency
value.
FR#17 The solution SHALL provide a means to indicate that a traffic
flow shall select a component link with a maximum acceptable
latency value as specified by protocol.
Villamizar, et al. Expires September 23, 2013 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Composite Link Requirements March 2013
FR#18 The solution SHALL provide a means to indicate that a traffic
flow shall select a component link with a maximum acceptable
delay variation value as specified by protocol.
FR#19 The solution SHALL provide a means local to a node that
automatically distributes flows across the component links in
the composite link such that NPOs are met.
FR#20 The solution SHALL provide a means to distribute flows from a
single LSP across multiple component links to handle at least
the case where the traffic carried in an LSP exceeds that of
any component link in the composite link. As defined in
section 3, a flow is a sequence of packets that must be
transferred on one component link.
FR#21 The solution SHOULD support the use case where a composite
link itself is a component link for a higher order composite
link. For example, a composite link comprised of MPLS-TP bi-
directional tunnels viewed as logical links could then be used
as a component link in yet another composite link that
connects MPLS routers.
FR#22 The solution MUST support an optional means for LSP signaling
to bind an LSP to a particular component link within a
composite link. If this option is not exercised, then an LSP
that is bound to a composite link may be bound to any
component link matching all other signaled requirements, and
different directions of a bidirectional LSP can be bound to
different component links.
FR#23 The solution MUST support a means to indicate that both
directions of co-routed bidirectional LSP MUST be bound to the
same component link.
A minimally disruptive change implies that as little disruption as is
practical occurs. Such a change can be achieved with zero packet
loss. A delay discontinuity may occur, which is considered to be a
minimally disruptive event for most services if this type of event is
sufficiently rare. A delay discontinuity is an example of a
minimally disruptive behavior corresponding to current techniques.
A delay discontinuity is an isolated event which may greatly exceed
the normal delay variation (jitter). A delay discontinuity has the
following effect. When a flow is moved from a current link to a
target link with lower latency, reordering can occur. When a flow is
moved from a current link to a target link with a higher latency, a
time gap can occur. Some flows (e.g., timing distribution, PW
circuit emulation) are quite sensitive to these effects. A delay
Villamizar, et al. Expires September 23, 2013 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Composite Link Requirements March 2013
discontinuity can also cause a jitter buffer underrun or overrun
affecting user experience in real time voice services (causing an
audible click). These sensitivities may be specified in an NPO.
As with any load balancing change, a change initiated for the purpose
of power reduction may be minimally disruptive. Typically the
disruption is limited to a change in delay characteristics and the
potential for a very brief period with traffic reordering. The
network operator when configuring a network for power reduction
should weigh the benefit of power reduction against the disadvantage
of a minimal disruption.
5. Derived Requirements
This section takes the next step and derives high-level requirements
on protocol specification from the functional requirements.
DR#1 The solution SHOULD attempt to extend existing protocols
wherever possible, developing a new protocol only if this adds
a significant set of capabilities.
DR#2 A solution SHOULD extend LDP capabilities to meet functional
requirements (without using TE methods as decided in
[RFC3468]).
DR#3 Coexistence of LDP and RSVP-TE signaled LSPs MUST be supported
on a composite link. Other functional requirements should be
supported as independently of signaling protocol as possible.
DR#4 When the nodes connected via a composite link are in the same
MPLS network topology, the solution MAY define extensions to
the IGP.
DR#5 When the nodes are connected via a composite link are in
different MPLS network topologies, the solution SHALL NOT rely
on extensions to the IGP.
DR#6 The solution SHOULD support composite link IGP advertisement
that results in convergence time better than that of
advertising the individual component links. The solution SHALL
be designed so that it represents the range of capabilities of
the individual component links such that functional
requirements are met, and also minimizes the frequency of
advertisement updates which may cause IGP convergence to occur.
Examples of advertisement update triggering events to be
considered include: LSP establishment/release, changes in
Villamizar, et al. Expires September 23, 2013 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Composite Link Requirements March 2013
component link characteristics (e.g., latency, up/down state),
and/or bandwidth utilization.
DR#7 When a worst case failure scenario occurs, the number of
RSVP-TE LSPs to be resignaled will cause a period of
unavailability as perceived by users. The resignaling time of
the solution MUST meet the NPO objective for the duration of
unavailability. The resignaling time of the solution MUST NOT
increase significantly as compared with current methods.
6. Management Requirements
MR#1 Management Plane MUST support polling of the status and
configuration of a composite link and its individual composite
link and support notification of status change.
MR#2 Management Plane MUST be able to activate or de-activate any
component link in a composite link in order to facilitate
operation maintenance tasks. The routers at each end of a
composite link MUST redistribute traffic to move traffic from
a de-activated link to other component links based on the
traffic flow TE criteria.
MR#3 Management Plane MUST be able to configure a LSP over a
composite link and be able to select a component link for the
LSP.
MR#4 Management Plane MUST be able to trace which component link a
LSP is assigned to and monitor individual component link and
composite link performance.
MR#5 Management Plane MUST be able to verify connectivity over each
individual component link within a composite link.
MR#6 Component link fault notification MUST be sent to the
management plane.
MR#7 Composite link fault notification MUST be sent to management
plane and distribute via link state message in the IGP.
MR#8 Management Plane SHOULD provide the means for an operator to
initiate an optimization process.
MR#9 An operator initiated optimization MUST be performed in a
minimally disruptive manner as described in Section 4.3.
Villamizar, et al. Expires September 23, 2013 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Composite Link Requirements March 2013
MR#10 Any statement which requires the solution to support some new
functionality through use of the words new functionality,
SHOULD be interpretted as follows. The implementation either
MUST or SHOULD support the new functionality depending on the
use of either MUST or SHOULD in the requirements statement.
The implementation SHOULD in most or all cases allow any new
functionality to be individually enabled or disabled through
configuration.
7. Acknowledgements
Frederic Jounay of France Telecom and Yuji Kamite of NTT
Communications Corporation co-authored a version of this document.
A rewrite of this document occurred after the IETF77 meeting.
Dimitri Papadimitriou, Lou Berger, Tony Li, the former WG chairs John
Scuder and Alex Zinin, the current WG chair Alia Atlas, and others
provided valuable guidance prior to and at the IETF77 RTGWG meeting.
Tony Li and John Drake have made numerous valuable comments on the
RTGWG mailing list that are reflected in versions following the
IETF77 meeting.
Iftekhar Hussain and Kireeti Kompella made comments on the RTGWG
mailing list after IETF82 that identified a new requirement.
Iftekhar Hussain made numerous valuable comments on the RTGWG mailing
list that resulted in improvements to document clarity.
In the interest of full disclosure of affiliation and in the interest
of acknowledging sponsorship, past affiliations of authors are noted.
Much of the work done by Ning So occurred while Ning was at Verizon.
Much of the work done by Curtis Villamizar occurred while at
Infinera. Infinera continues to sponsor this work on a consulting
basis.
8. IANA Considerations
This memo includes no request to IANA.
9. Security Considerations
This document specifies a set of requirements. The requirements
themselves do not pose a security threat. If these requirements are
met using MPLS signaling as commonly practiced today with
authenticated but unencrypted OSPF-TE, ISIS-TE, and RSVP-TE or LDP,
Villamizar, et al. Expires September 23, 2013 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Composite Link Requirements March 2013
then the requirement to provide additional information in this
communication presents additional information that could conceivably
be gathered in a man-in-the-middle confidentiality breach. Such an
attack would require a capability to monitor this signaling either
through a provider breach or access to provider physical transmission
infrastructure. A provider breach already poses a threat of numerous
tpes of attacks which are of far more serious consequence. Encrption
of the signaling can prevent or render more difficult any
confidentiality breach that otherwise might occur by means of access
to provider physical transmission infrastructure.
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
10.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-rtgwg-cl-framework]
Ning, S., McDysan, D., Osborne, E., Yong, L., and C.
Villamizar, "Composite Link Framework in Multi Protocol
Label Switching (MPLS)", draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-framework-01
(work in progress), August 2012.
[I-D.ietf-rtgwg-cl-use-cases]
Ning, S., Malis, A., McDysan, D., Yong, L., and C.
Villamizar, "Composite Link Use Cases and Design
Considerations", draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-use-cases-01 (work in
progress), August 2012.
[ITU-T.G.800]
ITU-T, "Unified functional architecture of transport
networks", 2007, <http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-G/
recommendation.asp?parent=T-REC-G.800>.
[RFC3031] Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., and R. Callon, "Multiprotocol
Label Switching Architecture", RFC 3031, January 2001.
[RFC3032] Rosen, E., Tappan, D., Fedorkow, G., Rekhter, Y.,
Farinacci, D., Li, T., and A. Conta, "MPLS Label Stack
Encoding", RFC 3032, January 2001.
[RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001.
Villamizar, et al. Expires September 23, 2013 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Composite Link Requirements March 2013
[RFC3468] Andersson, L. and G. Swallow, "The Multiprotocol Label
Switching (MPLS) Working Group decision on MPLS signaling
protocols", RFC 3468, February 2003.
[RFC3985] Bryant, S. and P. Pate, "Pseudo Wire Emulation Edge-to-
Edge (PWE3) Architecture", RFC 3985, March 2005.
[RFC4031] Carugi, M. and D. McDysan, "Service Requirements for Layer
3 Provider Provisioned Virtual Private Networks (PPVPNs)",
RFC 4031, April 2005.
[RFC5036] Andersson, L., Minei, I., and B. Thomas, "LDP
Specification", RFC 5036, October 2007.
[RFC5921] Bocci, M., Bryant, S., Frost, D., Levrau, L., and L.
Berger, "A Framework for MPLS in Transport Networks",
RFC 5921, July 2010.
Appendix A. ITU-T G.800 Composite Link Definitions and Terminology
Composite Link:
Section 6.9.2 of ITU-T-G.800 [ITU-T.G.800] defines composite link
in terms of three cases, of which the following two are relevant
(the one describing inverse (TDM) multiplexing does not apply).
Note that these case definitions are taken verbatim from section
6.9, "Layer Relationships".
Case 1: "Multiple parallel links between the same subnetworks
can be bundled together into a single composite link. Each
component of the composite link is independent in the sense
that each component link is supported by a separate server
layer trail. The composite link conveys communication
information using different server layer trails thus the
sequence of symbols crossing this link may not be preserved.
This is illustrated in Figure 14."
Case 3: "A link can also be constructed by a concatenation of
component links and configured channel forwarding
relationships. The forwarding relationships must have a 1:1
correspondence to the link connections that will be provided
by the client link. In this case, it is not possible to
fully infer the status of the link by observing the server
layer trails visible at the ends of the link. This is
illustrated in Figure 16."
Villamizar, et al. Expires September 23, 2013 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Composite Link Requirements March 2013
Subnetwork: A set of one or more nodes (i.e., LER or LSR) and links.
As a special case it can represent a site comprised of multiple
nodes.
Forwarding Relationship: Configured forwarding between ports on a
subnetwork. It may be connectionless (e.g., IP, not considered
in this draft), or connection oriented (e.g., MPLS signaled or
configured).
Component Link: A topolological relationship between subnetworks
(i.e., a connection between nodes), which may be a wavelength,
circuit, virtual circuit or an MPLS LSP.
Authors' Addresses
Curtis Villamizar (editor)
OCCNC, LLC
Email: curtis@occnc.com
Dave McDysan (editor)
Verizon
22001 Loudoun County PKWY
Ashburn, VA 20147
Email: dave.mcdysan@verizon.com
So Ning
Tata Communications
Email: ning.so@tatacommunications.com
Andrew Malis
Verizon
60 Sylvan Road
Waltham, MA 02451
Phone: +1 781-466-2362
Email: andrew.g.malis@verizon.com
Villamizar, et al. Expires September 23, 2013 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Composite Link Requirements March 2013
Lucy Yong
Huawei USA
5340 Legacy Dr.
Plano, TX 75025
Phone: +1 469-277-5837
Email: lucy.yong@huawei.com
Villamizar, et al. Expires September 23, 2013 [Page 16]